Question for Anarchists

So I support people being free from rule and everything, and I hate all the laws and government, but I just dont quite get how people are for having no order whatsoever. Cuz like if the government just disappeared then gangs would form and take over. Like in many third world countries gangs and warlords would begin to control and rule everything. That is of course unless people defended themselves and everyone had guns, but thatd just make a lot of killing and violence just people competing for control. So I dont see why people support anarchy, because not everyone is a good person and people would just be able to do whatever they wanted: kill, rape, steal, etc. with nothing to stop them. That is unless everyone was kindhearted and got along, then I would support anarchy also, but I just dont see that being the way it'd work out. So yeah anyone who supports anarchy please enlighten me as to what you think would happen with no governments, and why you support that. Thanks!

 

Most anarchists--myself included, though I certainly wouldn't say all of us--actually don't believe that anarchy is synonymous with being "for having no order whatsoever" in the first place. It merely means that "order" is directed by consensus rather than by coercion.

Let's start by taking a look at the word "anarchy." It's from the Greek roots "an-" (for "without") and "-arkhia" (for "rulers" or "government"). So, if a government--We'll call it Government A--were to topple or be overthrown and "gangs" take over, and blam, there goes your nice anarchy, ruined by some gangs which, by "taking over," would then become nothing but Government B. Most anarchists regard most or all currently extant governments as being just big, established gangs that have taken over already.

Anarchy as practiced by anarchists is, to me, really more of an outlook than a state of affairs. I've posted already about this in my other post in the Anarchy forum ("Every-day anarchy"). Anarchy, as I see it, is about people looking out for both themselves and each other, rather than only one or the other side of the equation. It only "works" among people who actually want it to work--just like any other system, including a government.

You may want to read some introductory material. I'd recommend starting here: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ

 

Ohh alright I gotcha dude that makes alot of sense actually. Thanks haha

 

anyone watch sons of anarchy?

 

Love that show
but they aren't really anarchists

 

As opposed to the way government handles things? Government is as much a false comfort as god, laws, and marriage.

Being married does nothing to keep people from cheating. Signing laws in a Corinthian domed building doesn't keep people from transgressing it. Praying to god doesn't spare you from harm. Hence the phrase, "We cannot know his plan" when prayer fails.

Think of Congress as a factory of commandment tablets.

Oh, man. I used to post on this site regularly. But now, it is not online.

 

I don't believe in objective morality. This doesn't bother me. Would it bother me if I were to have my life/freedom taken by someone else merely because they were able to physically dominate me? Hell yeah I would. Doesn't make it wrong.

I don't believe there are good or bad people, and if anyone is gonna prevent a person from doing harm to another, I think it should be their potential victims or their allies. Otherwise, victory is theirs.

I speak only for myself here. Most anarchists disagree with me.

 

Thanks for sharing.

And the fact is, some people are stronger than others. And some groups of people are stronger than other groups of people, as well they should be.

Everything else is false comfort.

 

Anarchism is not something that was ever thought out on a global level.

It was more a reaction to really bad government, like in russia, and it was also part of a world-wide worker's movement, it essentially spawned unions.

It was not originally against organization, but in favor of free people's groups to counter abusive governments, like the zapatistas in mexico. And those guys where very aggressive about property rights, it was none of the "nobody owns anything" totally un-thought-out crap that you get from some anarchists, who try to ignore the fact that they are human, and that the human experience is a thing -- a lot basically argue for entropy. Then and now, most of the guys leading the thing are in favor of some sort of syndicalism, they want orderly peace but think it can be better and more fairly achieved with a different governmental order. Yeah, there's the arguments about not owning anything and all, but mostly as academic brain-exercise, and as a means of laying a foundation for further ideas..... it's much too seized on by modern wannabe anarchist youths. (I'm not saying that having few possessions and living a bohemian travelling life, as they tend to, is anti-anarchist.... but they still tend to have it all wrong in their approach to some things) I specifically blame first the US and friends, for trying to make anyone who was not a rabid capitalist a scary "red", and then the commercial and totally fake sex pistols, for the perceptual disaster surrounding anarchy today.

There's lots of great ideas that fall under it's umbrella, but whatever type you pick, anarchy is not a good global approach. But it is a great movement to have out there mixing things up.

Go look at the famous paintings of the mexican revolution. All the angry looking peasants and workers, those are the anarchists. And they organized, by the tens of thousands. There where lots in russia too, but they got crushed by the bolsheveks, and the bolsheveks had a way of making people disappear without leaving so much as a wet spot (authentic butchered soviet words, not mine). And of course, the french have been writing stupid crap that's pushed every disasterous political ideology for over 200 years.... but since their one big clusterfuck, they don't actually act on it, that's for the rest of the suckers of the world to do.

 

True functional anarchy requires that all accountable members of society be both able and willing to self-govern.

We are a LONG LONG way from that being the case. In the present, it is a very small percentage of the world's population who are evolved to the point of being able to do the 'right' thing without harming or disadvantaging others just because it is the best thing to do.

Most people are driven by fear which makes anarchy impossible. And so the so-called leaders rule with an iron fist to make the majority feel 'safe.' They do this mostly through continual and convoluted legislation taken to excess.

In other words, their answer is to make more laws. When you make more laws, you do not create order or safety. You create more law-breakers; i.e. criminals.

And that process works directly AGAINST humanity's evolution toward self-government.

 

First, Anarchism is more than just opposition to the state; we oppose all social hierarchy and seek to abolish it. Anarchists propose voluntary free association as opposed to centralized hierarchies. We favor cooperative associations of individuals, acting together to realize mutual benefit, as the bedrock of a new society.

The fundamental element of Anarchism is the recognition and reverence of human freedom and, consequently, a rejection of the "right" of any human being to rule over another. Anarchy is the radical idea that no one is more qualified than you are to determine the course of your own life.

Anarchy, as a form of society, is not created simply when some government falls. Somalia is not anarchy. Anarchy must be created consciously, by the vast majority of people, who come together in free associations and take control of social life collaboratively. Anarchy is both a way of life and a revolutionary movement to abolish hierarchy and organize a society around free and voluntary lines.

 

But I don't follow how the facts of regarding what rule IS is. How does a person have the ideas of being ruled emplaced? The contrary way is to perceive that the Anarchist himself has an understanding of the facts for what Rules COULD BE. Hence, he really is not against government or forms of government; he is against the regard of the facts of the government for what they are, because of the local rules.

 

Anarchism is a concept over and against the dialectical materialism of doctors changing History.

That much. A witch hunt for doctors who have in the past claimed to be the real changers of History through dialectical materialism. That changed on the first day of modern free Poland,in June 1989. That was the day that officially the Polish assembly disbanded and proclaimed a multi-party system to be the rule of the Land. This was truly an anarchist achievement for a novelly new form of bourgeois democracy, which the government really was at the time.

 

If you have gangs and warlords ruling the place you no longer have anarchy period. Anarchy means that nobody is ruling not just a formal government but if you have any human exercising authority over others you don't have anarchy. The oldest mechanism for maintaining social order is not the exercise of governmental authority like most political theory would have you believe but is actually the prevention of people gaining enough power to exercise authority over others. In tribes that lack any central power structure anybody who tries to gain power over others is completely shunned and rebuked by the rest of the tribe. Tribes maintain their decentralized and self-governed organization because they don't allow anybody to hold any centralized power. One of the most common arguments against anarchy is that it is impossible because somebody will always want to take control. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that those who might want to take control will always take control when this is simply not the case. The reason why any group be it a government, gang, or warlords takes control is because the rest of the people allows them to take control. The reason it is so common for a new government or rulership to take control after the previous one has been displaced is exactly due to the fact that people think government and rulership is necessary. Government can only exist if the majority of people accept the existence of government as legitimate. Government's existence is dependent upon people accepting it as something 'necessary'.

 

Well said.

 

No we do not. Speak for yourself. BTW, Somalia is doing better now than it was under government.

 

Just wondering, can we really call ourselves an anarchist already by simply fancying that anarchy form of society? Or do you really lean more to being a nihilist or perhaps even some form of hedonism by wanting that but instead living in our current form of society, not doing anything serious to get society in a state of anarchy (except proclaiming you are one or give descriptions on what anarchy is on an internet forum?

 

To answer that; are we to move forward or backward with the chastity of the Santa Barbara self-assigned mass killing

He really was motivated by a sceptical sarcasm; initially he wished to be some kind of hero for his closer guy friends whom he killed first with a knife, before going on his rampage. But basically on his tapes he is bragging for the insincere effect: he doesn't want to be anything less than a lover boy; but deep down inside he knows that to the women, the ones he wished his sexual exploits from he was what from the olden days was some "Pretty Boy Felstein" If only he understood that down deep he was a fighter not a lover, some kind of, yes, anarchist.:sunny:

 

He has a good point. I see an America that has a city-state military complex. Unlike the Federal one and its much larger. It includes police city-county-state and of course the National Guard. They get the same respect as the military and that's a clue. They all linked by communications, fast extradition etc. etc. A man protects himself and his. That what a man does. See animals are the same way a male protects its female and offspring. Having a new man of the house lol. Just doesn't work. Enter the ultimate authority in your life. Ask an anarchist why he wants a gun. He will tell you. Hey I'm a peaceful guy protecting what's mine. The ultimate authority or "man of the house" subverts that and him in many ways. That's not nature.

 

'who are evolved to the point' - 'iron fist' 'make more laws'

firstly; who the crabapple do you think you are? do you share the view of Q putting one person on trial for humanity (star trek gets past a lot of people I fear - not because they're not geeks like some, but simply because they don't have sky or cable or appliable network capability -rock on the free world without...)

secondly; iron fist - the legislation of the free world does benefit people because of the way it is handled; believe it or not - there are dishonest people in society and in government and also in all the nooks and crannies of civil servantship lobbieing prolitereate bodies police aristocracy business religion and consumerism - and they are all policed to the same standards - near enough. the point about it is - to your last line - we are not governed by anti-human entities and I challenge you to argue.

and most of (my) governments legislation is actually improving equality by amendments; not new laws persay but tweaking so again to your last statement we are evolving our laws to the meet the challenges that a ever changing planet needs - hurry up the process of de-desertification desalination of coastal seawater and bringing the currupt and what do I say here - "relevant parties" to justice. Justice of the Land being a religion already to some.

here's some wierdness to end this sorry attempt at a stab at the powers that be; J-1 U-2 S-3 T-4 I-5 C-6 E-7 O-8 F-9 T-10 H-11 E-12 = 12 Diciples that if you combine some of the near-east esoteric writers, modern day memographic's come to the name of the philosophy of a very distinctly anti-establishment but ultimately down-on-its-luck Egyptian God - Nut, and it was his conversations that led to the fall; as you may a see a link in my only other post as a newbie today- of the ottoman empire; prophecised by his mages and almost allowing for a peaceful, on the contrary, alliance of the same empire with both Venice, Greece and areas surrounding the black sea, hindu kush areas and azerbaijan for purposes that would have completely avoided the statement in society ever appearing that is

"that guy/gals a nut" - the god eventually lost his wits with a certain frenchman and many people died - but hey; we don't need to know about that - we're on this side of the wall...

final statement - there is nothing wrong with authority, only finding who to trust with it.