Fuck The Law

"Natural Right = Anarchy, and vigilanteism 'i think anyway.'"

what right does that give the individual? What assures his liberty? And does that allow for possesion of property? You say "fuck the law," what law exactly? Is it specific laws (ie US laws, and which)? And if you support vigilantism, what laws do you propose they should enforce? Maybe you meant fuck the police, but then that can also lead to the disbandment of courts, state and federal. And maybe you want that too, let me know.


Also, I realize you may not have wanted to get so extensive on this topic. You prolly said "fuck the law" and didn't think twice about what law you were referring to. Again, let me know. I have a final on this very topic, so I'm still up studying and posting about this helps me study. (but mind that I am indeed studying, and may take some time to post)

 

Makno- I noted those authors, and will try to get around to reading them when time allows. What is natural law, according to anarchy? (and sorry if I am assuming that there are natural laws, I can only assume that since anarchy occurs, most of the time, after the failure of a government; from this is where I begin to assume that it still upholds some of the more elementary laws( I say elementary, not necessarily meaning simplistic, but fundamental).



DopeSickKid -ideals? can you give some examples

again, let me know if you are feeling disinterested in the topic.

 

im simply stating that laws suck is not a puerle or facil premmis ....__________________

I'm sorry, but i didn't quite get what you meant. Maybe a mispelling (facil= false; premmis= premise?), or a latin phrase ( some of the philosophies I've read use latin words) If it's the former, I apologize for being rude, but I did not do it to discredit you or your beliefs

 

there is no one way anarchists look at anything .....some come from a n inverse hegelian materalistic athist viewpoint ...some are christians n pacifists like tolstoy thoro gandi adin ballo ......some individualists some collectivists some comunist ...there are faults in parts of each but thr important thing isnt having all the rite answeres but the rite questions .....look for ' men against the state ' by james j martin ....indiv. anthology .....and 'patterns of anarchy' by krimmerman and perry ....good anthology ....all the anarchist classics ar on line ....whole books tons of em ......search anarchist archives on google youll get it . iffin ya cant find it ill let ya know ......and ill put a response about nat law together when im awake

 

im sorry i cant spell im a high scoll dropout n i work wit my hands neva even could type for 40 years ......facile = simple just the way in french n spanishthe other word is synonamouse with juvinile ....please can you tell me how to spell

 

For the topic as a whole, you have to allow for some corruption in all types of government, because, sorry to say this, man is a corrupt being (whether it is an innate characteristic, or a learned one, I cannot say). But to disband a gov't for some small fraction of corruption seems obsurd to me. (again, I cannot state an exact amount that I allow for corruption, and the amount of corruption in our gov't I also am not sure of; or that I can (or more importantly may, for this stems from religious beliefs; though I'm currently studying existentialism which allows for this through secular means) decided what is or isn't corrupt.)


ok, that's enough for tonight. Sorry if I boooored everyone.

 

both words are in the dictionary puereal....sp. from a french word synon with imiture or childlike .....a facile argument is a simple one

 

i think you assume that anarchy throws the baby away witr the bathwater ....but u see a lack of forced propped athority ....doesnt negate that as people con volentarily organize and must nesecary ......id be happy to talk with ya as im betta without the keyboard ....read peter kropotkin .....the conquest of bread .....and factories fields and workshops and mutual aid .....anarchists are assymed destroying athority but in reality are preparing an alternative to force because it is untennable and in the throws of its own selfdestruction .

 

"im sorry i cant spell im a high scoll dropout n i work wit my hands neva even could type for 40 years ......facile = simple just the way in french n spanishthe other word is synonamouse with juvinile ....please can you tell me how to spell"

I truly wish i could help you. English is my second language and I remember how difficult it was to learn, but I was lucky to have been taught it as a child. You, however, seem to be doing quite well. As long a you desire to learn and enjoy reading, I can only imagine, that in time you will be able to do so, and well.

I will definetly do some research on anarchists and their works. I am new to political philosophy, and from the little I know, I can only assume that anarchy tries to disprove these views.

Again, as long as you have an open mind, and arewilling to listen to other points of view, and can reason, you will be intelligent. (not even illeteracy can prevent that, though it may hinder it)

However, be aware of the fallacies which many philosophers commit. And do not be led astray, which won't happen as long a you are capable of reasoning.

Also, make sure (as I think Sartre would say) to not seek council (more so, to give credit)for your actions or beliefs (one example), because will have already chosen your belief or action by seeking counsil in one particular aspect.

g'nite

 

i understand my assumptions may seem negative, but it is only because I am trying to understand what exactly it is that anarchy negates of what I've been taught. (mainly Locke) I will try to post some quotes later

 

Law means nothing to me, just alot of paper work....

 

Agree with DopeSickKid and bedlam. Rules written on paper don't mean shit to me.

 

Not trying to change the subject, just wanted to say DopeSickKid you're a pretty cool and creative guy for your age. Pm me sometime we outta chat.

 

Who agrees with you? Well this guy does...

"The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be." Lao Tzu, who lived between 600 and 300 BC, and is credited with authoring the Tao Te Ching, and being the founder of Taoism. So you are in good company DSK.

http://www.hku.hk/philodep/ch/laoency.htm

 

i didnt bother reading the thread, too long for my short attention span..
but we need laws, some laws of course we could do without...but welcome to earth where laws exsist...everywhere..

 

you people act as though we shouldnt have any laws at all, and thats shit..sorry..

 

i can read sporto

 

How about this? I know someone who got a fine for jaywalking!
Or this.. when I used to deliver pizzas, which was from like 8 pm to 4 am or something, I got pulled over at least a couple times a night cuz I had a tail light out and I didn't know how to fix it. One time four cop cars showed up at 2 am on a monday night, for my tail light crime against humanity. I only lasted about two weeks, and quit cuz I just hated the hassle. Or this... hearing cops laughing as they impound my friends car for letting someone drive it whose licence had expired.
Laws are best few and far between, and so clear that no one in authority can abuse them or enforce them with bias.

 

Well, you know what they say...You can wish in one hand and shit in the other...