Some Thoughts About Anarchy > We are travellers in a dark, rainy night, but every so often a flash of lightening ILLUMINATES the sky & we can make out some of the features of our world. I hope some of my words can serve you like those lightning flashes & reveal things you hadn't suspected before. I know that most people simply can't hear the word "Anarchy". Their minds refuse to entertain the idea! So I want to show you... A Few Thoughts About Anarchy!!! unk:> Anarchy's not a system or structure; Anarchy means nothing more than the absence of Government! > And just what is this government? It's a man-made invention, it's not some natural phenomenon or a special creation of God! > the anarchist hates government. His or Her anger is not directed against corrupt politicians, high taxes, drug wars & other tyrannous policies or any particular failing of any individual government. > the anarchist hates government as an abolitionist hates slavery, as a capitalist hates communism, as a good christian hates the devil. the anarchist regards government as an evil in itself. > Every act of government is based on violence. Political Power, as Mao said, comes from the barrel of a Gun! > If the state want's to stop you from doing something, it doesn't just try to persuade you; it threatens to put in Jail. If the state wants your money, it doesn't just ask you for it politely, it doesn't try to earn it. the state extorts money from you with threats of prison. > What do you think "govern" means? It doesn't mean "suggest" or "implore", "Govern" means "Force" & force means Violence! When you advocate any government action, you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand. > Belief in Government is the Superstition that some magical power endows certain people with the right to use violence against others. Since no-one wants to picture themselves as a victim of violence, governments lie. > Governments always coin new words to conceal their use of force... Drug laws, tariffs, taxes, regulations, conscriptions; A thousand words have been invented to distract your attention from the guns & prisons that uphold government. > Political system's like Communism, Democracy, Fascism & Socialism have convinced mobs of people that government violence can be used to achieve noble ends. > Whatever you call the system, political power & tax money end up in the hands of the few, and those few are always the same sort of people, whether they are Nazi Facists, Russian or Chinese Communists, American Republicians or Democrats. > the weakness of Communism & Fascism consists of turning their people into slaves. Slaves have nothing to gain & nothing to lose. > The strength of Democracy is that it encourages the common person to believe one-self a ruler, that is, an oppressor of their neighbor. > Democracy is not essentially different from monarchy or oligarchy; it is merely an extension of oligarchy to give more people power over others. But our 20th. century claims of universal democracy or "the people rule themselves" also mean's "the people are their own slaves". > You don't need to read Science Fiction novels like "1984" or "Brave New World" to find intrusion into your life. You were forced to attend a state supported school for 12 years. You are subject to conscription, temporary slavery. You don't really own your property, you must pay the state "taxes" to keep it. You may not choose what Drugs you take. You may not choose certain Sexual practices. You may not practice certain Religious beliefs. You may not speak freely on certain subjects ( 2 people talking about buying "dope" can get you more jail time than robbing a bank ). If you tried to kill yourself, you'd be breaking the law. the State claims to own you! > Armed with a few well-chosen studies & some post-facto arguments, the determined meddler can justify the laws intrusion into anything you do or fail to do. > Federal, state & local governments have passed more laws restricting human action - that is, Liberty - than almost any other civilization. Think of a law, however petty, meddlesome or tyrannous, & you will find it has been passed by some government body in America! But some people are natural law-breakers; they were born disobedient. It is they we should thank for our liberties. We don't owe our remaining freedoms to Supreme Court Justices, idealistic lawyers or crusading politicians. We owe them to bigots, black-marketeers, dope dealers, pimps, pornographers, rum-runners & smugglers who refuse to be governed. > Some people say "Anarchy's interesting but it won't work". Of course it won't work. Anarchy is not a system. Anarchy is merely society without the illusion of government; It is a stateless condition that society can attain. When the vast majority of the people become ungovernable anarchy will exist. But this ungovernability must be nearly universal. > To understand ungovernability, imagine a cult with a dictatorial leader. He takes his followers money, tells them how to behave and frequently uses corporal punishment to keep them in line. the cult leader has his own set of laws & his own police force. Such an organization resembles a theoretically good government deriving it's "just power from the consent of the governed". > Lets say that you, as a cult member, became disillusioned with the cult leader, but were intimidated by the reprisals his guards might make against you. You could ban together with others of the same opinion, kill the leader and overpower his guards. Then you could make yourself the new leader. This, of course, is what happens when a revolution takes place. > But maybe you have a revelation of the cult as outsiders see it; a band of fools who believe in ridiculous doctrines & are lead by a maniac. You'd walk away in disgust. You'd still fear the guards, the cult's police force, but your attitude would have changed. What you had seen as legimate force would now appear as crimminal activity. From the cult's point of view, you would have become an "Anarchist". > Now... Imagine that everyone in the cult shared your vision. All the members, even the guards simply go home & try to forget the whole stupid organization, leaving the leader to drum up a new set of idiots to follow him. > That's what I mean by Anarchy... going home & minding your own business!!! > Anarchy will come someday, if not in a Hundred years, then a thousand years from now. < > For now, the government is a new toy that the "children" can-not stop playing with. It seems to them so simple, so logical to solve their problems with extorted money & threats of violence concealed behind the holiness of the state. > There was a time when the American Republic was much closer to Anarchy; but government has gained more and more money & power over the years since 1913, when the Constitutional Republic mutated into some kind of "democratic-socialism". > But even so, in the last 200 years, we are beginning to see the decline & fall of the state! > Look at the Declaration of Independence! > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among us, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to Alter or ABOLISH it". < > the Anarchist has nothing more radical to say than this! < :hippy: PEACE!
So many associate anarchy with random acts of violence. Anarchy is the belief that we don't need government, that human beings can handle their own affairs. :sunny: Look at the world we live in, Government is doing a great job huh?
This may be an over-simplified comparison, but I always thought the government was kind of like the Mafia. They "protect" us from unfair practices (with laws) or threats of violence (with armed forces), and in return we pay them a "tribute" (taxes). Oh, and also they do lots of illegal things.
> Good Comparison! Organized Crime & Organized Government are two sides of the same coin. "Democracy" seems to have become an elaborate shell game, maintained by & for cliques of insider power-elitists! > Does the Government "protect" us? After all we spend a Trillion dollars a year in "taxes". Yet criminals steal, kill, assault, rape & trespass in a hundred other ways & our government does not deter them at all. Crime statistics certainly prove that! > Police Power is, however, adequate to keep the average citizen obedient to the state Try to set up a business without proper licenses, try to sell cigarettes or booze without paying special taxes, try to possess certain Drugs without a "permission slip" from authority, try to ignore the infinite number of petty regulations & fees the government imposes on you and you will quickly discover that the police power is adequate to keep you in line! > But ask your Mayor or Councilman about Real Crime ( crimes with a victim ) & they'll tell you about complex causalities, imponderables & impossibility's! > You, the Honest Citizen, can always be coerced into doing what the government wants of you, but Criminals are impossible to control?
I used to compare the Gov to organized crime, but it seems like some gangsters have a moral compass much broader than any politician. I am talking old school guys, that would not kill women or kids. Politicians/Government doesn't care. They would slaughter a handicapped orphan for a drop of oil or a dollar bill.
My Great Grandpa was a Cop in Chicago during Prohibition & he was always telling us what swell guys Dion O'Bannion, Bugs Moran & the Northsiders were! Of course, he didn't think much of Capone!
I would take it a step further and include any form of heirarchy; anarchists are also suspicious of the capitalist heirarchical structure.
> The force that created wealth in modern times has been called Capitalism, but that name gives a false impression. The wealth producing Force is Human Greed, the Desire to gain more material benefits. > If I want something from you, I can try to pry it from you by violence. But if all the violent roads are closed; I can't tax you or jail you or draft you to get what I want & I'm afraid to steal it from you without the state's backing me up. If I have to eschew violence altogether. I realize that you must give me that which I want Freely. But you won't give up what I want unless I make it worth your while, unless you experience a net gain. > Without violence, then, I must enrich you in order to enrich myself. > Simply shutting down the government use of violence, the easy violence, will cause more & more individuals to find more and more wealth producing activities. > It seems fairly logical to me that any population would embrace Free-Market Capitalism if it were freed from government restraints, but my opinion is a result of my culture & lifestyle. > Other cultures might make very different use's of Freedom. the members of that society will not, however fail to enrich themselves. They will increase each others wealth in all their dealings. You & I may not understand their subjective estimates of wealth, but then, why should we? > There is only one sure consequence of Economic Anarchy; No matter what economic system society used before, economic Anarchy will make society subjectively wealthier. > It is Economic Anarchy that allows people to enrich themselves; it is not ( state controlled ) capitalism that enriches one! eace: PEACE!
People are advanced and understanding enough to govern ourselves. I think no government, and a civilian police force and army, would make for a much better society, and more tolerable laws.
:2thumbsup: > Excellent Line of Reasoning... Government didn't invent law! > Before Pharaoh declared theft illegal, does anyone believe the Egyptians did not mind stealing? > Does anyone think that the Chinese liked having Murderers around until the Emperor placed his edict against Manslaughter? > Rulers claim they give us Law, but they lie! > Law grew out of the common experience of Humanity. > the ruler's claimed contribution to humankind is nothing but humankind's own rules, an equilibrium, a balance between people. > Everyone looks out for oneself, and order grows from this Universal self-interest. > Not My Order, or Your Order, or the President's Order, but a Natural Order. > An Equilibrium! eace: PEACE!
Who In Anarchy there shouldn’t be any private property to covet – there wouldn’t be the concept of ‘give’ or ‘take’, you wouldn’t have to ‘take’ because it would have already have been ‘given’. But there wouldn’t be rich or poor. This sounds like the same old dribble that right wing libertarians pump out. I think you might not be an Anarchist but more of an anarcho-capitalist a right wing ideology. Oh yes you are a anarcho-capitalist, which as many have argued is not really Anarchy at all - Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed. Peter Marshall http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10
I’d say that if you are interested in Anarchy that you forget Who’s rather biased right wing anarcho-capitalism and read ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall http://www.amazon.co.uk/Demanding-Impossible-A-History-Anarchism/dp/0006862454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349104823&sr=8-1"]Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Marshall: Books
outthere From what he has said I believe he is an anarcho-capitalist, however what the Doc may believe him-herself to be is another matter, I mean think of all those ultra right wing libertarians who come here claiming to have ‘leftie’ views.
Balbus Do you think right wing libertarian think tanks disseminate left wing ideas like "abolish government and decriminalize marijuana" purely to appeal to the masses without having much concern of delivering on those promises? Anyway like you've said, the left has been purged from the US. Corporations are our stealthy masters.
DocWho Are you referring to yourself as "the Anarchist?" You're pro Laissez-faire capitalism: DocWho: Would you want a minimal government to enforce contracts and property rights?
outthere I’d say they don’t disseminate any left wing ideas is seems to me that whenever the supposedly leftie ideas of right wingers are examined they turn out to be nothing of the sort, they just have a right wing take on social problems. Often what they mean is they ‘don’t care’. To explain - the left wing approach on social issues is about trying to help, to assist, to change, to try and improve a situation - for example in drugs they see it as a health issue and want to assist, and with abortion they ask why and try and work toward reducing the numbers to the very minimum through such things as education and good healthcare but if they are to take place they want them to be don’t in the best possible surroundings. It seems to me that the right wing approach (that they claim to be leftie) is basically ‘I don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect me or means I have to pay for it in taxes’, it is not about helping people with problems but about not caring if they have problems. Here is a discussion on drugs - Rightwing libertarians and drugs http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871
Balbus, Oh, I can see your point how there could be a difference between political assertions and political philosophy. I see how you dig deeper to get at philosophy then point out the difference which tends to make people mad Of the people you've debated, what percentage would you say were just ignorant about political science terminology as compared to those purposely being outright deceitful or trolls? If DocWho really is an anarchist as he apparently claims (as I see it), would he be in favor of no state to enforce contracts and property rights? How would the Doc enforce the capitalistic "right" of property and contracts without the state backing him up?
