It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Pox on Representative Politics! It Is A Poison To Society! Anarchy Is The Answer!

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


quote
"He did not allow "religious freedom" unless you were a Socialist Pilgrim. And face it. Plymouth Colony was a failed socialist commune that required adherence to the Pilgrim religion."





" U wanna repeat that bout "PILGRIM Religion,,,mister?? "


John Wesley Hardin,

John Wesley Hardin (May 26, 1853 – August 19, 1895)




Well,,,






posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

If you believe Kings, Governments are benevolent in "their labeling" of discent, then your views are delusional...
Anarchist is their label for everyone...period.
Ever heard if "Big Sis", 1984, RFID?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

If you believe Kings, Governments are benevolent in "their labeling" of discent, then your views are delusional...


When did I ever say anything of this sort? I gave YOU the literal definition of the word anarchist not what some monarch decided to call someone else.


Anarchist is their label for everyone...period.


ok... and?


Ever heard if "Big Sis", 1984, RFID?


What does that have to do with anything? I'm just going by the standard definitions of words. With the information provided, William Bradford WASN'T an anarchist no matter how much you try to say he was. He did happen to disagree with the government of England, but that doesn't mean that he was an anarchist. I don't care what the King of England called William Bradford, it is irrelevant. I care about the definition of the word "anarchist" and what it entails to be one. If William Bradford served in a political office in ANY government, he isn't an anarchist no matter how you try to spin it. End of Story.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

My original post went completely over your head...read it again.
Skimming it is the last thing you should do.

ETA: see the progression?
edit on 8-4-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

My original post went completely over your head...read it again.
Skimming it is the last thing you should do.


sigh... Do we really need to play this game? Since the two long and lengthy posts in response to your short posts that aren't long enough to skim isn't enough for you, I guess I'll break your OP down bit by bit so you can adequately see that I read it all.


Granite
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

William Bradford was an Anarchist to the King of England in 1620.


There is no such thing as an anarchist to one particular government. To be an anarchist, you have to not like ANY government, not be selective about it.


So he pack his family on Mayflower with 200 fellow "Anarchists" and sailed west to The New World. Landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621.


You even hint that you are aware of this idea by putting the word Anarchists in quotes.


He was elected Governor of the colony 22 times ending in 1656. Mainly because he allowed religious freedom, promoted trade with Native Indians, and guidence for societal structure was open to criticism and made appropriate changes everyone could abide by.


Bold added. The bolded part is why he isn't an anarchist of any sort. You have at this point established that Bradford didn't like the government of England which is in line with being an anarchist then you say this which means that he not only supported this local government, but supported it enough to be elected to the point he made a career out of it. At this point, the label of anarchist isn't true. You have to use another descriptor to describe Bradford's attitude towards the government of England. Good thing one exists, revolutionary.


His log of these events was eventually published "Plimoth Plantation". The tradition of Thanksgiving was based on that account by Bradford.So one man's "Anarchist" is another man's "Saint" in the American history.


Again you put the word anarchist in quotes to show that you understand that what you are saying isn't true.


Perhaps you should read more about it.
Although, I understand the "degenerate" label towards "Anarchists" has perhaps some validity.


This means nothing in relation to the rest of your post. You have described, at the most, someone who is a pseudo-Anarchist so you cannot use his actions to form opinions on the group as a whole since he doesn't adhere to the actual message of what an Anarchist is and as it has turned out, thanks to SkepticOverlord, he is really just a Socialist. Socialists are usually the exact opposite of Anarchists since you need more government to get the society that Socialists envision.

In the end you are trying to misuse a word by taking part of its definition and selectively applying it to a person's ideals, yet there is a much better word to use which I've repeated many times in several posts. You are wrong. Now stop accusing me of not having read your exceedingly short post and only skimming it, like that was even possible to begin with.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

You don't see the progression in my first post so of coarse your in a tirade on "labels" that is un-related to my post.

For the last time Krasy, read my first post and the progression...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

You don't see the progression in my first post so of coarse your in a tirade on "labels" that is un-related to my post.

For the last time Krasy, read my first post and the progression...


Hate to tell ya, kid, but your post is basically incoherent. Your premise is faulty and your conclusions are self-contradictory. Perhaps we should all admire your persistence in attempting to defend such a flawed argument, but there's no getting around the fact that you've publicly contradicted yourself and shown that you really don't know what you are talking about. If this is how you normally present yourself and your arguments, no one has to worry about you becoming the least bit influential.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Granite


William Bradford was an Anarchist to the King of England in 1620.
So he pack his family on Mayflower with 200 fellow "Anarchists" and sailed west to The New World. Landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621.

 


To clarify;

Sounds like the King "viewed" Bradford as an Anarchist.

You are not necessarily saying it, you're saying the King said it right?

Almost sounds like Harry Reid "saying" Republicans are Anarchists.

Plus that, many people see the Pilgrims as a possible "expedition" actually financed by the King.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Granite
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

You don't see the progression in my first post so of coarse your in a tirade on "labels" that is un-related to my post.

For the last time Krasy, read my first post and the progression...


Well I'm done, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I've read and reread your post and the given premises and conclusion don't match AT ALL. If you feel like I truly am not getting it, how about posting something more than a 2 line post telling me I'm not getting it and actually try to explain yourself better? I've been throughly patient with you trying to explain how you are wrong, but all I get in return is, "nope, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Go reread it," which is starting to get insulting.

Well did it ever occur to you that maybe you did a terrible job explaining your position? It did occur to me that maybe I wasn't explaining myself well enough, that's why I repeated myself several more times after initially responding to you trying to make my point clearer instead of just getting all fussy and telling you to go reread my posts.

Until I get a better explanation on why you think that William Bradford is a good example of an anarchist that helped found this country (this is the conclusion of your post), I'm done talking to you.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

100% correct.
Writing a composed post with progression gets lost on many members.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


Anarachy will not work because there will be those that take advantage of it, and people will beg for a fascists regime to bring in some sort of control and orderly structure.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Granite
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

William Bradford was an Anarchist to the King of England in 1620.
So he pack his family on Mayflower with 200 fellow "Anarchists" and sailed west to The New World. Landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621.

He was elected Governor of the colony 22 times ending in 1656. Mainly because he allowed religious freedom, promoted trade with Native Indians, and guidence for societal structure was open to criticism and made appropriate changes everyone could abide by.

His log of these events was eventually published "Plimoth Plantation". The tradition of Thanksgiving was based on that account by Bradford.So one man's "Anarchist" is another man's "Saint" in the American history.

Perhaps you should read more about it.
Although, I understand the "degenerate" label towards "Anarchists" has perhaps some validity.


I asked you to clarify, and you have, it is clear that whilst Bradford was an anarchist in the eyes of some long dead king, he was actually a revolutionary socialist who opted for Huxleys Brave New World when he was confronted with a 1984 Orwelian reality on the ground in England and in Europe!

And he then sold out to a representative political ideal with himself installed as some benevolent tyrant and the sheep followed.

as I stated before in this thread to you ...


DietJoke

Granite
reply to post by DietJoke
 

Over time, I am slowly seeing Anarchy as an option to personally consider.

The major turning point for was Obama getting re-elected in 2012. A "think tanker" in DC said just before election "yes, we can survive another four years of Obama...but can America survive an electorate that would do it?"

This is why Anarchy is a real option for me and a whole lot of regular Americans.

edit on 7-4-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)


Thank you ... but I am feeling you are maybe mistaking Revolution for Anarchy ... one comes before the other and they are not the same.

An Anarchist reasonably and conscientiously moves on from war and revolution, as and when required by circumstance, to live life in liberty and the pursuit of happiness!


Where as the Revolutionary selfishly seeks out another bogeyman and another land grab war for profit, power and position!


Revolution is fine and reasonable when the circumstances clearly dictate that as a last resort response to tyranny and oppression, just return to Anarchy when the fighting has finished or one loses their humanity!


And so if you are feeling revolutionary and you are a reasonable conscientious man then I would not stand in your way but if you are looking for role models as to Anarchists I think Bradford is a poor example.

And what matters is not the past, but the here and now!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Anarchist

a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary


As the OP'er of this thread I take serious issue with that merriam-webster dictionary definition because it simply fails the the test of reason.

Here is why ... even if we are all wild out in the wild rules still exist and they are called the law of the jungle ... eat or be eaten ... kill or be killed and they are indeed wild rules ... but rules none the less.

So any reasonable man would know that is fact and could easily refute that Anarchists find rules and laws to be unnecessary and I even pointed out in the OP ...


And a human Anarchist would be similarly endowed with the ability reason and have a conscience for others feelings, and that places limits on what they can naturally do.


What is implied by the merriam-webster dictionary definition is simply a wet dream by an unreasonable monster.

Also as I used the Universal Declaration of Human Rights charter in the OP I shall quote from it again to drive the point home ...

UDHR


Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,


And prime example is murder is a crime against common law!

The problem lies in parents not teaching their children what common law and common sense is.


I still agree with you that Bradford was a socialist and in no way represents a true Anarchist.


Do you concur that merriam-websters dictionary definition is simply wrong based on the reasoning I provide above?



edit on 10/4/2014 by DietJoke because: Edited to fix ex tags for display purpsoes



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

amfirst1
reply to post by DietJoke
 


Anarachy will not work because there will be those that take advantage of it, and people will beg for a fascists regime to bring in some sort of control and orderly structure.


A conscientious man is aware he can be taken advantage of and it worries them not as they have simply exposed a monster that needs to be reasonably killed.

It would be unreasonable for conscientious people to go begging for corporate control hiding behind the facade of national fervor, as is fascism, is the act of a slave begging for clemency when it comes to the issue of self responsibility and that slave has sold out against self sufficiency as a guiding and gold mark standard!

As soon as one doesn't want to do all the hard political business of convincing others that the idea is the most reasonable and conscientious one that should be applied, then one has lost their humanity and one wants to be babied by a nanny state.

That may indeed happen ... but those that do it are not Anarchists ... they have lost their humanity already by buying into representative politics in return for less critical thinking and a false sense of security.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


I'd argue that the law of the jungle as you put it is just a way of life and not so much a rule, but perhaps you may be right. If we look at a rule or law as a constraint to prevent you from doing something, then you must also include the physical and environment laws in addition to the social laws. Perhaps the definition is just too basic. How about, "a person who believes that government and laws originating from government are not necessary"? Though the basic definition is probably the result of Merriam-Webster trying to make the definition understandable to all and not too complicated. Also it IS a dictionary and not so much an encyclopedia, so try to cut it some slack.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


As much as I don't like the overarching definition used by merriam-webster dictionary in regards to the term Anarchist, there are a couple of others also provided and I rather like number 1 ...


Full Definition of ANARCHIST
1
: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

2
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic adjective


Where as number two sounds more like a Revolutionary and I have already shown the difference earlier in the thread.

Shall we both agree to use definition number 1?




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join