It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Question to Anarchists

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
There are no rules in ANARCHY, therefore: The symbol is what I say it is. You own no one elses accepted truths in anarchy. That's the beauty of anarchy. No proven history. No accepted facts. Ruleless.
Rulers make the rules. No rulers. NO RULES. Anarchy.

LOL What has the meaning of a symbol got to do with rules? The general use and peoples interpretation suggests its meaning not rules.

People interpret information in accordance with the (fine) guidelines (not rules) that conform easiest with the neuro-net processor they are working with. Since we all learn and integrate new information through the "Law of Association", and "law" is interchangeable with "rule", then the integrational interpretation of what anarchy means is in essence what it means to the individual in an anarchy governed state where individuals govern themselves. Because, no one else can define what anarchy means to the individual, they don't have the authority to do so.

To take Anarchism so literally and take it to mean simply NO RULES is what gives the Anarchist movement a bad name.

Anarchism is not about NO RULES, it is about self governing.

Then, every individual makes there own ....... if not rules, and if not laws, what does each individual actually govern, if not how they choose to percieve reality in regards to crime and punishment?

Rules are fine as long as they are mutely accepted by the population and not forced upon them by an overlord. I think we can all agree some rules are necessary, no?

Depends on the entire poplulation, granted they all agree with you what rules should be self imposed on every individual, by every individual within an anarchy state of affairs. Do you think everyone within your city, let alone entire nation shares the same morals, and ethics, and values you do?

Forget your stateist dictionary meaning and do some reading.

Read what? My stateist dictionary no longer provides me with the meanings of the words I need to make sense of what I read, since I've forgoten my stateist dictionary all together? Now, how I choose to interpret words is no longer consistant with how others choose to interpret words.

Utopian Anarchy. Choice living style.

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:06 PM
ok being a former anarchist myself i know what im talking about, most anatchist are peacefull people who wish to live in a sort of agrarian (i think i miss spelt that) society with no real hierachy

anarchists tend to dispise authority and hierachy, and hold the belief no one man is better than any other so why should that person have authority over me hence the dislike for hierachy and distain for the state as any form of government implys hierachy

in todays world there is not a chance of anarchy working becasue lets face it these days 70% of the population are braindead idiots who couldnt fend for them selves if the fate of the world depended on it, 20% just want to live together happily and peacefully, the other 10% are to damn violent and would endup with all the weapons form a gang and controll a area with a iron fist leading to fascism the complete oposite of anarchy

even if there was pecefull co existance the issues of sustainability come up such as how are people going to have enough food and water as most water courses are to poluted to drink these days what about food? most people would not be able to get meats, poultry, fish and the like easly.
how ill people make heat? eventualy no matter how many u stockpile your guna run out of lighters and matches so how are u gong to start a fire for warmth or to cook food.

with no sewage systems or even toilet paper to wipe yourself with waste would be a massive problem in urban areas disease would qickly take hold and on that note no hospitals, no health care this means the common cold could potentialy be very deadly since every year it gets stronger and without anti biotics we would quite frankly be screwed

while i dont consider myself an anarchist anymore i still like the ideals of less government controll, less militarisation and fundimentaly no man is better than any other

there u have my 2 cents on the topic


posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:23 AM
One of the biggest myths of Anarchism is the belief that we will lose our basic services such as food supply and sewage.

As someone who claims to have been an Anarchist, didn't you think anout that stuff ToeRag?
Have you ever heard the album "Yes Sir, I Will" by Crass? There's a relavant song on it for you..."If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos, everybody running round setting petrol bombs off?" etc....
(that,s the whole album, scroll down to find the line and the rest of the lyrics)...

Anarchists are Anarchists because they want a better world, for everybody, so if it meant losing our basic needs do you think we'd still be Anarchists?

Is it government that fills the store shelves with food, or cleans the water you drink? In fact it's the government that is poisoning the water you drink (flouride). Or is it you and me?
Do governments really keep the streets safe? Or are they just exploiting human nature to gain more power and control? Local communities who pay attention stop crime far better than government does.
You are not ever gonna be rid of all crime, government or no government.
Without government at least we will not have their crimes to deal with.

Are Humans naturaly evil, criminal? Are you?
Do you feel the urge to kill, steal, destroy? Do you think without government YOU would act on urges like that? Or is it that you just think that other people will?
Do you think without government we wouldn't know how to take care of our needs? You think people would just sit around till they starve to death? (well maybe some would but hey that's their problem, no?)
We have been so indoctrinated to not think or do for ourselves, there is a service, at cost, for everything we need. If you have money you can basically sit on ya ass and have everything done for you. What kind of contribution to society is that?

These are just basic questions that always come up in Anarchist debates, usualy answered to your own satisfaction before labeling yourself an Anarchist.
An Anarchist would know these basic statist myths about Human nature otherwise it's just an empty label. I mean what kind of Anarchism were you involved in? Get rid of government and to hell with the consequences type? I just want to get rid of government no matter what replaces it type?
I'm an Anarchist because I'm a fashion punk type?

I'm not attacking you, just curious as to how you came to the conclusion that you were an Anarchist and can claim knowledge on this.

AP&F...Do you know?

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:26 PM
This could be a touchy subject for a first post but I am a former Anarchist and would like to at least establish my views on what Anarchy is. I only read the first post and a few following so forgive me if I cover old ground.

Its an often misunderstood concept and most assume that we want to break down the government so that everyone can run around and indulge in murder, sex etc.. But this is simply not true. If you look at some strains of Anarchist theorem the belief is that without governments and big business which are believed to be inherently oppressive we would be free to work for self fulfillment instead of making next months rent.

There's some disagreement as to how revolution would be achieved and a relatively small number of Anarchists advocated "Propaganda of the Deed" which is the idea that senseless bombings, assassinations etc.. might somehow bring down the government and rally support which is of course a foolish assumption.

The idea is that after the revolution you would be free to do what you want with the exception of harming another human being and if this happened concerned members of society would then be allowed to suppress the criminal element without fear of retribution and would dissolve back into society when the threat had been combated. Resources would be pooled so food, water, health care etc.. would not be an issue especially for those that were once poor or who would be doing more menial jobs.

My issue with Anarchism is that it worked for me when I was idealistic and had faith in humanity but I've long since become a misanthrope and abandoned such an ideal. Because Anarchy relies on everybody caring about the common good which regretfully will never happen. However I do stand by those who support this particular strain of Anarchy because its my belief they have their hearts in the right places if a little too idealistic which is much better than the bitter outlook I have on the world. I'm not saying thats what all Anarchy is but thats what Anarchy was for me and the crowd I ran with so I figured I should add a different perspective to the conversation.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Allar]

[edit on 8-6-2006 by Allar]

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in