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.

 

Practical Anarchy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Hello...I would liketo hear from any fellow anarchists. There are so many anarchistic groups around. I would like to hear from people about how you are practicing anarchy in your communities...




posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
im not an anarchist but i dont really have a say in any politics...although i do feel that bush needs to D**P *E*D i had to bleep that out or i wouldnt have been able to post that...u can feel free to figure out what i said lol... i really dislike government because they have us under control and we cant really do anything...we are definately not "free"... money is a trap...



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egg Mundane
I would like to hear from people about how you are practicing anarchy in your communities...


I ignore traffic signs and I have 4 cats and 2 dogs (law says 3 walking pets.)

I am so bad!


[edit on 4-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

I ignore traffic signs and I have 4 cats and 2 dogs (law says 3 walking pets.)

I am so bad!


[edit on 4-12-2005 by cavscout]




This brings up a good point, at least in my mind, with regard to Anarchism.

Namely, is there such a thing as "Practical Anarchy"?


Originally posted by Egg Mundane
I would like to hear from people about how you are practicing anarchy in your communities...


I don't think Anarchy is, or for that matter can be, practical. Sure, you can be very vocal about opposing the state, but the anarchist continues to live within its confines, under its jurisdiction, fully subject to its power. Even the most tightly knit community of anarchists will falter under the pressure of the state to conform its laws, standards, etc.

One can choose to ignore all traffic signals in a particular area, urinate on every public building, engage in physical altercations with law enforcement officials, or otherwise do anything illegal. The fact remains that you run the risk of traffic accidents, fines, physical injury, jail time, or death by doing anything of this nature.

I can vow to refrain from exercising whatever power or control I have over an individual, but what will stop someone else from using their own power over another in an abusive or otherwise detrimental way? For that matter, in an anarchistic society, what stops any individual or group of individuals from doing the same?

The ideology of anarchism is not suited for application. Rather, it is a theoretical construct of what a utopian society could look like. As such, it is capable of leveling criticism at the state in its various forms, but is ultimately unable to provide a realistic alternative.

One need not be an anarchist to criticize the state. The best alternative to Anarchism, or any 'ism' really, is to do one simple thing:
Deny Ignorance.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by coerciblegerm
urinate on every public building


Oh yeah, I forgot. I piss in my back yard at night sometimes. It helps me bond with the dogs, lets them get a whiff of that alpha male urine! Thats got to be illegal, right?





but what will stop someone else from using their own power over another in an abusive or otherwise detrimental way? For that matter, in an anarchistic society, what stops any individual or group of individuals from doing the same?
Guns. Lots of big, scary guns. With no government to guarantee that victims will be disarmed a thug never knows when someone is going to light him up.


The ideology of anarchism is not suited for application........but is ultimately unable to provide a realistic alternative.
Friend, I can explain to you how any system now in place can see its intended result realized in a minarchist (or anarchist, if you wish) state.


One need not be an anarchist to criticize the state.
No, however one must criticize the state to be an anarchist.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I think Jello summed it up best in the song "Where Do Ya Draw The Line?"

Anarchy sounds good to me
Then someone asks, "Who'll fix the sewers?"
"Would the Rednecks just play King
Of the neighbourhood?"


Alas, the human race needs to learn alot more about respect before any kind of utopian society can be found.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
where do ya draw the line..... was that on Bedtime for Democracy?

Problem with Anarchy is the same problem with Socalism, is the same problem with Democracy, is the same problem with communism.

Technically they all work, each and every one of those systems or lack of systems will result in a perfect society..... if it were not for people.

Anarchy does not work because people suck.
Democracys dont work because people suck
Communism does not work because people suck


see a trend here?



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by coerciblegerm
The ideology of anarchism is not suited for application. Rather, it is a theoretical construct of what a utopian society could look like. As such, it is capable of leveling criticism at the state in its various forms, but is ultimately unable to provide a realistic alternative


I agree with you that anarchism is, among other things, a theoretical construct of a utopian society, but I disagree with you in that anarchism is unable to provide a realistic alternative. Anarchism is a complicated matter, because it takes many differnt forms and there are probably just as many types of anarchism as there are anarchists. I believe this to be a healthy thing though.

You can separate anarchism from example marxism, in many ways, but one of the most important differences is how the ideology manifests itself in a society. While marxism is dependant of a revolution (most probable an armed and violent one) to overthrow a current regime and then go through a series of temporary solutions (like the proletarian dictatorship) before it reaches the goal of which the revolution was started to reach, anarchism exist with (not after) the anarchist revolution (if you could call it a revolution). Anarchism and Marxism aimes towards many of the same things.. like worker owned factories, the eradication of class and the fair distribution of capital and land, but while marxism bases itself on a whole line of "necessary evils" and authoritarian and totalitarian (like Stalinist Soviet) means of maybe reaching the utopian marxist millennium kingdom, anarchism is there to some degree all the times during the journey towards the theoretical society of pure, direct demorcatic, and non-violent anarchy. Anarchism is a question of degree, and the anarchist revolution is now and forever...It's not about getting everyone to smoke pot in the streets and love eachother.

The 100% non-authoritarian and socialist society that is ideal anarchism will probably never be a reality on a large scale (a state or nation). but different degrees of anarchism within societies are present in many nations today.

I believe, that, if one want to understand anarchism and it's potential as a tool for building a more democratic world, or even a ideology of to base an entire nation, you have to first look to the definition of anarchism based on the real mening of the word anarchy, and stop thinking about the far fetched idea of an anarchist utopia.

I will not do the mistake of claiming AIIS to be absolute authoritative on the subject (like they believe themselves to be), but they have reached a good definition for anarchism, and even a mathematical formula that can help non-anarchists to understand how anarchists can even come close to believe in practical anarchy.


Posted by the Anarchist International Information Service website www.anarchy.no:

The word anarchism origins from the word anarchy, also an old Greek word. [...] is the following: The prefix "an" means "negation of", as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride, etc; i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law), ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc.", from Greek "archein", "to rule, to be first"; and "archos", "ruler" i.e. in a coercive, repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling. Thus, anarchy means coordination and management without ruling and thus rulers.
And thus anarchy means coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), down towards the bottom, i.e. in a coercive, repressive manner. b) and thus,"anarchy" is higher forms of economical and political/adminstrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy, from "the top downwards to the bottom".


Based on this definition, anarchism is everything else than breaking every possible rule while dreaming of a utopian society. I instead believe it to be an idea that in some degree, high or low, can be, will be, and are present in societies all over the world. Anarchist syndicalism was implemented with success in spain, anarchist decentralization of public sector through federalism is present in Switzerland and even Norway is leaning more and more towards low degrees of anarchist tendencies.

In short, I believe anarchism to be the change and ideas that are but forward by the people, on the people's non-authoritarian way towards a more democratic society. Anarchism IS the anarchist revolution, and the revolution is right now, not in some distant future.

This is only one way of looking at it of course. Anarchy in practice exists in many lesser communities all over the world also.. especially in the European squatting movement. Places like Blitz in Oslo and Undgomshuset in Coppenhagen are totally autonomous and organized horizontally without leaders. These are representatives of the more romantizised utopian version of existing anarchy though.

I believe anarchism to be a dynamic process towards a utopia, and not the utopia itself. Taking this into consideration, I believe in practical anarchy, but not in the form of a perfect society. Anarchism, is flawed, as all governing systems are.

I don't believe in communism. but that is because temporary installments of totalitarian states suck, not because people suck. Democracy I believe in, and anarchy is democratic... in it's pure form it is pure and direct democracy. I don't think we will ever reach that, but anarchy works as long as there are significant non-authoritarian tendencies ruling over the authoritarian ones


I can vow to refrain from exercising whatever power or control I have over an individual, but what will stop someone else from using their own power over another in an abusive or otherwise detrimental way? For that matter, in an anarchistic society, what stops any individual or group of individuals from doing the same?


In an anarchist process, you can't eradicate laws. because, without laws, people can and WILL do whatever they want. People are different, and different experiences and ideas manifested at once results in chaos, which is an authoritarian state, thus not anarchist. Laws must exist in an anarchy before we reach the theoretical utopia. The challange is to make these laws work in the most democratic way. In sindicalism, the laws are put forward by a meeting of the people living within a syndicate (be this a comune or a factory). The laws that are put forward then binds the individual person, and restrains him or her from operating without them. This means that the collective is an organized authority over the individual, but the more direct the democracy is, the more power the individual has in a collective. Law naturaly means you have to have groups policing a society of course. Anarchist law is subject to much debate though. This is only the basics of it...And it has been imposed with success in anarcho syndicalist communes. Of course... we can't implement this from scratch in large societies. This is also a goal for the anarchist dynamic process... the more we strive towards less autoritarian and unfair laws, the higher the degree of anarchism gets. It's the road towards these systems that define the society in my opinion



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egg Mundane
Hello...I would liketo hear from any fellow anarchists. There are so many anarchistic groups around. I would like to hear from people about how you are practicing anarchy in your communities...


I would suggest moving to the northern parts of tribal ran Pakistan. Anarchy is working well for them, in a country with nukes no less. Another suggestion would be to try to spend the summer in Iraq. It may give you an opportunity to practice anarchy with the proffessionals.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
me_ofef_seraph, what you describe is not anarchy, no matter how many communists/socialists say it is. Anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchism.

It is simple; you can not outlaw private ownership of a factory in an anarchist society.

Anarcho-syndicalism maintains that a government (call it what you want, it will be a government) that outlaws the private ownership of assets is anarchy. You cannot force your will on others through a government, even a direct democracy, and claim to have an anarchist system.

Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, allows for the formation of communes, or a worker-owned factory. While anarcho-capitalists feel that these communistic factories would fail, they recognize the right of people to form them.

Minarchists are those who feel that an extremely limited government would best serve the people. While in a minarchist state court, fire and police services would be run by a government, everything else would not, and the very small government would not butt-in to one's life so long as they were not directly harming anyone.

An Anarcho-Capitalist is an Anarchist.
An Anarcho-syndicalist is not.
A Minarchist is an extreme Libertarian.

Minarchism is extreme Libertarianism



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
me_ofef_seraph, what you describe is not anarchy, no matter how many communists/socialists say it is. Anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchism.

It is simple; you can not outlaw private ownership of a factory in an anarchist society.


I understand Anarcho syndicalism to be a form of anarchism, or a part of it rather. I have never heard anyone claim that it's not anarchist. I don't care what communists or other state-socialists say it is. This is based on the idea of anarcho syndicalism in relation to various definitions of anarchism. Anarcho syndicalism is a part of the anarchist dynamic revolution. A lot of what I wrote in my previous post was descriptions of Anarcho syndicalism, but that is because it is the most important movement within the anarchist struggle. The idea of organizing workers for self-managing through labor-movements is what will lay the foundation for a more anarchist society

First of all... You can outlaw private ownership of a factory in an anarchist society. Of course you can, if the collective in a certain society finds it to be a a good thing to do. Private ownership of a factory, at least if it had significant importance for the society would lead to a decrease in the anarchist and democratic tendencies within the society. But I don't feel this is the right way to look at it. Private ownership would not cease to exist in society because of a sudden outlaw from the collective. I believe it is more realistic that private ownership would be less and less common as the anarcho-syndicalist movement moves forward and more and more factories are taken back by the workers.

All anarchism is, is the idea that people can govern themselves in horizontally organized societies, on equal footing, without rulers. Many different ideas and movements grew from anarchism, and works within the anarchist struggle. Anarcho-syndicalism is one of them



Anarcho-syndicalism maintains that a government (call it what you want, it will be a government) that outlaws the private ownership of assets is anarchy. You cannot force your will on others through a government, even a direct democracy, and claim to have an anarchist system


Forcing your will on others is not democratic, but there will always be a part of the people who are happy with a changed made by the democracy of which they are a part, and one part that will not be happy with it. But decisions made by a direct-democracy, maybe by use of consensus, will be far more just than how decisions are made in most societies today. Anarchism is not about making everyone happy. That is just not possible. It can only strive to organize the people as democratic as possible. Anarchism is just the struggle to remove authoritarian tendencies from society and replace them with non-authoritarian. This will happen to some degree or another, and most probable through a dynamic process. This revolution, if you can call it that, must have the support of the people. If the workers of a factory, or the collective majority of the people of the society of which the factory is located manage to build down the power structure of the factory from a hierarchy to a horizontally organized syndicate (or part of a syndicate), then that would be a non-authoritarian victory pushing the society further along the line of anarchist dynamic change. Anarchism can't be about everyone doing what they want (some wanting to uphold private ownership and organize hierarchic - some wanting to seek collective ownership and organize horizontally)... That would lead to a chaotic society that again would lead to a authoritarian one. Again, I don't believe anarchism to be an idea you implement over night. I believe it to be an idea for how we can organize our societies, and that the changes springing from the anarchist movement are the real fruits of the struggle. And anarcho-syndicalism is a part of that struggle. Anarcho syndicalism is per definition anarchist



Minarchists are those who feel that an extremely limited government would best serve the people. While in a minarchist state court, fire and police services would be run by a government, everything else would not, and the very small government would not butt-in to one's life so long as they were not directly harming anyone.




An Anarcho-Capitalist is an Anarchist.
An Anarcho-syndicalist is not.
A Minarchist is an extreme Libertarian.

Minarchism is extreme Libertarianism


The way I understand it, anarcho-capitalists believe themselves to be anarchists, and claims that any opinion from the anti-capitalist anarchists that they are not, comes from ignorance of what anarcho-capitalism is. Thee way I see it, anarcho-capitalism is based on the principles Adam Smith advocated in An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. But at the same time, they seek a state-less system where government granted privileges to huge corporations and relations between those who control society and those who control the corporations is made non-existent. I understand it to be somewhat individualistic. Adam Smith said that, when every individual person or group seeks it's own fortune in a free marked based on competition, this will lead to a better society for all. The best quality and the lowest prices will win through because of the competition. There was never created a good enough system to control the corporations before they gained immense power over the people though... And so you have today's raw and monopoly based capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe this to be the capitalism anarchists seek to distance themselves from, while anarcho-capitalists seek a society where capitalism can be the economic system, while private competition business controls society and protects individual liberty in the absence of a state.

I have no belief in anarcho capitalists, and find the idea to base itself far to much on individualism and natural law to be a realistic non-authoritarian alternative, especially not to the representative democracy of my own country, Norway. I have always understood anarchism to base itself on, not the individuals rights, but the collective's rights in society, and the individuals rights as an equal part in the collective. The majority would collectively be an authority over the individual, but the individuals would be the one who forms the collectives. Anarcho-syndicalism bases it struggle within the labor-movement on this, while anarcho-capitalism does not.

Anarcho-capitalism is based on a system without a state, but not a system without rulers. The rulers would be the private owned corporations, and so it comes in conflict with the real meaning of the word anarchy and anarchist itself... meaning absence of rulers. I don't see anarcho-capitalism to be a constructive part of the anarchist struggle. Anarcho-syndicalism however, is and has always been. I would like to hear an actual anarcho-capitalist's criticism on my views though.

I have never little of minarchism myself, but the idea is interesting. The first thing that comes into mind is that the state potentially would have immense power if it owned all armed policing and military institutions as well as emergency services such as ambulances and fire-brigades. But I guess this is a matter of how the state is organized. Minarchism would probably be as close to anarchism as the degree of the peoples influence up and into the state, and as far from it as the degree of the state's influence down and into the people. I would like to hear more about it from a minarchist though.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
IAlas, the human race needs to learn alot more about respect before any kind of utopian society can be found.


And how will the human race learn respect each other if the only thing thats stops them from committing acts of crime is fear of death or punishment? The way to enrich peoples lives and perspectives is to give them control of their own destiny and life. Give people the chance to form communities which collectively decide what is best for themselves, giving a sense of responisiblity to one another and to the country as a whole. This shared responsibility is what would/could unite people together not just to think as a single being marching to the beat that has alrteady been laid out for them, but as a person who is part of a universally shared responsibilty to form our surroundings in a good way.

Rousseau wrote:

"Sovereignty cannot be represented......the peoples deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally. Any law that the people has not ratified in person is void; it is not law at all. The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliment; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved, it is nothing."

I firmly believe this is our land, our world, and our lives, not the states. What right does anyone have to tell me that I need to pay for my space on this Earth? Certainly not the people who have been priviledged from birth and born into wealth and power.

I believe if you give a person a purpose, not simply as a another number working for a faceless corporation, but purpose as a collective entity, purpose as an integral part of the process of society, not just dropping a vote into a box once every few years, then you will have a shared sense of responsibility and community as people realise that "wait! I am important, I do have a part to play here, I have a responsibility to myself and others."

I do not believe that if a form of Anarchism developed in a country that "nobody would clean the sewers"as somebody wrote. The people would need to do what they need to do.... are you saying that everyone would starve because nobody was telling them to get food ? I doubt anyone would like it if the drains were overflowing with #e everyday.

I currently live in a squatted anarchist commune in the central London with over 10 people. The framework of our community is not made by people coercing us into action, forcing us with fear of punishment into work. It works because we know that we have control of what is happening and that if we don't find our place and pull together that things wont work. We are in control, there is no landlord or rules or restrictions. The only restrictions are those which we place on ourselves becuase we have responsibility to one another.

There is no chain of command, simply those with the experience or know-how take a 'leader-like' position if neccesary at a specific time because they simply have the best knowledge in that situation. Anarchism does not have to mean choas with out leadership. People will naturally follow those who they know have an idea that they colectively agree with .

Take the power back people! Lead each other and yourselves!



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by coerciblegerm

One can choose to ignore all traffic signals in a particular area, urinate on every public building, engage in physical altercations with law enforcement officials, or otherwise do anything illegal. The fact remains that you run the risk of traffic accidents, fines, physical injury, jail time, or death by doing anything of this nature.

I can vow to refrain from exercising whatever power or control I have over an individual, but what will stop someone else from using their own power over another in an abusive or otherwise detrimental way? For that matter, in an anarchistic society, what stops any individual or group of individuals from doing the same?

The ideology of anarchism is not suited for application. Rather, it is a theoretical construct of what a utopian society could look like. As such, it is capable of leveling criticism at the state in its various forms, but is ultimately unable to provide a realistic alternative.

One need not be an anarchist to criticize the state. The best alternative to Anarchism, or any 'ism' really, is to do one simple thing:
Deny Ignorance.


How wrong you are. If anyone wants to put an anarchic principle into practicle use, don't vote. Do not give votes to the system which thrives off of a willing populace who give up their values everytime they vote. No one else holds your exact set of values, therefore, it is immoral to expect anyone to represent your values fully. You forego your individuality when you allow someone else to have the power of a majority.

Contrary to popular belief, or should I say "faith" (Pfft), there are objective moral standards. Coercion is not a basic first principle in a societal structure. Violence is not one either. Property rights are a first principle in an anarchy.

You say "Utopia", I say here and now. Don't vote. A majority is going to win regardless of your vote and both sides primary concern is to keep the scam of the ruling class going for as long as possible. Make no mistake, this state will fall just as every other empire has fallen in recorded human history. Educating people is all a market-anarchist can do at this time. Whether this generation or ten generations down the road gets that precious opportunity to wade through the mess of our collapsed state, the only thing that will allow for what you term a utopia to take hold is if there are enough educated people with objective morals.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Hi, my name is The_Time_is_now, and I am an Anachist.



Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the official name of the "First International" in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

[edit on 7/15/2006 by Majic]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I would like to say that I believe some of you are mistaken about how a practical "anarchist" society would really work. In a Libertarian society, or anarchist-capitalist society(the two should be interchangeable), you have the freedom to do pretty much whatever you want, except aggress against the self or property of another person.

This does not mean that everyone will follow by this rule, but for those that don't, it's not like there wouldn't be private security and arbitration to deal with these criminals. When you think about an anarchist society, you should think of how life is now, except every monopolistic service the government provides is now privatized and subject to competition in the free market. This means you aren't forced to pay for things you might not even want or aren't satisfied with through taxation.

If anyone is interested in true liberty without government, you should read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard or Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression by Mary Ruwart.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Sproul]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Majic's Political Easter Egg: Be the first to post the official name of the "First International" in this thread and send Majic a U2U with a link to your post, and you will be awarded 500 PTS points.

International Workingmen's Association.

Ok, I'll let someone else play now.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Personally, I'm a post-anarchist. I'm pretty much the opposite of the below.

Stuff I used to do:

1. Fill out the military recruitment coupons in the school counselors office with the names of people I didn't like.

2. When a party was getting lame, I'd stand up on a keg with a lit match and burn a few dollars. People would FREAK OUT and start shouting profanity at me. I explained that I wasn't a materialist, and believed that money is merely a score-keeping gambit to oppress the majority, etc. I was forcibly ejected from all kinds of parties for that.

3. I would shout at pacifists protesting draft registration in the 80's: "DON'T BURN A DRAFT CARD---BURN A BANK!"

4. Play my guitar amp on "11"

5. Burn a flag, and lecture passersby that I wasn't protesting anything, just disposing of my own personal property in whatever way I saw fit.

6. Sign up to use the "free speech microphone" (!) and hold it in silence for a couple of minutes, until the moderator would try to yank it away. Then I'd start a lecture on why political discourse was itself a socializing activity that undergirds the status quo.

7. Spraypaint a "Dobbshead" stencil on supermarket signs.

8. Make my own money and try to buy stuff with it. Sometimes people took a few "mybucks" if they liked my art.

9. Show up at a leftist rally with my own bullhorn and start chanting "The Left never always works against revolt - BECAUSE THE LEFT NEVER REVOLTS AGAINST WORK!"

10. Sell issues of "Smile" and "Snarl" magazine.

11. Issue my own magazine as "Karen Eliot."

.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Majic's Political Easter Eggs


Originally posted by Durden
International Workingmen's Association.

Correct! You score another 500 PTS Points!

1500 for you so far tonight!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
society is not mature enough for anarchy yet as it is i think we are at about the stage or bratty toddlers.......*sigh* maybe in another few thousand years we will have collectively matured enough to live together in peace without an authoritarian figure watching over us and keeping us in check



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Anarchy never exists, there will always be some sort of social order, whether it's recognized as an official government or not.

Trying to create a lack of government is the stupidest, most moronic thing you can do. That would give way to an unprecedented oppression of the people through both the mob and tyrants.

It's the evils of a democracy, communist state, and a totalitarian oligarchy all rolled into one lawless joke.


Anyone who labels themselves an anarchist is a moron, plain and simple. Nothing but fools. Absolutely no justification.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join