I Am Not An Anarchist, Nor A Traitor To My Country...

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


Well, not to pop the bubble, but the violence - while not a part of anarchism - would definately be a result of it. Anarchistic philosophy makes the assumption that all people are decent and want to get along with one another, and that it's only "the state" that keeps them from doing so. The unfortunate reality is that those divisions would exist with or without a state. People are competitive creatures, and can be quite horrible to one another.

Let's say we have an anarchic society. And some poor fool has whatever sociopathic mental imbalance needed to make a serial killer of him. He does not need a "state" at his back to be a dangerous psychopath. How do you handle this? You have no police. You have no investigative department. You're all equally in charge of yourselves, and either you compromise your anarchism and create a governmental body to handle the threat, or you pursue individual vigilantism... And a quick thumbing through the pages of reality is that vigilantes rarely ever get the right person. This would result in reprisals, then feuding, etc. Eventually the anarchic society will be forced to abandon anarchy just to handle all the problems caused by people just being people, even the nonviolent ones.

Nice idea, makes a great coffee table book, becomes retarded when applied to live humans

this is exactly why humans need to be controlled.

i actually created my own system similar to anarchy, in which everyone fends for themselves, but there is a government whos only power lies within defense from national invasion, large disputes between large groups of people within the country (like feuds between cities), and if there is ever a problem like a serial killer the people will try to solve it themselves, if they cannot, they will ask the government to get involved, and they will solve the problem, there is no tax, the government gets funded from donations, if there id something like a fire, the whole community will get involved to help take it out, people are free to go and come as they please. i call this Freearchy

of course humans in their current state are not ready for this type of system

if anyone can give me critism to my system so i can better perfect it, it would be appreciated

[edit on 23-1-2008 by tankthinker]

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


It seems that I, like many, may have a misperception of just what an 'anarchist' is. I'll be investigating it for myself now, but if you have any sources to recommend, I'd appreciate it.

Wow. Am I loving these responses, or what. I'm glad I started this thread. As to the conditioned thinking to what the definition of anarchy, I believe I posted the link to Wikipedia and another website for definitions to clear that up. Anarchy is not generally known as something good, but to Me a "Big Brother" society where your every action is followed and watched like your criminal before you do anything is far worse.

I know I've heard the "if you don't have nothing to hide, why does it bother you" statement before. I say, "if I've done nothing, why are you watching Me"?

When I say that I am not an anarchist, I do mean that specifically because of the person who is a willing anarchist is someone who thrives totally on chaos without thought to others welfare or well-being in order to have a total lack of control throughout society by having no leaders and governing himself. This is not what I am about in the least. I understand that there are people who wish people like George W Bush or Dick Cheney were dead or that the United States should fall. I am not one of those people. When I speak about those two chuckleheads, I am specifically talking from a perspective of someone who understands the United States policies on war, alliances, and Third World countries with despotic dictators. In other words, I’m not just spouting out meaningless drivel because I can use “Freedom of Speech” to hide behind but that I completely understand the meanings of a policy shift from being an ally to a country and then the next day because of the American populations perception the United States Government decides to leave that country, its people, or whoever collectively hanging out to dry.

reply to post by tankthinker


Sounds a lot like the United States in 1788! Until the US Civil War, the Federal Government's sole source of income were taxes on imported goods. Citizen militias made it difficult to justify the economic cost of maintaining a large standing army. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of Federalism. As an aside, it strikes me as odd that States seek to expand by acquiring new territory, rather than by becoming "more finely grained" as populations grow. Why must nation states act like dinosaurs, getting bigger and bigger, rather than like a cell which undergoes mitosis. In 1790, the United States had a population of 4 million citizens. Why don't we have 130 states today?

The most valuable feature of federal government is that it provides a framework for making and enforcing agreements among parties. I find it quite a trivial perk of my present federal government that it bends over backwards so that I am equal among my peers in my ability to purchase the same trademarked hamburger anywhere I go.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by America Jones]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Well, not to pop the bubble, but the violence - while not a part of anarchism - would definately be a result of it. Anarchistic philosophy makes the assumption that all people are decent and want to get along with one another, and that it's only "the state" that keeps them from doing so. The unfortunate reality is that those divisions would exist with or without a state. People are competitive creatures, and can be quite horrible to one another. to live humans

I disagree...

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

dienekes.blogspot.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Science believes we are naturally altruistic...

al·tru·ism (áltroo ìzzəm)

noun
Definition:

1. selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others

2. belief in acting for others' good: the belief that acting for the benefit of others is right and good

It is society that turns people into selfish creatures because the system keeps us divided and competing with each other.

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")

Source

Why does the Human race have such a low opinion of itself? When you say people are basically evil you are also including yourself in that? I don't consider myself to be evil in any way. It's that attitude that creates fear of other people, keeps us from organizing and bettering our lives. Look at the ruling elites, they are extremely organized with their little secret societies. That is the answer to our problems, organization and cooperation, but the system forces us to compete and be at odds with each other. The system makes us fear each other and quickly comes down on any organized group that it feels is a threat, workers unions for example. Cultural movements are a good example, the state uses scapegoats, Manson, Vicious, to discredit movements in the eyes of the general public.

The real evil is the state not the people.

[edit on 24/1/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


So those are the best two sources you got? I've already found a couple I find to be more trustworthy than Wiki. How's that fascist jack boot taste, BTW? Oh, that's right, you oppose such things, sorry.

reply to post by ANOK


Who said anything about good or evil? I said that anarchy makes the assumption that all people are nice to one another. They are, in point of fact, not. And you can point to all the scientific studies you want, but i know too many three year olds to believe that a child stays altruistic for very long.

Now I'm sure you can blame "society" (which society? All through history, ALL societies have faced these problems) but anarchism makes no proposal to get rid of society. Instead it pretends that an anarchic society will somehow "beat the system." Unfortunately the numerous attempts at an anarchic society have failed - not always in a bad way, but someone always winds up in charge.

reply to post by tankthinker


Government funded by donations would only ever help the donors, with favor given to the big ones. What you're talking about is basically a Mafia-style protection racket.

Also, don't assume that humans will ever "change to be ready for it" - we've remained pretty much the same socially and biologically for about ten thousand years, and it's only the conceit of the present that makes us feel we are far above and beyond the people of the past.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
When I say that I am not an anarchist, I do mean that specifically because of the person who is a willing anarchist is someone who thrives totally on chaos without thought to others welfare or well-being in order to have a total lack of control throughout society by having no leaders and governing himself. This is not what I am about in the least. I understand that there are people who wish people like George W Bush or Dick Cheney were dead or that the United States should fall. I am not one of those people. When I speak about those two chuckleheads, I am specifically talking from a perspective of someone who understands the United States policies on war, alliances, and Third World countries with despotic dictators. In other words, I’m not just spouting out meaningless drivel because I can use “Freedom of Speech” to hide behind but that I completely understand the meanings of a policy shift from being an ally to a country and then the next day because of the American populations perception the United States Government decides to leave that country, its people, or whoever collectively hanging out to dry.

Do I agree with that policy shift? Not necessarily. It all depends on the policy shift, the reason for said policy shift, and how it is handled, on whether I agree with it or not. It’s been well documented throughout the newspapers, countless books, and other foreign polices that we being one of the mightiest countries in the world helped out people like Osama bin Laden. This is not a conspiracy theory in the least but an actual fact through what is called a “surrogate war” during the Cold War where our country was butting heads with the Russian’s on a daily basis decided to go a different route to resolve a problem. Let Me take a moment to explain a “surrogate war” for the uninitiated here on this website.

A “surrogate” is a go-between, for those who don’t know what that is, and an example of that might be a surrogate mother. This is a mother who is to carry to term a fetus within her womb for another woman who can not bare children for one reason or another. An example of the reasons for this might be something like the woman is barren or the man is “shooting blanks.” Well, lets look at the Cold War for a moment through the eyes of the “surrogate war” in Pakistan and Afghanistan during the 70’s, 80’s, & 90’s. Now, we all know the facts about the Cold War where the American population was kept scared at all times by the impending threat of nuclear annihilation through Russia and America’s MAD Program or better known as the Kremlin and Pentagon’s Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios, terrorist hi-jackings, and other constant reminders of government out of control from C.I.A. high-profile assassinations to the Iran-Contra debacle with John Poindexter and Colonel Oliver North.

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
Read "By Way of Deception". I can't remember the author's name but he was an ex-Mossad agent and he talks about Mossad's operations in the 70s and 80s.

I'll have to take a look at this book. I've always been interested in the Mossad and the hunt for the Nazi's. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Also, don't assume that humans will ever "change to be ready for it" - we've remained pretty much the same socially and biologically for about ten thousand years, and it's only the conceit of the present that makes us feel we are far above and beyond the people of the past.

Sry but you don't have a good understanding of history. We have completely changed socially just since WWII, and then again we shifted socially in the 60's.

Also no one said we were always 'nice' to each other, that is not something the government has anything to do with controlling. You can't really say though that people would not be 'nice' to each other if we were living as autonomous social units with no central government, because you have never experienced anything but the life you have now in this system. You can make assumptions all day on how people will act but it doesn't make it fact. What is fact is what science discovers through scientific testing and what has happened in our recent history, such as Spain which I gave a link for if you bothered to look, and even Norway since their revolution in 95.

Humans are quite capable of cooperating and working together without an overbearing authority ruling over us and exploiting our labour for their own gains. Why do people always want to blame regular working people for what the ruling elites have created? Who's side are you on, do you understand your own history? People need to realise they've been conditioned to react with distrust towards anything that questions the status quo. People have been conditions to believe they're free when they're nothing but slaves. People have been conditioned to fear change. People have been conditioned to fear FREEDOM...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Also, don't assume that humans will ever "change to be ready for it" - we've remained pretty much the same socially and biologically for about ten thousand years, and it's only the conceit of the present that makes us feel we are far above and beyond the people of the past.

Sry but you don't have a good understanding of history. We have completely changed socially just since WWII, and then again we shifted socially in the 60's.

Also no one said we were always 'nice' to each other, that is not something the government has anything to do with controlling. You can't really say though that people would not be 'nice' to each other if we were living as autonomous social units with no central government, because you have never experienced anything but the life you have now in this system. You can make assumptions all day on how people will act but it doesn't make it fact. What is fact is what science discovers through scientific testing and what has happened in our recent history, such as Spain which I gave a link for if you bothered to look, and even Norway since their revolution in 95.

Humans are quite capable of cooperating and working together without an overbearing authority ruling over us and exploiting our labour for their own gains. Why do people always want to blame regular working people for what the ruling elites have created? Who's side are you on, do you understand your own history? People need to realise they've been conditioned to react with distrust towards anything that questions the status quo. People have been conditions to believe they're free when they're nothing but slaves. People have been conditioned to fear change. People have been conditioned to fear FREEDOM...

I'm assuming this comment was not directed at Me, but at TheWalkingFox for those posts? I have to go through and read everyone's post a little more thoroughly when I get the chance. I will say this, ANOK let TheWalkingFox post what he/she is willing to without attacking knowledge of history, as you just never know what that person, including Myself has learned and from where.

The reason I say this is for one, if I had to reference everything I have ever stated here, I'd spend the whole 8000 characters maximum just on references. I can quite literally say that I had crunched libraries full of information about this stuff but when I was a kid, a teen, and a young adult, I never thought to write down all the books I'd read.

The second reason is of course to keep this civil among ourselves, and keep the focus of the thread on track, which is about anarchy.

Thanks to all for your posts. Keep up the good work on your own individual searches for knowledge and expansion of your mind.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I like the fact that people got interested in this thread. I started it with the intent to point out how people make judgemental comments based on little to no actual facts other than what they hear you say. Like the guy who made the statement to Me that he thought I was an anarchist.

Based on what? That I disagree with the government? It's not so much that I disagree with the government, it's the government corruption and swindling I disagree with. The lies, the hiding their ulterior motives through propaganistic tendencies, and the C.O.G. - Continuity Of Government mindset the government officials seem to always have.

The fact is that the government is made of people, who get put into a position of power, and then always abuse it. The lies and propaganda are one thing, but those are easily seen through with anyone who has a clear head on their shoulders. It's definately the Continuity Of Government part that has Me concerned as Hell though.

Let's take the Greenbrier Hotel as a for instance.

Greenbrier Hotel - Continuity Of Government Facility

This was or still is but on paper is closed, which as anyone who knows how the government means if it's closed on papers, this leaves room open to deniability, a Continuity Of Government facility. Meaning here, if the Atom Bomb was dropped, or Heaven forbid an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile were fired from Russia, or more like a whole mess load, and of course our Government returned the favor for the M.A.D. Program, or Mutually Assured Destruction thinking of the Pentagon, then Senators and other Politicians would have fallen back to this now defunct facility in order to continue the role of the government.

Now, some say, yeah, this sounds good, but so what? Now, just how self-centered and idiotic do you have to be, to build a monumental facility in order to have a Continuity Of Government, yet there's nothing for John Q Public? Okay, to continue government, without the people it is supposed to protect, is just a selfish way to say screw the little man and save the politicians butt.

Oh yes, let's save the lieing people who steal all the tax money to sink trillions of dollars into a Top Secret facility and screw you and I.

I think not.

But then again, I know a lot more of the masterplans and C.O.G. stuff then most people, because I've been researching it My whole life. I believe wholeheartedly in the survival of man, and preferably all man. I have studied the Art of War all of My life and turned it into the Art of Peace for Myself.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
It's not so much that I disagree with the government, it's the government corruption and swindling I disagree with. The lies, the hiding their ulterior motives through propagandistic tendencies, and the C.O.G. - Continuity Of Government mindset the government officials seem to always have.

WOW!!! That's really quite believable now. Of course it's all about what you say, not what you do.

Originally posted by resistor

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
It's not so much that I disagree with the government, it's the government corruption and swindling I disagree with. The lies, the hiding their ulterior motives through propagandistic tendencies, and the C.O.G. - Continuity Of Government mindset the government officials seem to always have.

WOW!!! That's really quite believable now.

Of course it's all about what you say, not what you do.

Okay, I'm sure exactly how to reply to that, as I'm not sure of the context.
I noticed that's a Batman quote though.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Great topic. The fundamental thing that I see being overlooked in all of the arguments in defense of anarchy is that humans have a natural instinct to take charge or to have power over others for personal gain or personal aggrandizement simply to feed their ego. General pathos was touched upon in a few of these posts but singular monsters are not the real enemy of a self governing society. Some people have a natural tendency to strive for power and it will never go away. Historically, the only way to deal with this is not to ignore or stifle this trait, but to harness it for the benefit of the whole by producing leaders of a benevolent nature who organize and protect the rest of society against the ambitions of those with nefarious intentions. In the absence of a force to counter this natural tendency, history has proven that this power vacuum will always be filled, and whether or not those that fill that void are working for or against the benefit of the society would then just be a roll of the dice. The seizure of power by force and the use of ruthless methods to maintain that power is by far easier than by being benevolent and just, which is why history is filled primarily with the former and not the latter.Without some instrument to control personal ambition a true anarchistic society would never last.

reply to post by ANOK


How? Human society has not really moved beyond two tribes waving pointy sticks at each other over who gets to eat from the one banana tree. You can put plates in its lip, make it open a Mcdonalds, teach it some weird new religion, and fold its feet in half all you want, but in the end? Bald apes screaming at each other of a food source.

reply to post by ItsHumanNature


Okay, this is a good point. The question I will ask though is, what if ego is not a part of the equation when it comes to leadership? I have actually avoided leadership because of the responsibility and extra effort, not to mention the fact that money usually is not offered. But, because the leaders I have been under generally do not know what is going on all around them, I tend to get the respect and leadership not by seeking it willingly, but because since I am a fair man, and I tend to have everyone come to Me because they trust Me, and I find out exactly what is going on.

I have been taught world leadership skills, learning Art of War, World History, War Politics, the list goes on and on. Because I did not want leadership though, I never willingly sought it. People from what I have been told will be drawn to a natural leader, which I can attest to because I have seen people come to Me that were a lot higher position and ask My advice, counsel, or guidance.

I only picked the Spartan's as My moniker here because since I was six I was drawn to Thermopylae, Leonidas, and the Spartan's because of interest, desire, and their skills as death-dealing warriors, among other things. Most people assume from what they have heard or read that the Spartan's were homosexual, which in fact is not true whatsoever, they were bi-sexual. They had wives to bear children and practiced male to male sex while in the field when not in battle. I am hetersexual, just so you know. The reason I brought all of this up, is that a friend of Mine, a psychic, someone who I do not pay for advice, has told Me that I was Leonidas in a past life. I really do not know what I think of psychics, because I know a lot more than I am willing to say here.

What the psychic explained to Me, is that whatever a person willingy seeks out in this life, their areas of interest, is exactly what they were during a past life. Again, I have referenced that I honestly do not know what I want to believe of in psychics.

Oh yeah, the movie "300" based on the graphic novel recently, was more Hollywood than actual fact. I can honestly say this because there were a lot of things that were totally innaccurate within the story. From the Spartan's wearing sandals, they walked everywhere barefoot, to them "going for a walk", as they marched everywhere with complete discipline, to the short hair, as the Spartan's had long hair, which they combed out after doing calistenics before a battle. The Oracle was not directly under the control of the Ephos either, the Oracle of Delphi was a central nexus point in Delphi, who paid slaves and others for knowledge, kind of the like the C.I.A., they would have been considered an intelligence agency in modern times but through religious taboos of the day, they utilized that knowledge to guide people who willingly came to them through their own desire to "seek knowledge" from who they considered people who "spoke to the Gods."

I have read every book I could get My hands on about the Spartan's along with other books about warfare and knowledge of strategy. Oh yes, another reason why I re-directed this anarchy thread to the Spartan's, is that our system of President and Vice-President was modeled after the Two Kings of Sparta, one King who went to battle and one King that stayed home. The President of the United States of America "goes to war" with his words and politics, while the Vice-President stays home in place of him in case an assassination attempt were to actually be successful, or go to meetings the President can not, etc. But our current system of government was also model on the Roman society, where Senators and other politicians surrounded "Caeser" and wielded the power to shake money out of the purse strings or influence whether we go to war or not.

I do not believe in anarachy whatsoever. I believe, the U.S. Constitution however should be held in accord with the original intent of the "Founding Fathers" of a Government "by the people, for the people, and of the people",...and nowhere does it say that this is supposed to make the politicians richer than their wildest dreams by taking bribes, illegal or through "lobbying" which is a legal bribe, or from the power they can gain through influence from big industry, and abuse or misuse that same said power.

I do not believe in the power of the people voting at all, I never have, but then again that's because when you have a popular vote that can be thrown aside for the electoral vote, and in the midst the Supreme Court can cancel all of that like we had happen in 2000, which changes the Presidential Powers, and especially the Presidential Wartime Powers.

I see that their are too many loopholes for someone to steal the Presidency through a Coup d’état, and the part I am referencing specifically from Wikipedia is this "Linguistically, coup d’état is French for “a strike to the state” (coup [blow], d’ [to the] état, state). Analogously, the term also is casually used to mean gaining advantage on a rival, either by a group or a person, e.g. an intelligence coup, boardroom coup."

See that part about an intelligence coup? Well, how many elections have you heard of where people "accidently" left thousands of ballots in the car of their trunk, or so many mistakes were made, or where a lack of professionalism was what led to someone gaining power. I know how to read between the lines as the saying goes, seeing through the lies, or propaganda, whichever you choose to label it as, ans see both the facts that are there and the facts that are missing. As the saying goes, it's not just what is not said that's important but also what is unsaid.

No, I don't particularly like Wikipedia as a reference because anyone can edit it, but generally it is one of the most easily explained and diverse reference material, because it allows a lot more than the standard dictionary answer.

If anarachy is supposed to be a society without leaders, but people who rule themselves, then why is that the way history represents America? The preamble of the U.S. Contitution says :

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's the "Founding Fathers" telling King George, go shove your crown and tea up your wazoo, as we are not taking it anymore, we are now a nation of citizens, who are free of having a King.


[edit on 26-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]