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.

 

Anarchy isn't that bad of an idea.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Government is illegitimate in the eyes of many anyways. Anarchy isn't lawlessness. People would still enforce crimes against society and against individuals just in a privatized way. People should govern things by themselves. The government just gets in the way a lot. Why should we have it around if it's been proven throughout history that it's a bad thing? I would like to have a legitimate government but I know all too well that a legitimate government is a utopia. So, anarchy I think is the best solution, but it gets a bad rap from the MSM... so just open your eyes a bit... anarchy isn't that bad of an idea.




posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
This country needs a revolution the way I see it and after that's done we should kick out all the CEO's of every major corporation and all the bankers too.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I think that original creator of the idea is Bakunin. A lot of his work was taken by communists (Marx, Engels, Lenin) and twisted around into their own ideology, often opposite of what Bakunin suggested.



[edit on 2-5-2009 by greshnik]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by greshnik]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I'm not in favor of creating a socio-anarchist society. I'm all for a capitalist-anarcho society... I still would like to have the free market... but it would be free for everyone... not some half worked out version of state capitalism... I just think that anarchy is a far better alternative than government.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Revolutions keep things fresh and clean, otherwise the dirt starts to build up and before you know it's filthy.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Even if the world broke out in total anarchy, sure it would be messy for some time, but even anarchy would finally reach an equilibrium point.

Medved Wiki Page
I once called up Michael Medved's radio show a really long time ago, when a guy by the name of John Zerzan was being interviewed.
Zerzan Wikipedia

He asked me what my "ideal" society was. I answered, "communism, with god as the government".

He hung up on me, then began to go off on a tangent about communism. It was a good feeling.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by sticky]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I think Anarcho-Capitalism is a better idea. Its the best of both worlds, really. There is no government regulations telling you how, when and with whom to do your business and nobody has the right to take your property or money from you (i.e. taxes, etc.). Just my $0.02


TA



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I think Anarcho-Capitalism is a better idea. Its the best of both worlds, really. There is no government regulations telling you how, when and with whom to do your business and nobody has the right to take your property or money from you (i.e. taxes, etc.). Just my $0.02


TA


I was quite young then (18) and a total rebel. I do agree that anarcho-capitalism idea is much better, people can't be completely unaccountable for their actions.

We all have this idea when we go to a government building for some kind of service, if they had competition for those civil services, those places would be so out of business quick.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by sticky]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Anarchy sounds more like devolution than advancement.

A productive society has to have organization. Large groups need people to make plans for the group.

In a perfect world that group would have the welfare of the people in mind but, unfortunately, greed and self interest is what drives our Government.

I agree that we need change but anarchy isn't the answer. The people who come out on top in such a situation would probably be much worse than the ones who are currently in power. We've granted them the power but in a condition of anarchy that power would be taken by force. What good could come of that?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Anarchy evolves into despotism which in turn leads to a dictatorship. While Republics turn into oligarchy's. Its what the people want the government to turn into.

In ancient Rome, the republic was taken over by a dictatorship and thus ensured that the roman empire lasted hundreds of years longer than the republic could have managed.

The same goes for America, the Ideology of the Republic will fall to a dictatorship in time when the person with the right know how decides to cross the Rubicon and take over.

The only government form that is without corruption is the Wukagarky where I What U KNO am sole ruler over the Earth, it differs from a monarchy where I What U KNO have the best interests of the people at heart.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Hahaha, that would be a despot of itself wouldn't it?



I really like the idea of anarchy. It just gets a bad rap from the media but it actually isn't that bad of an idea.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Human society started out as an anarchic form of Government. Over time, it evolved and as more and more people were present in society, the Government grew in order to manage it, from villages to towns, to cities and then to empires.

If we woke up tomorrow and there was no central Government, then within 100 years it would be back... And it might not be so accomodating as the one we have now.

As the great man himself once said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”"....

EDIT: For 2 O'clock in the morning spelling...

[edit on 2/5/09 by stumason]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
We might want to rethink that. Here in the US, we've had examples of small outbreaks of anarchy. Liberty City in Miami, in Los Angeles in '92, and New York.

You better think about that. Mass chaos, random violence, gangs, looting, stores closed and looted, neighborhoods burning, and the thin veneer of civilization was temporarily peeled away.

Now, imagine this on a national level. No banks, no money, no transportation, no food, no stores open, no nothing.

I've been where the gun rules. Where there is no morality. Where there is no police, no protection, no order. Only ruthless violence. And to survive, you have to be more ruthless.

Romantic ideas of anarchy are nothing like the brutal realities of the real thing.

Be real careful what you ask for.

You just might get it.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


That's the label that the mainstream media gives anarchy. But in reality-- anarchy is a peaceful world... and it would be one where we wouldn't need government. You should look up stuff about what anarchists say about the idea of anarchists... you've been lied to about the very meaning of the term.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I don't know. At this point in human evolution I think anarchy would not be wise.

Take Somalia for example. There is no active government in place there. Take a look at what things are like there. People are resorting to pirating in order to simply get by.

It is a place of filth, crime and disease now.

I do believe that here in the US our government should have LESS power rather than more. However, no government at all would surely be the down fall of this once great country of ours.

Our country was created "by the people for the people" but to eliminate this countries government all together would be wreckless and desctructive.

Anarchy just doesnt work....atleast not at this poin in human history. We are just not capable of living civilyand safely together with out some form of government.

You may think that it looks good on paper however keep in mind human nature and you will see where the problem lies, much the same as with communism. Human nature gets in the way.



[edit on 2-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Whilst the current crop of Anarchists believe what you say, for everyone of them there will be 1000 others who will happily use strength to get what they want.

As I said, humanity started out as anarchic, but once Tribe A realises that Tribe B is weaker, then it is merely a matter of time before they take their resources off them, by force if necessary. Then you have the begining of a Government. Tribe A is now even stronger than before and will look to other Tribes for further conquest. Other Tribes will band together to protect themselves from Tribe A, forming even more Government.

Human history is evidence that Anarchy would not work. It is self defeating.

The only way anarchy could survive would be if EVERYONE believed in it, but that is an impossibility.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Frank, I don't much give a damn about definitions, or opinions of definitions of others.

I'm telling you that in the absence of government, whatever government that may be, it's a disaster. It's bloody, it's fearful, and you never know if you'll have the luxury of the next breath.

Every sound is a threat. Every movement must be calculated. In a complete state of anarchy, you don't sleep. You get a series of brief, fitful naps. No real rest, and you can't afford to relax.

Your family? Everyone present is a problem. More mouths to feed, more to conceal, more to protect.

You will be sought out and killed just because you exist. No one trusts anyone else in the neighborhood. You and yours may be killed because you just may have something they don't.

And dead is for a long time.

Not to say that on occasion a society doesn't need a good enema or to hit the reset button.

But it's hell on earth when you do.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I understand your objections but governments have just gotten out of control. I'm not talking about a society without any organization what so ever. It's just that this government isn't representative of us. I advocate for an anarchist direct democracy kind of society. We should decide for ourselves what happens. There has to be some system of deciding things, but, government is proving to be more and more ineffective as time goes on and our government is proving itself just to be based on theory and nothing more, and, other governments aren't much better.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


No one more than me believes that the biggest self-delusional power-hungry idiots are those now running things in Washington, DC.

But, we the People, put them there. They all got elected.

If someone is suggesting a national state of anarchy would be superior, then that's a mistake.

Tens of thousands would die every single day. The numbers would be staggering. Ever see fifty people in person who died a violent death? Ever smell the stench of mass deaths with your own nose?

Ever see bodies by the dozen left lying around because no one can afford to expose themselves to bury them?

Ever see what the lawless without any morals whatsoever can do to weaker people? Children and women?

Our current political situation may suck like a black hole, but anarchy is worse.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Anarchy is like communism, in the true sense of the words, looks good on paper but once you factor in the human equation it doesn't work in reality.They are for personal responsibility but you have fear, greed and any various other human failings that would render these ideologies impotent.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join