Anarchy isn't that bad of an idea.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Governments which are really protecting and representing only one class of the citizens (those who own them) versus only kind of protecting the rest, are doomed to be corrupted and are destined to fail...

Anarchy is not an answer IMO, it's more like a reset button.

Solution lies in the future.

Socialism is the answer, not the failed versions of it, but the future iterations of the systems which are in existence today (Sweden is a good example of this) and work well for rich and poor, for workers and business owners, for the government and all the individuals

I'm all for Anarchy.

The hard part is cults and small communities will pop up with really harsh laws that you can accidentally break.

Stick to yourself if it breaks out.

Capitalism fails if fraud or theft is allowed into the system. We can't prevent fraud/theft from entering the system without creating laws, regulations, and punishments for violations. We can't have regulations and punishments without establishing an institution to regulate and punish. To pay for that, we need taxation and government. This is why you can't have free-market anarchy.

Anarchy exists right where it belongs: in the minds of free-market intellectuals who spend their days in think tanks.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Despite common opinions (perpetuated by those in power possibly) there have been civilizations in history who managed quite well without organized leadership.

I watched a documentary just a few nights ago, but the civilization in question completely escapes me unfortunately. It seems they never went to war (and it wasn't a part of their culture), they had a central structure in their closed city, presumably built for social events, meeting, trading etc, but no government, no royalty, no elite leadership. And they managed to build a vast city over centuries, with a sophisticated water system, arable land around them...

It really was remarkable. I just wish I could remember their name. I'd love to learn more about them, their society in particular.

I think we are not far from a complete revolution when it comes to governance. Whether that will be forced upon the citizens by an outside catastrophe, or whether the citizens rise up, it will likely happen.

Several countries are moving in that direction.

Notably, France is on the cusp of another revolution. They're moving closer to it every day, with protests, mass marches against government and "boss-napping". They are openly discussing a revolution across the country.

Britain is on the move too. We're expecting riots when the MP's expenses scandal breaks in July. Several MP's are apparently on suicide watch and being given counseling because they fear what abuses will be exposed. This adds to the already expected "summer or rage" being anticipated this year.

America is also on the verge. Quite frankly, the entire American financial system is fundamentally flawed. Long before the financial crisis the $ was doomed to fail. You can't pay back debt with nothing. So when the American people actually learn that their $ is going to fail at some time, calls will be made to abolish the current system.
There's also a massive right-wing mobilization against government right now. Texas is on the verge of becoming a rogue state, possibly leading a popular revolt against the government.

And I say, bring it all on.
We need a change, and a bigger one than simply a different face in the houses of leadership. Our entire governmental system (in every nation) needs an overhaul. Our culture needs to change so that working for your country is a noble deed and not a financial benefit at the cost of the people. We need smaller government, less-intrusive and less controlling. Smaller corporations not able to manipulate global markets to make a killing (literally).

Basically, we need to go back to governments working for the people, and not for the economic profit of the few at the expense of the many.

Capitalism as we know it has failed. It's made the wealthy wealthier at the expense of the populace. Money is being thrown into black pits of government, ever-expanding and ever-intrusive into how we run our lives.

It all needs to change, and I look forward to seeing it over the next decade.

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

Anarcho-Capitalism is a horrible, dangerous idea. I really can't stress that enough. If there were only small businesses it might be a good idea, but in this case you're just exchanging a somewhat scary but at least accountable monolithic institution, with completely unaccountable monolithic institutions. Look at whats' happening in the economy, its a perfect example; after that vampire Reagan and the republicans took the majority in congress they hammered away at financial regulation, unfortunately the Clinton administration essentially did the same thing just to a lesser degree,..and look what happened. This is often couched in terms of individual freedom, yet it essentially represents a significant decline in individual freedom and social power. The government is bad, but corporations are WORSE.
As for taxes, i don't mind them so much. what bothers me is that the richest people, many of whom don't earn the money they have, often pay very little, or no taxes at all. Something like 50 of the Fortune 500 pay NO INCOME TAXES. I can barely afford rent, yet some executive who makes a six-figure salary can't be borthered to? Give me a break. Also, the problem is what our taxes are wasted on, our military budget is insane, greater than England, Germany, France, Russia COMBINED! If my tax dollars went to something actually useful, like cleaning up the environment, building sustainable power plants, funding a nationalized healthcare system, I wouldn't mind. This is all coming from the authoritarian right, you see all this fury about taxes and social welfarist policies isd because they have to destroy the idea that we should take care of and be responsible for eachother, because we're human. That idea is anathema to massive concentrations of private power.

reply to post by NGNM85


In theory it works fine. And politicians are bought out by corporations anyways. In an anarcho-capitalist society there would be absolute freedom for everyone. That sounds fine.

With anarchy, there is no law.

So if someone wants to kill you, they can. The only way to prevent that is to CONSTANTLY defend yourself, or have a family member avenge you.

The powerful will get many followers, enslaving people.

But ANYTHING can happen. I like having a sense of security. Anarchy is the step before government. Government is not bad, it is the people who run it at times.

If this country was under anarchy, or has been, you can kiss all of your sweet toys good bye.

The saddest thing about it is that a people get the government they desire, allow, and deserve.

Two hundred years ago, we in the US were given the greatest opportunity mankind was ever given.

We were blessed with men I truly believe were inspired by the Great Architect, otherwise, they could not have come up with a document as they provided us.

Continually blessed, we began our own undoing.

Today, we've turned our backs on the very principles that made us great, that blessed our nation, and provided a measure of security for our offspring.

And maybe the Great Architect, whom we turned our back on, will be compelled to teach us a lesson.

Zeus, slow to look, always looks in his notebook.

And I fear what will happen when the time for our lesson arrives.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


Government = Violence and force

There is always law in human organization. It is called Natural Law and it comes from our own observations through generations.

Humankind is now in possession of nearly 10,000 years of human knowledge. This is not the anarchy of ancient people we are talking about. This is a refined philosophy developed by a number of great thinkers over the eons.

Anarchy has more than one meaning. It can mean the absence of central authority with complete chaos as a result but it can also mean the same thing except the result is that people still respect each other and realize that the only thing they do not have is a central source of violence to fear. They can still respect each other and enter into voluntary associations for mutual benefit.

Here is something to familiarize yourself with the concept.



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 5/9/2009 by UFOTECH]

Anarchism can only exist in a few places :

1) Inside of a state
2) At a place no one wants or cares about

Reason being, who will defend the anarchist? You can't fend of Chinese bombers and thousands of trained troops with a few guns you know.

If there was a city of anarchist on top of a huge gold mine who/what is going to protect them from the impending wave of booty seekers in the form of a state? Shall we all become like Iraqis fighting off the invaders in a war of attrition? Oh that sounds like fun.

I've never seen this point addressed coherently.

reply to post by autsse


I will go you one further, Anarchism can only exist when the people of this world grow tired of the violence inherent in statism and decide not to support it any longer. When we start to work for our common good without coercion and threat of violence but because volunteerism makes our community function more efficiently.

Anarchy will require further social evolution than exists today. It would have to take over the education of the young and perhaps if the ideas of volunteerism and non-coercive cooperative interactions and natural law were taught early and repeated often in a generation or 2 it would help us evolve to the next level.

To say for instance it aint going to happen sells short humankind's nature to evolve to superior forms of co-existence. I think we can.



[edit on 5/9/2009 by UFOTECH]

It is not an idea, it is the natural way things should be.

- Government is to societies in solving problems as Vaccines are to people in preventing diseases. - They only exasperate the problems they create by not allowing a NATURAL order to take its inevitable form, if it was not for artificial manipulation of our world. - David King (myself)

By definition, 'Anarchy' means a society without government or law. It is therefore generally regarded as a state of chaos that would result from the removal of the (Assumed to be) necessary systems of control; government. Previously it was the monarchy, and the bloodlines' formulated opposing religions to cause the desired chaos to introduce THEIR order, usually presented as 'new,' but as many know, the genealogically connected secret societies have been working incrementally to dominate our planet... This is not new at all.

It is only generally regarded as 'chaos' by those who have been indoctrinated by others using the term to describe chaotic events, and those who think government is necessary because mankind is 'corrupt' and somehow bad... People have lost touch with reality, and the natural balance, on every level... The sun shines like crazy every day, and the majority continues to spend thousands of dollars a year on Oil & electric bills, assume voting for one selected globalist frontman out of 4, for FOUR years instead of taking responsibility for our own lives, etc... I could go on, and I will, stay tuned to the link on my signature for a book I'm writing.

These artificial systems of manipulation that have been going on for thousands of years too long are violating the natural laws of nature & order, discovery & formation of symbiotic relationships by means of what would have been a progression of intuitively instinctive communication without even need for words, as tribes have learned to do unto others as what is obviously the way we want to be treated ourselves, and if we are happy & living in peace with ourselves & our world, we will treat others with the same positive love we feel.

This is not an ideology, or desire for perfection, I am just aware of the big picture 3 dimensionally. In this day and age, knowing the truth is exhilarating and very fulfilling, however the initial assumption that the conspiracy realities that have plagued us through ridicule & ignorance due to the very system of control & manipulation that even this very post would not be necessary if our planet were not infected by Draconian... But that's another story.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by Time=Now]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Time=Now]

reply to post by dooper


Great Architect???

Oh, please.

Men are responsible for their own actions - we are not pawns in a cosmic game of Good vs Evil.

We are our own mistakes, and must take responsibility for those, not blame them on a supreme being who may or may not exist.

In an ideal world, anarchy, same as true communism (no not the soviet variety, that is NOT communism) would be vastly superior to the systems we have in place.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and in that I agree that anarchy can't work.

However, if we can get past the resource wars, the ideology wars (which some insist on perpetuatin) then we have a chance of surviving as a species.

If not, then people who perpetuate false ideologies will be to blame for our extinction.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
With anarchy, there is no law.

So if someone wants to kill you, they can. The only way to prevent that is to CONSTANTLY defend yourself, or have a family member avenge you.

The powerful will get many followers, enslaving people.

But ANYTHING can happen. I like having a sense of security. Anarchy is the step before government. Government is not bad, it is the people who run it at times.

If this country was under anarchy, or has been, you can kiss all of your sweet toys good bye.

So because murder is against the law nobody can kill you? Right.

The older I get the more fond of anarchy I become. Every law on the books is useless. Not a single law prevents anyone from acting in any way that violates your rights. Everyday people murder, steal, rape, abuse, torture, etc... despite countless 'laws.'

You are either going to behave in a criminal manner or you arent. No law is going to stop anyone from doing anything criminal.

And if anyone out there is honestly supressing some criminal urge only because it's "against the law" then frankly you do not deserve to be living among us. Under the current system that person will be allowed to commit their crime countless times over and over. The absence of laws would have no effect whatsoever on crime. In fact, the absence of the entity which coddles the criminal and allows him to go on being a criminal for decades, crime may actually decrease.

No law has ever prevented one murder, one rape or one theft. Laws waste the extorted funds, coddle criminals, punish non-criminals (pot heads for example) and block real solutions.

As a self-described Anarchist I have to weigh in on this one.

Most of the people here are pretty off base about what they think Anarchism would mean. As frankidealist points out it's not necessarily the lack of organization, like a lot of people seem to think.

It's the lack of coercive authority. An-archy literally translates to 'without authority", just like mon-archy means 'one authority'.

Frankidealist misses the point though when he talks about anarcho-capitalism. Capitalist institutions are authoritarian by nature.

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown: "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

[edit on 11-5-2009 by milesp]

reply to post by milesp


I don't miss the point.

Capitalism isn't supposed to be slavery.

I'm talking about ultimate freedom. You would be able to buy and sell anything on the market. You could make a store without a license to do it. You could do all the things you want to without a license or without government from stopping you. The reason why capitalism is hated is because only a few get to do it and that's because only the government gives authority to those people. This is state-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism would be true capitalism. I very well am aware of what anarcho-capitalism is. It's absolute economic freedom.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


It would be economic freedom for those who can buy it. For the poor it would be a hell, probably worse than the one they live in now.

Let me state it again! There is nothing Anarchist about capitalism!

reply to post by milesp


That's not completely true. Under our current system today poor people are barred from owning businesses anyways-- so this system would allow for people to own their own business without government license-- even poor people could do it.

Poor people could create their own business.

Under government capitalism-- only people who have vested interest with the government can have a business.

Here-- poor people could form any business they want. And besides, I would like a moderate form of anarchy... perhaps a mix between both-- anarcho-capitalism and social anarchy.



[edit on 12-5-2009 by Frankidealist35]

Here, here! More anarchy, more freedom, more fun!

Originally posted by dooper
Two hundred years ago, we in the US were given the greatest opportunity mankind was ever given.

We were blessed with men I truly believe were inspired by the Great Architect, otherwise, they could not have come up with a document as they provided us.

Continually blessed, we began our own undoing.

Oh dear, I'm going to puke....

Leaving aside the blatant "US is great, fudge everyone else" ego massaging there, you do realise that the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence were based off English and French ideas that came wayyyyy before you guys thunk it up, right? Of course you did....

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
That's not completely true. Under our current system today poor people are barred from owning businesses anyways-- so this system would allow for people to own their own business without government license-- even poor people could do it.

Poor people could create their own business.

Under government capitalism-- only people who have vested interest with the government can have a business.

Here-- poor people could form any business they want. And besides, I would like a moderate form of anarchy... perhaps a mix between both-- anarcho-capitalism and social anarchy.

Why are poor people barred from owning business? I wasn't aware that this was the case. In fact, here in the UK at least, anyone could start a business tomorrow. Wether you are poor or not does not come into wether you can start a business.

[edit on 17/5/09 by stumason]