It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by cos I
I wanna BE anarchy!
the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of political anarchism
[from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein to rule]
In anarchist situations, there is an absence of structure where people or individuals through one way or another, are able to control people. In practice, this does not work, why? The answer is that no two people have the exact same view on everything, which is not an effective way of running society. This is the very thing that anarchists want, individuals thinking on an individual basis, which is an extremely frightening an daunting prospect.
Firstly, in any political system no two people have the exact same view on everything. Such a concept is not the sole preserve of Anarchism. I find this to be somewhat of a strawman argument.
The last time I checked we were not part of the Borg Collective. Individuality is the very essence of freedom itself. Any form of control mechanism that suppresses individuality is a dangerous thing indeed. Our individuality, and free though is what has brought us all the way from apes to men, and secured our place as the dominant species on the planet
This page claims that there are ten things that one can do to promote anarchy. These ten things include:
1. OVERTHROW A SMALL COUNTRY AND ERADICATE IT'S BASE ECONOMY.
2. PLANT A BOMB IN THE WHITEHOUSE...
3. OR SNEAK INTO THE PRIME MINISTERS HOUSE WITH A JACKNIFE (HEHE)
4. BOMB A WORLD TRADE CENTER
5. ASSASINATE A PRESIDENT...LIKE JFK.
6. BECOME TOTALY INSOLANT TO AUTHORITY.
7. KILL A COP...(EH, WHAT'S THE LOSS? A DONUT DISPOSAL?)
8. START A METAL BAND
9. HACK THE PLANET INTO SUBMISSION. (HEHE)
10. DON'T VOTE.
Anarchy does not promote a system that is lawless, but a system in which individuals govern themselves. Decisions in anarchy would not be made by the ones in power, but by all individuals involved.
Well the above quote certainly seem to contradict that theory doesnt it? So here we have people wanting to achieve an individual thinking society' through means of violence.
In the early 13th century, the Sturlung era, the Commonwealth began to suffer from serious internal strife. The King of Norway began to exert pressure on his Icelandic vassals that they bring the country under his rule. A combination of discontent with domestic hostilities and pressure from the King of Norway led the Icelandic chieftains to accept Norway's Haakon IV as king by the signing of the Gamli sáttmáli ("Old Covenant") in 1262. This effectively brought the Commonwealth to an end.
The way to accomplish the transition is by devolving power back into the community. Initially by regional assemblies covering large areas, then devolving further as time progresses until decisions are made on the individual community level and the power for all decisions in an area rests within the local community. Such a transition would take time.
In order to have true anarchy, there cannot be any laws agreed upon… not a single solitary one. Once a single law is agreed upon as enforceable… it is no longer anarchy. If this wasn't true, then any unaddressed injustice would define civilization as anarchy. The essence of anarchy is ONLY non-enforceable understandings (with no prescribed penalties). However, one would soon learn that courtesy, respect and honesty is how one survives in a lawless society. One must be ethical... or else.
I have to admit that this one had me going back and forth throughout. I was for neformore one minute, and then OzWeatherman the next.
When it comes down to it though, the points that Oz made were substantial enough to get the node from me. While neformore's concept of anarchy is sound, it would be very hard to implement, as all too many people want power. In the struggle that would result from the control vacuum, select tyrants would come into power. As neformore so well points out in his argument, the "final three" kinds of government are indicative of how this one would go as well, only more violently.
I toss my vote to OzWeatherman. Congrats Oz!!
Great debate. I was impressed by both fighters. Both made strong points to prove their side of the issue. I found myself moving back and forth throughout.
Neformore did a fine job of swaying the definition away from the modern day version of what anarchism is into a more classical, political version, something I found as a strength in his position. He didn't move away from what he wanted to describe and conceded few points to his opponent. Where his argument lacked substance was in using some examples of what he was proposing. His opponent shot down the one he did offer pretty easily.
Ozweatherman made a really good effort in staying the course of his argument. Again, he didn't concede any points to his opponent as well. I found that he used his opponents argument against him in a much clearer fashion with each rebuttal made quite clearly. I think the turning point for me in this debate was his refuting the examples of other forms of government and showing how they have been, for the most part, successful for a long time. he also showed his opponents one example as a weak one.
Overall, I really enjoyed this debate. I like debates that use the fighters own words much more than the ones that rely heavily on external material.
Although a close one, with both fighters giving it a great effort, I gave this debate to Ozweatherman.