Anarchy is a necessary evil

Originally posted by LordBucket


No, I'm simply objecting to you calling anarchy evil. It isn't.

I didn't call anarchy evil, I called it a necessary evil, meaning it's good. Would you prefer I rename this thread "anarchy is a good thing" but then you would object that anarchy is not really a "thing." so maybe we should not worry about semantics. After all, semantics is just another form of control.

My point remains that whenever someone says anarchy is bad, which is about 99 percent of countries in the world, they make the claim based on the fact that anarchy allows the strong to prey on the weak. Whereas the government perpetuates weakness through welfare, anarchy strengthens weakness through struggle. The law of the jungle forces people to become strong, so they are not preyed upon. This means anarchy is good, I was pretty sure I was clear on this point. You are just concerned with me calling anarchy evil, even though I am for anarchy, so I think you are just battling semantics with me which really goes against the discussion since we agree on the same thing. I would ask the moderators to completely remove our posts because they are a topic derailment but then again I don't believe in a higher power telling me what to do or think or act.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by filosophia]

reply to post by filosophia


from my perspective the only justification of anarchy is what it suggest the best truth reality being freedom base, only out of freedom as the base reality, positive truth would be then really free, which would be a source of existence and since existence truth is alive then it is now more about life truth which necessitate more freedom base as absolute living reality

i hope you can follow what i mean here, but everyone should be more aware about the real issue in living, opportunism and wills as evil are because of truth issue they are after it to get those opportunities and wills from their lives
so the issue is truth life to protect by understanding the value of giving life to it from ourselves freely not just for absolute right as the source of all lives, but it is also to understand why do we feel like obliged to give life to what is right superior whn it doesnt look logical since it is superior and from my means the free aspect in giving is right but i never understood how that right is abused and what i am meaning to give then to the principle that principle as source of rights is not doing anything for those rights

so the answer is there, evil is always after the source of right as living truth and kill all rights livings it can from its free position as certainty that truth wouldnt be the living source, that is the answer we have to face, for people that hate to be abused from what they already meant to gave or faced that contradiction in giving meaning freedom in living positive means and not giving to negative life upon itself for any martyr dark masochist idea

so anarchy is meaning nothing stable planed objectively, you are free to deal objectively from what is there, it help the truth to be more alive, evil cannot know what truth is on unless it become obsessive to follow its buts lol which i doubt knowing how evil is first freedom pride and how truth would be more in a position to kick its head away

the concept of source is very clear now as living truth, so noone is suppose to pretend doing or meaning to do anymore in prooving being existing one, it is impossible even if you mean well, well must be first before meaning it as to it and not u

any living is first his true free existing fact as aware or conscious point, being truly existing freedom means you are living only from waht you would love to realize alone, from there, and you would hate then to do what others realized, if you dont sense that in your mind then you are not existing and that maybe ok but then you should not act as a living and use abstract words and concepts expressions, it is wrong

but a living should be also logically what cares for the value of positive absolute reality as living one point, so living rights of itself being that right at a point and able to sense objectively those rights existence as well as their sources and their lives realities
yes it is truth that give unconditionnally principally but it gives to what is superior to itself that is why only evil is getting anything from, what is superior to truth is living beyond truth so we cant see it because the maximum we see is truth being alive which is superior to gods lives and your god

I'm objecting to the fact that you're using the word "anarchy" but you picture it as ressembling, quote, "the wild west". You are using the word anarchy, but you don't seem to know what it means.

I think that's what Bucket is getting at too... The way you depict anarchy does make it look "evil". When it isn't.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by unityemissions
First off, Anarchy isn't ANY form of government, it's the absence of government.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by unityemissions]

As I said, No government works, anarchy is literally no government, so anarchy is the only form of government that works (meaning no government is better than a government).

The default government is simply the will of the individual, which is anathema to the collective will.

You're contradicting yourself again. It really hurts my brain.

No government is NO GOVERNMENT. It's not a form of government, IT'S NO GOVERNMENT.

This just goes to show how entirely brainwashed people are. They don't think people can form a civil organization without government.

and sorry philosophica to disagree with you a lot, there cant evil necessary, it is impossible evil like truth are concepts that are absolutely always, what is evil is all that negative source life existence ends
as truth is the positive source life ends

and when you mean truth or evil it is then you that the most free point of its life, so it is like you are trying to convince how you are a necessary evil living that all here must accept you as, lol no offense but just giving you perspective of what you say look like from the outside

reply to post by imans


Could you summarize what you are trying to say, imans ? I'm not quite managing to follow you.

This is the point of this thread:

What is more moral: a republic, democracy, communism, fascism, or anarchy.

anarchy is what say that nothing exist but it is alive yeah

Originally posted by filosophia
This is the point of this thread:

What is more moral: a republic, democracy, communism, fascism, or anarchy.

All forms of government, all collective constructs are fascist. Only the individual can make a moral choice.

Humans are social animals. Social groupings and collective cooperation are proven effective survival tools. When social groups make a collective decision, the morality of the strong will prevail. The weak will acquiesce to the will of the strong and government will again begin to form. Once the leaders have secured the absolute trust of the weak, the weak will allow them to govern without consensus once more. And corruption will again be the definitive government norm.

Strip away all government, denounce all law, remove money and organised mass production and distribution and too large a majority will simply panic and revert to the laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. This natural law, is not anarchy, it is simple lawlessness without morality. So in this sense, 21st century anarchy would likely be an evolutionary regression for mankind.






[edit on 4/5/2010 by teapot]

i believe anarchy is a primordial force, and therefore has no intentions.

i believe anarchy is the only force that controls "control".

when tyranny thrives and control is abused or exploited, the only force that can be utilized to break that control and restore balance, is anarchy.

this may be in the form of liberty...revolution...or chaos.



one of the more "raw" aspects of good/evil. but a necessary state at times none-the-less.

reply to post by filosophia


What is your definition of "moral" ? Moral is a very subjective concept.

Imagine every member having moderator rights on ATS.

That is anarchy and it won't work.

reply to post by Grey Magic


Sorry but that's nothing like anarchy. Anarchy is about there not being any power to have, not about everyone having his own nuclear bomb.

Originally posted by Grey Magic
Imagine every member having moderator rights on ATS.

That is anarchy and it won't work.

this is an assumption.

read about blackbeard and all the pirate cities that were completely lawless that lasted for quite some time and did fine. the only thing that eventually drove them out were tyrants like the british.

in fact the whole pirate system on the ship was anarchy. the captain only had authority during battle, and it was a position elected usually due to experience, but unanimous none-the-less. Pirates co-existed amongst each other for a good chunk of history, without any form of governance and limited democracy.

at the heart of true anarchy is natural democracy. Some go to the extreme and call this natural selection.

Democracy does not require authority, its the poeple utilizing the democracy that usually end up needing the authority/order. Not so much the case with pirates, they as a whole would decide where they went and what they were going to do, it was not uncommon to go through like 14 captains in 2 years.

in true anarchy, the need for governing is non-existant. And from a prejudiced point of view, this will always seem impossible.

i guess it depends on the crowd, maybe it only worked for pirates because they were all outlaws and had no other choice but to co-exist. Maybe it was the values even the common thief still had back then that made it possible.Maybe it was just all the rum and booty, i dunno but whatever it was they found a way to make it work.

so long as humans remain defiant, anarchy will exist in some form, somewhere.

reply to post by filosophia


OK, then how about making *everyone* on the 'task force' as part of the citizen agreement? With everyone making sure everyone is staying within the bounds of the citizens agreement, then no one single person or group of persons are capable of attaining the majority of the power over anyone else.

I'm not sure what 'laws' should be in place other than common sense thing's, like no killing, stealing, raping and such. Petty thing's like discrimination against gays or polygamists obviously wouldn't be in there like we do today. It's just something we'd have to work on in order to make it justifiable.

So long as a nation works together as a nation rather than as a bunch of greedy private entities, then I see nothing wrong with what I'm describing, could also put that in the citizen agreement. Work together for the betterment of everyone, or just leave the country. IDK!

There has to be something we can do to make an anarchy work properly, because I definitively agree that governments are a huge problem.

reply to post by sirnex


The founding fathers tried this I think, having everyone on the task force, in the form of the second amendment, where every able body is part of the militia. So if you imagine all rules swept away, anyone can own a gun if they wanted to. No more permits needed. But, what's ironic, is that because there is freedom, people will make permits and then follow them.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by sirnex

 

The founding fathers tried this I think, having everyone on the task force, in the form of the second amendment, where every able body is part of the militia. So if you imagine all rules swept away, anyone can own a gun if they wanted to. No more permits needed. But, what's ironic, is that because there is freedom, people will make permits and then follow them.

They half assed tried it, but still left a central government in place. If we make it everyone's duty to make sure everyone is acting accordingly to the citizen agreement, then no single entity or group of peoples are in power at all.

I see no problem with people owning a gun. If a criminal is going to have illegal access to a firearm, then it seem utterly idiotic for a government to take away such a necessity from it's law abiding citizens.

We don't need permits at all, such a concept is brand spanking new historically speaking. Do you think Og required a permit to build a mud hut, a spear and a bow and arrow? No, of course not, and this wasn't the case for the last 6,000 years. Only until the advent of (imo of course), electricity, did we start to see permits really take the forefront of government income. Then we started forcing people to give up a portion of their hard earned cash.

What we need is to do away with such idiotic concepts/ Work together as a nation for the nation and for the betterment of our life within the nation under a resource based economic system rather than a "if you believe a dollar has value then it has value" type of system where we freely print money out of thin air.

What we need is to treat EVERYONE as an entity of governmental power. We all have say and nothing changes until we all can reach mutual consensus. It might take time to implement something like that, but it's not "impossible". That's a word we need to do away with so we can more readily facilitate the necessary changes we need to make.

I used to have a lot of the same misconceptions.

Anarchy is commonly found to be a temporary condition that precedes dictatorship. Usually the chaos created that leeds to Anarchy is orchestrated by those seeking totalitarian takeover.

For a great comparison of the different political systems watch:

Overview of America

Google Video Link

Originally posted by zzombie
I used to have a lot of the same misconceptions.

Anarchy is commonly found to be a temporary condition that precedes dictatorship. Usually the chaos created that leeds to Anarchy is orchestrated by those seeking totalitarian takeover.

It's funny though when you think about it.... All these forms of government, where the few rule the many, only exist because the many are too weak minded to rule themselves.

By what means does a dictator stay in power? How can those even in a military capacity be fearful of *one* man? Do people just have really low self esteem and only act as if they are confident in their own competence?

While the OP made some interesting logical statements, they didn't extend them to their rightful conclusion.

So anarchy promotes the weak vs strong battle and breaks it down to the will of two parties, but where does that lead?

The weak strive to become strong (a good thing), but we are ultimately stronger collectively. What you're proposing is the beginning of government. Whether that government will be centralised or decentralised is a moot point - you're advocating government, not anarchism. Whether that government is fascist or altruistic, over-reaching or limited, it acts in the interests of the strongest. If the government is welfare-focused, then this isn't pandering to the weak. Natural laws dictate that the weak lose - so who are the real weak? I think it is the OP who struggles to let go of money.

Aside from that, there is a massive logical simplification (or flaw) in the land example. It is a very good thought experiment for exploring the ideas in the thread because we could all paint our position by adding to it ad infinitum - but it is deeply broken as a definitive logical statement from which a whole argument is based on.