It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Face Of Anarchy

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:03 PM
Is not very scary.

Citizens sign a petition rejecting government's domination over them.

To learn more about the voluntary society and Austrian economics, click my signature.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:08 PM
While I have a great respect for libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.. I don't view it as a form of anarchism. I don't really side too much with the collectivist either, so I guess I'm more of a naturalist or individualist.

I wasn't able to watch the video behind my current firewall, but a S&F just because you said the face of anarchy isn't scary. I agree 1million percent.


posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by broahes

The word "anarchy" has been demonized by the State more so than any other word in US history.

When people hear the word anarchy, they automatically assume violent street punks destroying private property.

Those street punks are all cops or other paid agitators working for government.

They want a super-state.

Which is the exact opposite of what the word anarchy means.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I was blessed, I guess you could say, to be born into a family that has had its roots in Anarchism since the mid 1800's.

My life is pleasantly simple.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by broahes

It took me 30 years to realize that all coercive government is evil.

You are fortunate.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:44 PM
I think that true Anarchy and true Capitalism are the same thing.

I think that true Freedom is also the same thing.

A world where I can make my own choices. A world where people respect each other's liberties.

Admittedly, this is near impossible to achieve at this point in human history.

The only purpose the government should have is to protect the liberty of it's citizens from abuses.

Ask yourselves, does the current system Protect your Liberty? Or trample it?

Do you choose what is best for you in life, or does the government??

You don't have to answer, I already know what it is...

I am just tired of being treated like a little stupid kid. I want to be an adult and live my life the way I choose.

As long as I harm no one else's liberty, I am doing nothing wrong.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:45 PM
The face of Anarchy is PEACE and RESPECT.

What is the "face" of our current system????

Violence and Abuse!

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:36 PM
I'm all in with you.

Anarchy is raiped by those who had and have everything to loose by it.

@ Muzzleflash.

I think you can also @ True socialism in your list

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Walter Block likes to ask socialists if they are voluntary socialists or coercive socialists.

Voluntary socialism is a commune, a church, or even a family unit.

Coercive socialism involves violence, such as taxes, wealth redistribution, the abolition of private property rights, etc.. etc.. etc..

I'm all for voluntary socialism.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

A people lead by the people right.

It could be me but I'm all for equal living standards and stuff.
The problem is that any ruling would brake true anarchy into something else.


Yeah I agree

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Some would say that.

I disagree.

We can define the State very simply as the use of coercive force against innocent people.

Innocent people can be defined as those people that have not violated the contract or property rights of another party.

From this we can see that self-government does not require violence against the innocent, as courts and security services that enforce contract and property rights do not need to come from coercive funding, nor do they require a legislature to create laws around to uphold.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

There you go already. Who decides who is innocent ?
More important, who decides who is guilty and who decides what are the crimes to commit, or be guilty of ?

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

One example of how such a society might work.

A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe)

You need to take my college course to grasp how society can voluntarily organize and police itself without the need for State violence.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:25 PM
land ownership is where we will all have to part ways here..

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Well. I've seen a lot of different ways it might work.

Not a single one of them did so without some kind of add on to anarchy.

A society that can never exist IMO without people changing.

If your post does apply anarchy without anything to add to make it work.
Please say so. I takes some extra to watch a video that long so.

So please what does the guy have to say ? A short review if you please ?

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by mnemeth1

There you go already. Who decides who is innocent ?
More important, who decides who is guilty and who decides what are the crimes to commit, or be guilty of ?

Oh its very simple there is no need to "decide" it's already decided and you learned it as a child. The basic law is oppress no one, harm no one, and keep your agreements. IOW don't lie steal cheat murder etc.

Taking other peoples property from them without thier consent is theft. Forcing people to do as you tell them is slavery, etc. Yet somehow millions of people have been convinced all those things taught to them as a child are lies and that is ok to take someone's stuff against thier will and even imprison and murder them if they defend thier property against such theft. They think this is ok as long as they and their neighbors decide as a group that it is ok and then they try and justify it by saying it is for the greater good.

All crime is that which causes harm to others wilfully. All disputes can be judged using those simple principles. No need for hundreds of volumes of made up rules and statutes and call them crimes even though no one was harmed oppressed or failed to keep an agreement. Just look at any situation and ask was someone harmed or oppressed or did someone fail to keep thier agreement. It is that simple! if none of those things apply there is no crime.

If a group of people get together and vote to take my stuff against my will, imprison me, or kill me when I have not harmed or oppressed anyone they become nothing but a gang of thieves and thugs no matter what label one puts on them such as government or authority.

Sadly our whole society is based on oppression theft and force. And people wonder why it is crumbling. Police wonder why everyone hates them. Because they are the enforcement arm of oppression theft and even murder when there was no crime.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by hawkiye]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

I don't think the current superpower governing systems will relinquish their authority without first initiating a scorched earth policy - meaning, aggressive martial law, meaning civil war.

Just my opinion.

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by hawkiye

Ohh... Don't bite. I very much see the same thing you do. I also hot the idea we both don't like it.

There is a catch and it depends on how far people will go if it can be solved, or never will be.

Your values and moral is different from that of the Aboriginals or Asians , Middle eastern folks.

With excepting the idea of free will you will be confronted a free will that contradicts yours.

Problems will arise, and it falls and stands on the solutions and those who will or will not accept it.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first quoted usage of the term “anarchy” occurred in 1552. The Dictionary defines anarchy as: “absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence of the supreme judicial power; political disorder.”

In 1850, a new interpretation of the word occurred, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and the concept was defined with greater precision: “A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”

I posted the above because it says "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons"
The moment a group is or committee is called upon to decide or act against any form of law and or movement to uphold this law. Poof ... There goes the anarchy.

It also says "without the implication of disorder."
Where I think of civil disorder. Or any mans bad day, bad temper or whatever against what ever. As long as it is about or because of a function in society.

Don't get me wrong... I would be the first volunteer when there is a test to create such a society.

Of course, I could be way of, but this is how I understand it.

It will end up as any other utopia. It will not work unless every man women and child thinks and agrees on the same level anyone else does.

[edit on 6/29/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

The Indians managed to get along just fine without a police force or coercive taxes.

The tribal elder acted as a judge in matters of property and contract.

Where the Indians got into trouble was when they refused to recognize property rights.

Poaching on another tribes land for instance.

Property rights come from homesteading originally. From that, all else follows. The first to work a resource owns that resource, unless he trades something of value in return for the rights to that resource.

This is natural.

What is unnatural is the use of violence to extract tax dollars.

What is unnatural is one tribe claiming they have the authority to redistribute resources of another tribe.

What is unnatural is government.

A state of anarchy existed in the not so "wild" west. Property was homesteaded and gold miners worked out a peaceful way to manage property rights without government involvement.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes natural.

Forgive me I'm not really in to Indian politics.
Didn't they also fight wars amongst each other ?

But you proof your point, if only for a small community.
I honestly don't know if their was once a PAX Indianum or something.

The use of violence to get tax dollars has not been a starting point.
Once it was used to build roads and hospitals and stuff. All kinds of commodities the puplic could make use of.

[edit on 6/29/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in