Why are you not anarchist or Libertarian?

Why are you not anarchist or Libertarian? Why? Do you think the state (that is corrupted by private interest) can serve your interest adequately? Do you think laws being passed that restrict freedoms on YOU by the government without your input represent the America that the fore fathers envisioned? The bankers own our money,they steal from us through via unconstitutional taxes on income,start two illegal wars and steal from you (while in a recession) to throw a party for their corporate execution pals. Pass NAFTA and send YOUR job overseas.


Why do you think government has a use anymore? With money,power,drugs any corrupt banker,globalists,corporate conglomerate can buy them off. What about the pre-picked (quasi-rigged) elections? Rockefeller will only let one of his globalist CFR,IMF,TLC employees become president.

Do you still think the infected/hijacked state can serve you after all the BS they have done?

I couldn't agree with you more, S&F.

I consider myself an Anarchist, unfortunately I live within a corupt capitalist society and don't know how to get out.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


The necessity for the state has finally begun to be questioned. Stefan Molyneux has an array of lectures, books, and podcasts which are interesting.
Freedomain
This video is also interesting in relation to these ideas.

Radical problems call for radical solutions.

reply to post by NonKonphormist


Yeah I am strongly anti-state. Libertarians,communists,socialists etc.Even capitalism(publicly owned only) It all works pretty well without a state. We ARE the "government". We don't need another "us".

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


No, I don't think the state can effectively serve my interests any longer. Nor do I think anarchists and libertarians can either, or come anywhere close to it.

I used to describe myself as an anarchist until I got sick of being around a bunch of lazy 40 drinking acid tripping suburban drop-out crap weasels that spend all their time talking about "community support" and doing nothing to provide for it. I got sick of the anti-intellectual attitude which prevails in most anarchist circles and I hate black hoodies with sewn on patches I think they look stupid. I also hate tight jeans and fixed gear bicycles. I got sick of the fake "queer acceptance" which is really just masked homophobia because I have never met an anarchist that believes it is possible for a man to be raped by another man. I have often been accused of sexism for attempting to widen rape survivor awareness to include male rape survivors to no avail. There is also a lot of masked racism in anarchism in that they force non-white people into "whiteness" by refusing to acknowledge the validity of their ethnic heritage and try and force "white guilt" in the form of "white privilege awareness" down the throats of every white-passing person I've ever met.

I got sick of all the "infoshops" which amount to little more than frat houses with compost heaps (which attract rats in cities) and I got sick of all of the shirking of personal responsibility (for attracting rats to the neighborhood and into the neighbors homes) in the name of personal responsibility. Most of these places do nothing but bring local drunk teens to "DIY Punk shows" which serve to blighten whatever neighborhoods they happen to be located in. Some of the bicycle collectives are cool in theory, but staffed with a bunch of overparanoid dumbf*'s with a major superiority complex over every poor person that comes in there, and Food Not Bombs is as bad as the fundamentalist Christians with their forced vegan diets on the homeless. There's no difference between forcing religion down someones throat and forcing a dietary practice down someones throat. It's BS. A big steaming pile of stinky BS.

In short. Too many idiots, too many kids, not enough brains, not enough grown-ups, no responsibility. Anarchism has become little more than a "Hot Topic" fashion expression for stupid rich white kids from the suburbs who have never been forced to want for anything. Any "poverty" I saw expressed by these idiots was by choice so they could "be more hard core" than their other trust-fund anarcho-buddies.

You think I'm overgeneralizing here? Try going around the country to various different anarchist circles and see what you find. I've been all over the country and associated with probably 15 or 20 different collectives before I gave up...One is only anarchist in this country if they are under 30, have the right clothes, and can quote Proudhon or Bakunin or some such other obscure 18th Century author. Most of them don't even understand what those authors were actually trying to say.

As far as libertarianism? It's anarchism for rich people. They don't have any room for homeless veterans in their ranks either. I've tried.

ETA: My enlightenment is that labels restrict oneself from their true potential. I am not an anrchist, or a capitalist, or anything for that matter. I am simply "a person." Labels are for food and medicine. Not people.

I'll give you one guess which category I fall into.

Great thread brother. S & F.

This system of the 2 party facade hoodwinking has far outlived its usefullness, save for the Elitists who continue to profiteer and maintain their power and control through it, at the expense of all the people who wrongfully continue to be tricked by this ruse, decade after decade.

As it is, this particular system is a sham of immeasurable proportions, designed for the few to continue to use and victimize the many, for their own vested means.

Time to detach from this insanity.

Originally posted by Control
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

No, I don't think the state can effectively serve my interests any longer. Nor do I think anarchists and libertarians can either, or come anywhere close to it.

I used to describe myself as an anarchist until I got sick of being around a bunch of lazy 40 drinking acid tripping suburban drop-out crap weasels that spend all their time talking about "community support" and doing nothing to provide for it. I got sick of the anti-intellectual attitude which prevails in most anarchist circles and I hate black hoodies with sewn on patches I think they look stupid. I also hate tight jeans and fixed gear bicycles. I got sick of the fake "queer acceptance" which is really just masked homophobia because I have never met an anarchist that believes it is possible for a man to be raped by another man. I have often been accused of sexism for attempting to widen rape survivor awareness to include male rape survivors to no avail. There is also a lot of masked racism in anarchism in that they force non-white people into "whiteness" by refusing to acknowledge the validity of their ethnic heritage and try and force "white guilt" in the form of "white privilege awareness" down the throats of every white-passing person I've ever met.

I got sick of all the "infoshops" which amount to little more than frat houses with compost heaps (which attract rats in cities) and I got sick of all of the shirking of personal responsibility (for attracting rats to the neighborhood and into the neighbors homes) in the name of personal responsibility. Most of these places do nothing but bring local drunk teens to "DIY Punk shows" which serve to blighten whatever neighborhoods they happen to be located in. Some of the bicycle collectives are cool in theory, but staffed with a bunch of overparanoid dumbf*'s with a major superiority complex over every poor person that comes in there, and Food Not Bombs is as bad as the fundamentalist Christians with their forced vegan diets on the homeless. There's no difference between forcing religion down someones throat and forcing a dietary practice down someones throat. It's BS. A big steaming pile of stinky BS.

In short. Too many idiots, too many kids, not enough brains, not enough grown-ups, no responsibility. Anarchism has become little more than a "Hot Topic" fashion expression for stupid rich white kids from the suburbs who have never been forced to want for anything. Any "poverty" I saw expressed by these idiots was by choice so they could "be more hard core" than their other trust-fund anarcho-buddies.

You think I'm overgeneralizing here? Try going around the country to various different anarchist circles and see what you find. I've been all over the country and associated with probably 15 or 20 different collectives before I gave up...One is only anarchist in this country if they are under 30, have the right clothes, and can quote Proudhon or Bakunin or some such other obscure 18th Century author. Most of them don't even understand what those authors were actually trying to say.

As far as libertarianism? It's anarchism for rich people. They don't have any room for homeless veterans in their ranks either. I've tried.

ETA: My enlightenment is that labels restrict oneself from their true potential. I am not an anrchist, or a capitalist, or anything for that matter. I am simply "a person." Labels are for food and medicine. Not people.

edit on 27-12-2010 by Control because: See "ETA" Statement.

I am sorry for your mildly jaded cynicism on non-authoritarian stateless freedom. Yeah people are people. You gotta take the good with the bad. Some anarchists are all show and some actually live it out. You live out anarchy. You can't do it any other way.

Anarchy is not a fad. Its a lifestyle.Its the state is a obsolete social managing construct and is no longer adequate. We have to govern ourselves if you want an ideal society.Real talk. We have to get out and do stuff the "state" does. But that's a lot of hard time consuming work. That's the harsh reality that the statists seem to ignore. The problem with a monopolistic private entity like government is that it is ran by people. People have character flaws and selfish animal desires that are universal to all humans.
You cannot change that fact.

The reason why I like anarchy is because it lets us fail. It also lets us succeed on our own merit. You are you and a authoritarian entity cannot mold or force you into a set "standard","legal way of though" or "path of truth". Sorry God,Jesus and the Holy Spirit do that NOT a state ran by faulty humans.


If you create an anarcho-capitalist village in a town or city we have to govern that town. We will be the police,firefighters,postage carriers,judges,collectively owned businesses etc. Not the state or the county etc.
We'll pay taxes to the city but we won't tax people. All the businesses are collectively owned by the population that lives there.The schools are owned and payed for by the population that lives there. Everyone agrees(via local direct democracy) taxes and what those taxes are for. Private ownership of infrastructure is illegal. Private ownership of businesses are also illegal.

The idea is if the village/colony succeeds it succeeds,if it fails it fails. No undemocratic big brother police state is going to kick you in the ass if you don't conform to the fascist worker-slave ideal.

We decide our outcome.

I am an Anarchist . I used to favour social democracy (I live in northern Europe), but then I realised, that I don´t have to take sides, because noone is on my side either. At this period of life I´m looking for alternative community.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Yep. I'll do it without the bloody labels and selfish superiority complexes though. The greatest benefit is that I don't associate with those that choose to use the label "anarchist" anymore. In fact, the "anarchist" label has become something of a red flag for me...warning me of impending idiocy and immaturity. Life is not the mental utopia created in the minds of so many anarchists. Modern anarchism doesn't "let" us fail...it bloody well almost forces it upon us with these hoo-oo lofty concepts of ideological supremacy. ANY supremacy is bad. Be it racial, religious, or ideological. You're right. People are people. But the very title of your thread suggests that you feel they should be more "like you." How's that not supremacist?

ETA: The term "lifestyle" (which you used to describe anarchism) is a marketing term coined in 1967 by a marketing firm in New York City. "Lifestyle Marketing" became the advertising norm by 1984. The terms "fad" and "lifestyle" are synonymous in the marketing world. You cannot reclaim a word that was false to begin with. Anarchism is not a lifestyle, it is ostensibly a political ideology.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
I'll give you one guess which category I fall into.

Great thread brother. S & F.

This system of the 2 party facade hoodwinking has far outlived its usefullness, save for the Elitists who continue to profiteer and maintain their power and control through it, at the expense of all the people who wrongfully continue to be tricked by this ruse, decade after decade.

As it is, this particular system is a sham of immeasurable proportions, designed for the few to continue to use and victimize the many, for their own vested means.

Time to detach from this insanity.

What if we created our own oiled women's football league. Sponsored by Budweiser or Smirnoff then got a tv contract with spike and call them NY Bilderberg vs LA Rothschild or maybe CHI Rockefeller vs Miami CFR.

I mean people would watch half naked strippers/porn stars play oiled football while discussing the CFR and TLC's globalist agenda. Instead of a football it can be an oily piece of streak they play with or Bill gates "sterilization vaccine" vial. Go and call it oilball or eugeni-sports.

The "official" dresses as a banker (another unrealistically attractive female eye candy) throws a prop bottle of Jack Daniels instead of a flag.

"Illegal holding of the breast 15 yard penalty automatic first down!"
"Illegal huddle formation"
"Neutral zone infraction"
"illegal movement of the rear"
"fellatiating a chocolate candy personal foul!"


Will people notice then?

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

Although in saying that, society as a whole has become accustomed to a hierarchical mode of governance, where the only way for society to function is a centralized hierarchical government to use force or threaten people with the use of force. I think a massive change in philosophy is needed if we were to ever truly have anarchy or libertarian socialism without civilization imploding overnight.

I think over the longest period of time, the libertarian party has been highly misinterpreted by many Americans who in fact share similar believes with the party itself. Thanks to the power of Ron Paul (i know he is a republican) and Youtube.com, we have been able to view the Libertarian party for its true fundamentals. I am really interest in seeing how the 2012 elections will play out. So many folks have apparently been awaken to all this left right propaganda, so i have good faith some change will truly come.

reply to post by Control


I can see where you are coming from and I can't argue with quite a lot of your gripes.
I too cringe when I see the black block doing their thing, I agree with their actions but I get the impression that the vast majority are just playing at it. In a few years time they will sell out in favor of cash, career etc.
But just because a lot of people that claim to be Anarchists are just jumping on the band wagon so as to rebel against society/parents etc doesn't mean that Anarchism as an ideology is defunct.
One of the main traits of Anarchism is that it needs criticism, it is not one set of rules fits all, it evolves constantly, it's not static.
If just one black hoody picks up a copy of Emma Goldman and actually reads it and takes that knowledge to others, then it's all worth it, imo.
There are some good people in the movement, you just don't hear much about them, they don't sell papers etc.
But I do think the movement needs people like yourself to keep the evolution of Anarchism practicle and real.
Peace.

Originally posted by Control
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Yep. I'll do it without the bloody labels and selfish superiority complexes though. The greatest benefit is that I don't associate with those that choose to use the label "anarchist" anymore. In fact, the "anarchist" label has become something of a red flag for me...warning me of impending idiocy and immaturity. Life is not the mental utopia created in the minds of so many anarchists. Modern anarchism doesn't "let" us fail...it bloody well almost forces it upon us with these hoo-oo lofty concepts of ideological supremacy. ANY supremacy is bad. Be it racial, religious, or ideological. You're right. People are people. But the very title of your thread suggests that you feel they should be more "like you." How's that not supremacist?

ETA: The term "lifestyle" (which you used to describe anarchism) is a marketing term coined in 1967 by a marketing firm in New York City. "Lifestyle Marketing" became the advertising norm by 1984. The terms "fad" and "lifestyle" are synonymous in the marketing world. You cannot reclaim a word that was false to begin with. Anarchism is not a lifestyle, it is ostensibly a political ideology.

edit on 27-12-2010 by Control because: See "ETA" Statement.

Irony...lol

But getting back to your argument. No. I want people to have the option to be themselves without a police state bullying them into a set "standard". How much of us is really us? How much of it is corporate conditioning?
How much of it is government conditioning? Who the f--- are we? Do we even know?

Remove the state and we can start people Tom,Janet and Cassie again. Not corporate commodity 1,commodity 2,commodity 3,commodity 4 etc. Do you want to choose your outcome? Do you want your children to choose theirs? Or even have the option to choose.

It doesn't matter. It comes down to 2 differing opinions.

Will you let other people manage your life and live without having to invest energy into doing it yourself?

or

Will you invest energy into managing your own life and/or society without need for a private entity to conveniently do it for you.


Yeah there are pluses and minuses at both sides and I am not saying anarchism is a utopia(impossible because of human character flaws) some wonder system. It just allows us to be the most free possible while still being a faulty,selfish,greedy, human being. Your allowed to choose failure. Your allowed to choose success. It ok.

That way idiots and greed weed themselves out(anarchy can be constructed to penalize greed and selfishness without becoming authoritative). If you cannot work with the community because your a joke-clown then yeah your not going to get hired into the coop(by vote).If you hire your friend/family over more productive workers then the whole coop loses production.

So I mean you can be greedy but it won't help you that much.

reply to post by Control


I understand your perspective well. I have sympathies for anarchist principles, and small scale communal organization. Sadly, when I lived in some, and met the members I was let down. There seems to be holier than thou attitude toward the rest of society. This attitude is coupled with a rejection of personal responsibility and basic social skills. I am painting with a broad brush, and there are some real intelligent capable anarchist communal groups out there, but the majority are retreatists. They have rejected societal systems for their own equally limiting self perpetuating systems. If your gonna shift reality do not label yourself, or try an preach to others just do it.

Originally posted by Solomons
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

Although in saying that, society as a whole has become accustomed to a hierarchical mode of governance, where the only way for society to function is a centralized hierarchical government to use force or threaten people with the use of force. I think a massive change in philosophy is needed if we were to ever truly have anarchy or libertarian socialism without civilization imploding overnight.

Totally agree. You have to change everyone(including me) thought process concerning governance.

Do you want a private hijacked police state to hold you by the hand or do you want to invest the energy to hold your own hand?

You have to work hard to create anarchy. Why? because we would have to do all the stuff the private police state is doing. Only far more efficient and WAY better pay structure for your work. Just cut private interests out all together.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by Control

 

I understand your perspective well. I have sympathies for anarchist principles, and small scale communal organization. Sadly, when I lived in some, and met the members I was let down. There seems to be holier than thou attitude toward the rest of society. This attitude is coupled with a rejection of personal responsibility and basic social skills. I am painting with a broad brush, and there are some real intelligent capable anarchist communal groups out there, but the majority are retreatists. They have rejected societal systems for their own equally limiting self perpetuating systems. If your gonna shift reality do not label yourself, or try an preach to others just do it.

Well how would you feel if you went to free a slave from a brutal tyrannical institution only to be spit in the face and be called a "kook" because the fascist/master will give them beer,porno,gucci gold plated chains, and sunday night football if you just let them exploit your labor until you die?

Let's not talk about illegal wars,gmo,tax theft,drug trafficking,fluorine, and false flag "tewworism".

Let's not talk about instilling dictators just to get a better price on our rice subsity. F--- starving people.

How would you feel?

I have to ask you. What if microsoft was a cooperative? Owned by only people that work there. No one owned more than 1%. The ownership is unsellable and is removed on exit from the coop.

How much better the pay would be on the mid-low range workers? I mean everyone still owns 1% and gets 1% of all producted profits.

What about GM or a major bank?

What if they were coops owned by the people that worked there?

I think the greed of the many(the people) out-prioritizes the greed of the few(the elites).

reply to post by NonKonphormist



I tried to be a part of "the movement." For 7 years, in fact. The "movement" kicked me out because the "lifestyle" anarchists (which far, far outnumber people with more than two brain cells to rub together) couldn't stand the mirror that I constantly held up to their faces. BS'ers hate to be called out for their BS. They get really loud and mean about it. Then they make s* up to justify their horrendous actions and publish those lies all over infoshop.org and anarchistnews.org and whatevercity.indymedia.org which is then read by all the other "lifestylers" (read as: mindless hipsters) and taken as gospel. Then spread around to even more mindless hipsters and finally...just as in all other forms of propaganda....lies become truth through repetition.

When I can go to a convergence center at a major national protest, or a national level convergence and not be alienated, chased out and accused of being a fed, sexist, liar, white supremacist, or attention whore for simply being myself (decorated combat intelligence veteran officer, gay, non-white but white-passing, graduate level college educated, and well-spoken in my mid-30's) then we can talk about "what I could do for the movement." Until then (which will not be in my lifetime) I'm out.

I am not an anarchist because Anarchists are children.

I am not a libertarian because, well, the "Me First" and "Screw YOU" attitude of libertarians doesn't appeal to me.

This country is supposed to be WE the people, not ME the people.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Because there are numerous instances of states not having all those bad attributes you enumerated, and actually being useful for people. Just because SOME states are not serving their people anymore, doesnt mean the whole concept of state should be rejected, since there are also counterexamples. Just like occasional shootings or stabbings does not imply we should ban all guns and knives.

If you want to see positive examples of state, look at Scandinavian countries, Canada, Austria, even western Europe... The flaws of current states can easily be fixed and improved, if people cared. No need to resort to dangerous extremist experiments with uncertain outcomes, like anarchocapitalism or communism.