It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Note: To any anti-Anarchy/Libertarian on this board

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
In theory this all sounds good. However, Animal Farm starts out like this. Everyone equal until some (the officers/leaders) start to institute "some are more equal than others" rules.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Baldryck
In theory this all sounds good. However, Animal Farm starts out like this. Everyone equal until some (the officers/leaders) start to institute "some are more equal than others" rules.


What leaders?

Officers have 0 powers outside of war. They can't do anything to a civilian.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Reply to post by SirMike
 


In practice. It always has happened and it continues to happen everyday despite the structured order that is imposed.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What about a national defense?
How does that work in an Anarchy?


When we are attacked we as a collective defend ourselves. Community by community.

We all vote on defensive action. We all draft a central defense force.

We do it as a collective group. Not oligarchs in the backroom scheming up theft wars.


right...and the countries or entities who DON'T abide by that, crush you like a small bug.
why? because they will have massive coordinated armies. too much of history is filled with people who die, while preaching peace. example?...tibet is one of the most peaceful and forward looking country with this vision, and look what has happened to them. chinese came in, took them over, and the few that did fight back were quickly executed.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Reply to post by jimmyx
 


There also weren't 500 million guns in the hands of 180 million monks either.

You can be peaceful without beig a doormat.

Is this the best the anti's have? What about war? Is war such a common pastime for every human on earth that it's the number one reason I can't be free?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


He convinced me. Sounds pretty good to me. Not everyone here on ATS subscribes to the nanny-state, womb-to-the-tomb rubbish that we find ourselves in this country. Just leave me the hell alone. I'll make do on my own. (With GOD's help) It's bad enough having big government looking over your shoulder all the time, but with the
absolute morons and cretins that are in charge now, we are in REAL trouble.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Noromyxo
 


Ha! I stand corrected.

If you are sincere welcome to a living nightmare. There isnt anything more frustrating than not being part of the tyrant crowd. The worst part is that they wont let you go. They fight tooth and nail and use violence and threats to keep you in it.

God forbid some guy on 10 acres in the middle of bumfark Iowa go completely off the gird. That leech owes the state damnit and the state will evict him and let his 10 acres rot if he doesnt pay up.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


In this country, you can't even go "of the grid" on your own ten acres, because you can't even "own" said ten acres. Try not paying the property tax for a while, and see if they don't come take it from you by force.
Sad-Sad situation.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadicalRebel
It works exactly how it should.
Rather than having a "military industrial complex" run as a business and advancing and promoting itself through whatever means necessary you would have the network of a successfull community supporting itself, using its means to advance itself peacefully and only turning to "National Defence" when the need arose, not in a pre-emptive dominating campaign of collateral damage and acceptable losses.

You could have just said mercenaries instead of an army rather than entire paragraph
But you wanted to sugar coat it, just like how the media today calls mercenaries contractors.

At the end of the day I do not hate Anarchy, I do agree that society things it's molotov cocktails on the streets everyday and cars on fire on every corner of every road, however pro-anarchists also embellishes the reality.

You guys are trying to portray a utopia with zero corruption, as if businesses are without corruption withouth Govt.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You guys are trying to portray a utopia with zero corruption, as if businesses are without corruption withouth Govt.


Sure there's corruption everywhere.

When government exists to be corrupted by whatever source be it government itself or business it's a much bigger stick they can wield with much less effort.

Government is a massive consolidation that is permitted by it's own hand to use violence, threats, imprisonment, confiscation, etc... with absolutely no tangible antidote to it.

You cant stand up to government if it decides to take your property or your life. Neither can I. Nobody can except maybe another government and your life is too pitifully small for some other government to come to your aid.

Because that consolidated ultimate power exists at all business or any other group can take hold of it and by extension take hold of you.

People like to say we need to ban guns because they make killing so easy. Well, government makes complete totalitarian corruption extremely easy.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


No im not trying to portray anything other than reality.
Mercenaries...really??? I dont think so.

there isnt much to sugar coat though war is dirty business, im not a mercenary but you can bet that when TSHT ill be fighting on side or another, so you think i am mercenary? srry but im a carpenter by trade though i can and do work in other feilds if the need arises. I dont own any guns, i am not a memeber of any militia, i dont complaign about the taxes that are taken from me but you can bet when the time cmes to defend freedom and all its virtues i WONT be sitting on any fence watching

Its kinda sad.. the founders of our country and all the men and women fought and died so you could have the right to call them mercenaries, compare them to the likes of blackwater or other corrupt organizations that only work for war and degrade thier sacrifice


you obviously missed (ignored) my point so i wont try to explain it to you any more, if you want to think that way, thats your right...those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it
edit on 8-4-2011 by RadicalRebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   


We believe in strong size restricted democratic communies and local democratically created laws created by that community to defend your right to self and your property from someone else stealing it from you. We create laws that we want. The laws are restricted to that community. Any law can be voted in or out but the population itself votes in the laws. -We are against centralized power and "leaders"(handlers/Puppets).



my only problem with this is one democratic anything is the same thing as mob rule where the majority rule over the minority and since the us was founded as a republic it is my understanding that the majority can not override the rights of the minorty which is basically what we have now.

it seems that even the anarchist way is the same thing as we have now your still giving power to someone other than yourselves.

i can get behind most of that its just that last part i have problems with.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I like aspects of both. The communities all don't have to be one form of anarchy. They can be any form of anarchy. Its very flexible for the needs of the group of people operating that system of self governance.


But capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Syndicalism is a form of socialism, the workers ownership of the means of production through trade unionism, they are in complete opposition to each other. Syndicalism means trade unionism.


Socialism and freedom will never come through parliament. They can only come through workers struggle and workers organisations defeating the bosses. They can only come though revolutionary industrial unionism (anarcho-syndicalism).

flag.blackened.net...


Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995


Anarchism has always been traditionally socialist...


Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. Mikhail Bakunin



Anarchism is stateless socialism, Mikhail Bakunin


en.wikipedia.org...


As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people. From 'Modern Science and Anarchism', Peter Kropotkin, 1908.


Capitalism is why we had socialism and anarchism in the first place. Systems created during the industrial revolution in direct opposition to capitalism (the private ownership of the means of production). Anarchism is, as Bakunin (known as the Farther of Anarchism), correctly stated is socialism without government state system.

There were traditionally two sides to socialism, state supporters such as Marx, Engels, and those who apposed the state who called themselves Anarchists to differentiate themselves from state socialists. They all supported the workers ownership of production, socialism, as an economic system, but differed as to the political system.

People have been confused by the incorrect definition of capitalism meaning 'free-markets'. It claims to allow free markets, it really doesn't, but it is not the definition of the term, and it is not the only system that has free-markets. Socialism in its true form (not state socialism, Marxism etc.) is free-markets, and free-people, and not just for the wealthy.


The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these...

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...


Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.


BTW Anarcho-Collectivism is the collective ownership of the means of production, whereby workers wages are based on the time they contribute to production. It is a more precise term for 'stateless socialism', as it doesn't include any support for state, whereby socialism can. Communism differs only in that workers are no longer paid, but take what they need freely from a common pool of goods.

(Please don't make comparisons to Russia etc., these are the true original definitions before they were corrupted by the right, especially in America)


edit on 4/8/2011 by ANOK because: anarchy peace and freedom



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


We are not violent? Maybe you are not violent if you are an Anarcho-Pacifist (a.k.a. White & Black Anarchism).

We don't advocate violence against the State? What kind of f*cking "Anarchists" are you hanging around?
Most Anarchists advocate a diversity of tactics including violence AND non-violence against the state!

You sound more like a liberal/leftist than an Anarchist...



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baldryck
In theory this all sounds good. However, Animal Farm starts out like this. Everyone equal until some (the officers/leaders) start to institute "some are more equal than others" rules.


Except that there are no "officers/leaders" in Anarchism, ya B( . Y . )B!



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
No they don't. They have corrupt authoritarian governments/ruling factions/dictatorships.


Yeah but those are what took control after the government dissolved. It always seems to go down this road unless another country or the UN gets involved and sets up another government which lands you (calling for anarchy) back at square one.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PinkAndBlack
 


To confuse you, and everyone, even more...

Anarchists are lefties, secondly they are also libertarians.


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another.


www.la-articles.org.uk...


As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.
Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism...

theanarchistlibrary.org...


After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government. [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]


This is why the term Libertarian Socialism is often used in place of Anarchism. If you go by the definitions they now want you to believe that term would be an oxymoron. This has all been done on purpose to weaken the power of the people, and to coerce us to support a system that is not in our best interest.

BTW I've never heard Anarcho-Pacifism called 'white & black', but that is the colour of their flag.


edit on 4/8/2011 by ANOK because: anarchy peace and freedom




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join