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.

 

What do Anarchists really bring to the table? Not much, well, except destruction in my view.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Thats not anarchy.. thats extreme Chaos

This thread has some of the most ignorant posts i have ever read..


I guess I will back off of the sarcascm and ask you a serious question.

Do you think that this can be an unintended outcome of some anarchist society? I mean after all when the crops fail and someone needs food, what do you do? History has proven to be brutal in the time of extremes, and by the looks of our prison population, the world isn't full of happy go lucky types of people as some would hope to believe.
edit on 15-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I think you're confusing anarchists with common thugs..

Anarchy means freedom.. Freedom from government, freedom from rules, to be able to live how they want without being told what to do..

Pick up a book, instead of lumping people together, or if your lazy, just read wikipedia



Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.



really cool idea in a todays society. NOT!

that means i can blow your head off if i don't like what you do?

free for all is what i hear.


then make some anarchrist rules and then you ain't them anymore.

did i just get blown through a black hole into dimension stupid 13?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
There are several factions of the ideology of anarchy, some of which I as an anarcho-capitalist don't agree that they are, namely anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists, but, well to each his own on what one chooses to call themselves.

I would suspect, that IF the thugs at the meetings are anarchists, the above two types are what I see them being. There is no way that i have ever seen that socialism or communism wouldnt lead to a governing body backed with the treat of force.

That being said, the idea that a lack of government means a lack of "law" makes no sense. Government by its very nature are agents of force and violence in order to maintain power. We actually spend much of our daily lives living in anarchy, we choose who we wish do do business with, we decide who we want to "chill" with all of these things we do voluntarily. Unless you actually are a government agent, Government is at most 2 percent of our daily lives. but that 2 percent is responsible for death around the world, from the local "police force" to the global armies waging war.

Many of the anarchists I know, have shed the label anarchy and have started to embrace "voluntarism" for the very reason people think these thugs reported in the media are called anarchists. Anarchy puts a bad taste in peoples mouths because of the media's continued disinformation and the indoctrinations camps "education". I however do not. When anyone makes an assumption as to my "political leanings" I make it very clear of my position and challenge them to defend their views.

I have no need to defend my position as its one of voluntary association, refusal to threaten violence, or demand someone think as I do. You who are not anarchists must fight tooth and nail to defend the violence perpetrated in your "name", and to be honest, you can't.

To state it simply. While I may not agree with you on some issue, I would never threaten you with violence, would you say the same?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Oh, here must be the wonderful side of anarchy.

These people rioted because their damn hockey team lost.



Inside Rogers Arena on Wednesday night, there was champagne in the Boston Bruins' dressing room and sullen faces for everyone wearing a Vancouver Canucks sweater after the home team's Game 7 loss in the Stanley Cup Final.

In downtown Vancouver, it was anarchy.

Seventeen years after another Game 7 riot in the city, what began as a few random fires and incidents of vandalism by spectators became utter chaos, with looters stealing from local stores and police trying to clear the streets. From QMI:.

sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/pos t/Gallery-Shocking-scenes-from-the-Vancouver-Game?urn=nhl-wp7358



Yep, looks like a fun time. Everything will be fine and dandy without "control."(sarcasm laid on pretty thick)
edit on 16-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

Canada still has a government, idk what you're talking about.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

Canada still has a government, idk what you're talking about.


You don't know what I am talking about.


These people rioted because their team lost. Not because they were hungry, pissed at the gov't, or any other reason. What happens when there are no police to break up the confrontation. Libya maybe........This is what I was getting at.

What do you honestly think is going to happen in the big cities, when there is no form of control?

Thanks for informing me that Canada still has a gov't.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

What exactly leads you to believe anarchy is lawlessness? The fact some reporter used the word in an article? Really, unfounded, uninformed attacks.

edit on 16-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

What exactly leads you to believe anarchy is lawlessness? The fact some reporter used the word in an article? Really, unfounded, uninformed attacks.

edit on 16-6-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)


Regardless of what the definition of anarchy is, this is what people refer to when they hear the word. That is why the reporter staed this in the article. People hear or see the word anarchy, this is what they think. Chaos.......


I do not understand how come people need to feel that you have to stick with the true definition. Anarchy to many people means chaos. Whethter or not it is incoreect is not up to me. I am going with the flow.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Regardless of what the definition of anarchy is, this is what people refer to when they hear the word. That is why the reporter staed this in the article. People hear or see the word anarchy, this is what they think. Chaos.......

I agree, this is what the uninformed believe. It just goes to show how much people refuse to even seek the truth


I do not understand how come people need to feel that you have to stick with the true definition. Anarchy to many people means chaos. Whether or not it is incorrect is not up to me. I am going with the flow.

The need to stick to the definition is what gives us common grounds of understanding when discussing an issue. Do you call a hot dog bun a slice of bread? While its true its just a form of bread, it is in fact a specialised form of bread for eating hot dogs with. Anarchy is in fact a "political" ideology and when you refuse to to use it in its proper context you lose the debate. Its no different then saying Republicans are nazi's or Democrats are baby killers. You may believe that, but it is not the case. politics is more then left or right, there are many view points.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FrenchOsage
I don't want to derail this thread. I know there isn't a lot of information available to those who choose to study pre-genocide North American Indians. Tragic as that is, I worry many view them though a "Hollywood" lens and others through an equally false "New Age" lens.


I know there is the large Nation of smaller units (tribes). While there are overall general behaviors - - each tribe is independent in how they manage their unit. There did seem to be definite gender responsibilities - - but if a woman wanted to speak at a council - - she was often allowed depending on the individual group.

So they had a council of leaders. But anyone could express their opinion.

But - - how does this differ from our congress and representatives today?


Where to start? Lets start with the idea of how with native Americans "each tribe is independent in how they manage their unit". In the US... if you start your own unit and manage it independently, you will be MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD. If you don't believe me, start up your own unit and see what happens when you don't listen to the orders of non-unit members to prove me wrong. That would be the first difference.

But as for "anyone could express their opinion"... I'm not really sure opinion is the right word at all. A lot of what were expressed could very well have been straightforward facts. In any case, its kind of different expressing to someone whose job it is to help about 50 people, compared to someone whose job it is to represent 1.2 million people as a member of the house of representatives. So I'd say there is something like a factor of 20,000 of difference between a chief who sets the rules for 50 people as it is and a representative who helps set the rules for 1.2 million people, within a system of 312 million people.

To say that there is no fundamental difference between native American tribes and the current US government is a real laugh. There is less difference between black and white as there is between native American governance and USA governance.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind Over the dominion of religion, and the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property. Liberation from shackles, and the restrain of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals. our founding fathers were Anarchists, remember the Boston Tea Party? The signing of the declaration of independence? John Hancock was the first to sign the declaration and he did it in a large defiant middle finger type signature. in the eyes of British law these men were outlaws and would have been tortured and executed for treason had they been caught.Tell me what do demorepublicans bring to the table tax breaks for the wealthy? marxism? slavery. socialism? slavery with better benefits. all of these are failed forms of government in my opinion no one truly has the ability to rule free men.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Tephra
 


I have personnal experiance with these vermin. Don't tell me that todays anarchists are all bunny rabbits and nice and fluffy and just want to give hugs. They are scum as far as I am concerned. Well, the ones in WA are. I smile everytime a cop thumps one.


Man you are calling people inhuman now because they don't share your world view or political affiliation?

But hey your free to believe what you want to believe. Libertarians let people express their views however non-PC it is.

Yeah I am one of those evil anarchist scum vermin. I love you too.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by squirelnutz
 


I linked Wiki. I read it. I am not seeing any of the subjects within the link that shows todays Anarchist standing in a good light. Google any of the "G" conferences. All you see is thugs who think they're anarchists. The movement has been subverted by vandals.



Two words.

agent provocateur... Great way to sell disinfo to the gullible/suggestible general public.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The practical flaws of an anarchic society are multitudinous.

It's a nice idea in principle, but it's totally unworkable in reality. People who genuinely believe in it as a plausible, efficient system to run a society, tend to be rather naive and seemingly oblivious to the world around them.

One of the things you'll notice when discussing anarchism, is the amount of occasions on which those who support it will argue their points in hypotheticals; ''ifs'', ''buts'' and ''this or that will happen''.

There are hardly ever any tangible arguments used to back up anarchism which would suggest that it's even a remotely plausible idea, and the basis of it is built upon willingly suspending disbelief and - to put it bluntly - a naive and fantastical vision of human nature that completely contradicts any objective analysis how the world really works.

I would say that one of the most glaring flaws with anarchy is this: why would people willingly settle for less, when they could easily have more ?! This defies any rational interpretation of how humans behave, with greed, avarice, power and control being amongst the ever-present traits in modern humanity.

Most people certainly wouldn't settle for driving a Skoda if they could get their hands on a Ferrari !


It can work so long as is kept localized and size capped. The community creates thier own laws and enforced thier laws. If you want to start a pittsburgh steelers only community you can create a community with other pittsburgh steelers fans. You can have all racist communities or all wikkan communities or all christian communities or all obsessive slayer/kill switch engage fan communities. Let them have their way. Don't punish free expression.

The idea is self managed society instead of external managed society. Both can work both will have flaws(because we are limited human beings). But a libertarian society will be more comfortable/fair/livable overall compared to a state ran authoritarian public babysitter.

There are only 2 universal laws. The Law of natural right(reproduction,life,freedom,free expression etc.) and the law of the defense of personal property(humans are not property).

Other than that they can do what they want.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by louieprima
Please educate yourself on a topic before posting, or at least differentiate between "proclaimed anarchists" and actual anarchists. Just because someone wears punk/goth clothing, acts tough, has multiple addictions, and usually begs for change at stoplights, doesn't mean they are an anarchist. In New Orleans, we call them Gutter Punks and they are worthless trash. They claim to be "free" while they squat in abandoned buildings, beg for change from tourists and then threaten them when they don't give, and basically act as annoying and self righteous leeches on society. They usually come from upper middle class families and that is where they will eventually return and continue to be unproductive lumps, dependent on someone else.

There are certainly many different flavors of actual anarchism, which is kind of the point. Communities decide their own values rather than some oppressive force that enforces the values of the elite class (which is what we have in America. My apologies to idealists & optimists).

Read up on some Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker before you go bashing a family of political philosophies you obviously don't understand. I'm more in tune with the more "right wing" anarchists just mentioned, but there is plenty of reading on the left side of the fence, as well ,that's worthwhile, be it Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. Left anarchism is largely a European phenomenon.

Several Native American tribes had a largely anarchistic societal organization which worked quite well. With all the different ideas out there, the different "flavors" actually agree on alot, but the main difference would be between your "right" anarchists and your "left" anarchists. The former tends to believe that free citizens would more likely compete than cooperate while the latter believes vice versa. Both agree that the state causes more problems than it solves.


But back to the OP: The "anarchists" you are writing about aren't anarchists at all. They are self entitled punks, angry at the world for no good reason. Anarchy doesn't mean what the Mainstream media brainwashes you to think it means. It actually represents genuine freedom vs. a controlling authority telling you that you have freedom as it systematically takes said freedom away from you.


I would agree that at least 99% of humanity is not ready for true anarchy, because it requires a high degree of self reliance and personal responsibility. People need to be told what to do and how to do it and they need human sacrifices to appease them if something goes wrong. Way too unevolved for actual freedom.


Very classy.

See this is the reason mankind will never have a peaceful world. No one respects anyone that doesn't agree with them or look like them.

No human being is trash. Get over yourself.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Wow! I thought this thread was dead. But after seeing how my truck got destroyed because....it was parked there, so it's personal for me. These people cost me oney when I could least afford it.

The Anarchist movement has been taking over by thugs in my opinion. And it has been that way for some time.

Like religion, I see movements as having a agenda. Individuals I can understand, even like or dislike. But any large group I am always wary of the overall agenda and how it can be spun out of control.

Enjoy the weekend and Love back at ya.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
You're confusing anarchists with government sponsored agent provaceturs, which are useful idiots. Anarchy simply means an (opposite of), archy (system, as in hierarchy). Anarchist motto is not "I want it now, for free" that sounds more like a welfare recipient motto, and if you're an anarchist on welfare, you are pro-government not against government. The real anarchist motto is "government does not work," which is meant to be taken literally. No government works, so a system of absence of government (anarchy) would be better than a government that is inefficient and does not work (in other words, walking is better than taking a broken down car).

Anarchists who just want destruction have to first live in the city to destroy it, those are more like angst teenagers (or provacteurs in disguise), a real anarchist would more likely live in the country or even be a survivalist.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Wow! I thought this thread was dead. But after seeing how my truck got destroyed because....it was parked there, so it's personal for me. These people cost me oney when I could least afford it.

The Anarchist movement has been taking over by thugs in my opinion. And it has been that way for some time.

Like religion, I see movements as having a agenda. Individuals I can understand, even like or dislike. But any large group I am always wary of the overall agenda and how it can be spun out of control.

Enjoy the weekend and Love back at ya.



How can a doctrine that is non-violent (libertarian public management) be something that is violent (state management/authoritarianism)?

These people are not anarchists they are just vandals that say they are anarchists.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
filosophia & John_Rodger_Cornman

The MSM has used the term anarchist to the point that every riot or large scale vandalism is now blamed on them.

I have done a lot more reading on this subject since starting this thread, and it really doesn’t strike me as a bad philosophy, but it also has many divergent points of view.

If you are a true anarchist, you’ll take the movement back to its true roots. You’ve been hijacked. By both the vandals and the MSM.

Until you stand in front of the riot police and refuse to let the vandals pass, Anarchists will always be painted in a bad light.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
filosophia & John_Rodger_Cornman

The MSM has used the term anarchist to the point that every riot or large scale vandalism is now blamed on them.

I have done a lot more reading on this subject since starting this thread, and it really doesn’t strike me as a bad philosophy, but it also has many divergent points of view.

If you are a true anarchist, you’ll take the movement back to its true roots. You’ve been hijacked. By both the vandals and the MSM.

Until you stand in front of the riot police and refuse to let the vandals pass, Anarchists will always be painted in a bad light.


Let me guess.

We help you do your job so our "image" doesn't get tarnished by the MSM/MegaCorp news.

Nahh thats ok. Thats why TPTB have infiltrators/disinfo agents for. To do just that.

infiltrate a targeted group and pretend to care about the target's agenda all the while pushing your boss's agenda.

Why do you need us to do public relations
edit on 24-6-2011 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)







 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join