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.

 

Anarchy Would Be Good

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


You know, being badass like Tyler Durden is all fine and dandy but I just so happen to enjoy doctors, health care, retirement security, and all the other bonuses of having a government. Sure it's flawed, but when some intruder breaks into your house, burns it to the ground, and then gives you some unknown disease somehow you'll be glad you have law enforcement, insurance, and health care.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I guess that is the biggest problem. If the transition hurts people it wouldnt be worth doing.

I dont think it could happen unless most were convinced so I dont think a lack of planning would be an issue. I would like us to all revolt tomorrow but I know thats not realistic. If a move to a more libertarian/anarchist world does happen I think it will be smooth because we will decide to do it.

I want to "burn it" but not with fire.

I think my lack of much sentimental feelings in relation to human life confused my argument.

I think the only ones that would turn to violence under a libertarian socialist utopia would be the insane. Because we would all have our needs met. There would be no need for crime.

And I do know the things I want are idealistic and somewhat of a 'purity experiment' but I am at the point that I want to roll the dice. I know others disagree and have solid arguments against. And that libertarian socialism sounds pretty crazy to some.

# sorry for lack of courtesy to other members. I can be defensive (:



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


And please read mine. I know its easier to bring in the bankers as a straw man, but please refrain. You still haven't addressed the fact that the society you promote is based on a fundamental contradiction.

Your post read:
Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression

This is clearly a contradictory statement. You cannot have maximum freedom of self expression if you are prevented from the freedom to express yourself violently. Furthermore, you subsequently used both the greed of bankers and physical aggression as examples of violence. So not only a contradictory statement, but also an extremely hazy and vague perception of what "violence" is and entails. What if in an anarchic society I chose to express myself (under my right, given by you, to maximum freedom of self expression) in a manner which led to making a small profit for a legitimate business venture?

your local cooperative idea sounds great - except that it still facilitates a structure of power - and anyway, as I asked before, who determines what is legal? You can't just say "What they say is legal, is legal" - how much of a non-answer is that?

Sounds to me like you want all the benefits of the system we have now (fairness, community, togetherness) but none of the downsides (an overall Government to ensure consistency). And if I dont agree to what the mob (sorry community) agree is 'right', then i've got to move on....wow...priceless.

If anarchy requires rules then it will still have rulers - sorry - logistical certainty - who else would enforce it?

You are picking and choosing which criticisms to respond to and instead of providing reasoned, sensible retorts you just tell the critical party how much more wonderful the apparent Anarchist paradise would be.

Can you please, at the third time of asking, either explain how the fundamental principle of what you outlined to be an Anarchist society (Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression) can actually exist (as a contradictory statement) or agree that it is indeed not correct and on that basis, is no better a moral system than the one currently in place.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by StopFearMongering
reply to post by theovermensch
 


You know, being badass like Tyler Durden is all fine and dandy but I just so happen to enjoy doctors, health care, retirement security, and all the other bonuses of having a government. Sure it's flawed, but when some intruder breaks into your house, burns it to the ground, and then gives you some unknown disease somehow you'll be glad you have law enforcement, insurance, and health care.


I crashed my motorbike at high speed last year. I busted myself up really bad but I didnt go to the hospital. I dont go to the doctor. I dont believe in them.

I also dont call the police.

If I get sick I will just die. I think most doctors are morons. I have google. [Snip] them. In a more libertarian society it would be easier to access medication.

But I know some would want medicine. Why would anarchy have to mean no medicine? pfizer makes it harder than anarchy would.

# I do go to the dentist. I dont want services to be gone.
And I would go to emegency if I was bleeding to death or something. I know we need services and I dont want to go backwards. But if we removed consumerism and set goals for society I think we could enrich our lives even more. Put more effort into technology instead of tullips.
edit on 15-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


No it wouldn't be good. There is no reason to go to that extreme.

All we need to do is talk more openly about who we are and where we come from!

Science, religion, and UFOs will all be shown to be connected. Right now, our civilization does nothing but self indulge and dominate eachother. That pretty much sums up this planet. There is no cohesive goal in moving forward with evolution and knowledge. It's almost like the masses like being dominated by the few!

It's very frustrating, but anarchy will only create more panic, fear, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of progress.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


Maybe I know that but I am highballing.


Radicals like me bring the middle ground closer to sensible.





Text It's very frustrating, but anarchy will only create more panic, fear, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of progress.


Maybe,but I think we are moving closer to people being ready for change.
edit on 15-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


yeah. well, anarchy equals ordo ab chao. you figure it out.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

If you want pure liberty you want anarchy.
If you want pure violence and fascism you want a very large oppressive state.
Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty
Statism = Pure Violence/tyranny.


horse# with cherry on top. excuse my french.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The problem with this thread is that no one seems to have defined Anarchy, or they misunderstood what Anarchy stands for.

There are many anarchist philosophies from libertarian socialism to free-market anarchism - which one does the OP have in mind?

I'm most familiar with libertarian socialism which is an anarchist philosophy that advocates a stateless, non-hierarchical, classless society without private property in the means of production (i.e. no capitalism).

Anarchy does not mean chaos or absence of law like many here assume. For example, Libertarian socialists support direct democracy through institutions such as workers councils or citizens' assemblies etc.

Please make sure you understand the subject before you attempt to critique it or pass petty judgement like many here have done.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
No, I don't think anarchy would be great fro most people. I can see what would happen when an army of 10,000 thugs head out of the city ....

You mean like 10,000 military police in the streets in a police state.Yay!

meds would be lost
most people are so wired in they would not know how to cope and adjust to the tyranny of total anarchy

Like the tyranny of total dictatorship or total globalist corporatism or total globalist banks?

I would know how to survive and probably prosper

I believe one of the least thought about things during a collapse is understanding mechanical engineering enough to build water pumps/ram jets; low voltage refigeration and other things that could operate on low power or driven by mechanical means......

if you make it throught the first 90 days you will have a chance and it depends when the SHTF, in spring there would be time to grow food for the winter; in winter there are many other challenges that one would have to deal with ... cold/ not able to grow food ...

so .... it all depends when the shtf ....


Name one anarchy that is a dictatorship? Name one country that is anarchist?

Oh and Somalia has a government. With a president and a prime minister.

Go ahead. The states solves all things.....pfffft

edit on 15-12-2011 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
If you want an example of an anarchy state look at Somalia. I think the last thing anyone in the West wants is to revert to a third world nation.

There really is no easy fix to our problem, and this might be because it is not in our nature to live in such large societies. We're social animals, but in the context of small, tribal communities with maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people at most; not hundreds of millions.

The best system, in theory, would have to either be Marxism or communism (within small tribes), but communism succumbs too quickly to corruption and I don't think Marxism has ever successfully been attempted.

Honestly the world would just be a better place without the cancer that is humanity plaguing it.
edit on 15-12-2011 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


Youre totally right...

Maybe not total anarchy though...how would we deal with pshycopathic murderers, and natural criminals?

I know it sounds horrible, but i think we'd have to get rid of everyone who isnt willing to make the change for the better of humanity, you know criminals, drug dealers, gangsters, rapists, physcopaths, just anyone horrible...for example, Kim Jong Il, neo-nazis, racists, radical/militant religious groups, hate groups, cartel leaders, TPTB...

Think. If everyone good in the world would stop being little pansies, and dealt some mob justice to all these horrible people...world peace could be attained overnight, sure itd be gruesome for a while, but i think its necesarry...i mean, when has peacful protest truly worked? Someone always has to die in order for some large change to happen in the world...at this point, we cant accomplish anything without violence.

If we were transfer into anarchy, i think, that in order to survive, without the world turning into a killing field, there must be some moral code that every human being should be taught from the moment theyre born, that they must live by, and respect, i mean, it is possible. If we get rid of money, we get rid of evil, drug cartels have nothing to work for, government officials, senators, politicians, they all have nothing to work for. All the BS will end, and if it doesnt, we make it end, forcefully, then bring in a new generation of people, wholl grow up in the world we set up for them, theyll grow up peaceful, as peaceful as any normal human, sure people will get into fistfights, arguments, and altercations, but itll be over things that matter, such as farm tools, livestock, relationships, land...but nothing worth killing someone over, and if there is a person who does mess up, and kill someone, despite the peaceful world theyve grown up in, they need to be exiled with no hope of return, or survival. They need to be removed from civilization, and left for dead.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
If you want an example of an anarchy state look at Somalia. I think the last thing anyone in the West wants is to revert to a third world nation.

There really is no easy fix to our problem, and this might be because it is not in our nature to live in such large societies. We're social animals, but in the context of small, tribal communities with maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people at most; not hundreds of millions.

The best system, in theory, would have to either be Marxism or communism (within small tribes), but communism succumbs too quickly to corruption and I don't think Marxism has ever successfully been attempted.

Honestly the world would just be a better place without the cancer that is humanity plaguing it.
edit on 15-12-2011 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: typo


Somalia has a government.With a president and prime minister.

So no...they are not anarchist.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
That whould kick-start evolution, survival of the fitest, natural selection. That whould create a free world where anyone can think what they want and do what they desire (for example i wanted to be a computer programmer but because of this crap i ended up on the brink of becoming a teacher).


And think about it, if people that are predisposed to having cancer die and do not reproduce, slowly cancer will be eradicated because we will be imune to it. Same to any other diseases. Saving the sick, although it sounds rough and bad and hating, is bs to me.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


It's not recognised by a large proportion of people. In any case, on that basis, if you did set up your anarchist state then what is to stop someone declaring themselves prime minister or president? If they had the support of a local community or area, then using your logic your anarchist state would no longer be so, as a 'president' or prime minister would exist within it. Or even more simply, if America rebelled and anarchy erupted across the country, other than physically removing the president, how could you stop him claiming presidency (and therefore voiding, using your logic, America's new anarchist state of existence)?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexIR
 


I don't think that would work though bud. What about cancer / illness caused by environmental factors? Sunlight...pollution...alcohol / tobacco consumption?

Also, where would you draw the line? Does brittle bone disease beat chronic fatigue syndrome... etc?

Survival of the fittest isn't strictly regarding physical fitness - a physically fine specimen of a man with significant underlying mental health issues would not necessarily add more to the gene pool than a brilliant physicist with a duff knee



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Anarchy isn't what's needed. What's needed is for people to wake up. Quit worrying about getting everything for free from the government. They're only doing that to keep you happy, they don't really care about you. Quit being obsessed over celebrities and their divorces and marriages and drug uses, they should be treated like everybody else, thrown in prison for doing crime, who cares about who they're married to. People need to pay attention to what their government is doing. I'm not saying worry about politics, oh the democrats are better or the republicans are better. There's both good and bad on both sides of the aisle. What people need to pay attention to are the bills being passed, the ways departments are being run and the way our tax dollars are being spent. We need to wake up and take back this country by paying attention and quit being distracted. If more people peacefully showed their views to their leaders, more would get done.
The OWS people, while a good idea, don't know what they're protesting and don't have a central objective. Some are saying we want better benefits/pay, some are saying "the Jews run everything" (I am NOT anti-semitic), among ideas. They need a centralized idea and they need to act civil to be taken serious. The police need to become loyal to their citizens not abusing their power. As I've stated before, there are a LOT of good police, they are just unfortunately drowned out by the corrupt/crummy ones.
I know revolution worked in the beginning, but as stated above, the times have changed. Violence is going to do nothing but hurt the innocent and get out of control. Police will start attacking people and people will fight back, soldiers will fight for both sides and it will be total chaos, and that's exactly what we don't need.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Anybody who believes in anarchy as a positive thing is a sheltered naive idiot. People think it is some romantic glorified thing and its not. Ever been to prison? Thats how anarchy would be, but on a much more horrible scale. No it would not be an honorable duel between two people with a quarrel. It would be you vs a guy and his gang. You think honor would stand? Not at all. Here is some news for you, in a true world of anarchy, you would not be "free" for very long, because just like in prison, there will be gangs forming, and those gang lords will be your new government. It would be alot like the movie mad max. And no there would be no science, no structure, no nothing. Even if it was a man to man duel, guess what, if I cant beat you, I am going to rape your sister and kill your family, because that will get to you in ways I physically cant.

Here is the truth, if anarchy ever really was truly initiated, the first ones to die off would be the f*cking idiots who vouched for it in the first place.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by AlexIR
 


I don't think that would work though bud. What about cancer / illness caused by environmental factors? Sunlight...pollution...alcohol / tobacco consumption?


You can get cancer from alcohol?!!


Oh crap, Im doomed....



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
nonsense

If you want that type of lifestyle, there are plenty of areas in the world that has shunned technological and social development and instead live in a near anar-topia. Try Somolia, and if the roving gangs and local warlords are too girly for you, surely there are some primitive tribes in the jungles you can find.

Until then, your just some dude on a comfy chair chatting on the internet about how your alter-ego is captain caveman.

Sorry if you can't just punch anyone who annoys you.




top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join