Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anarchy Would Be Good

page: 18
20
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedimind
Sad that people have been effectively programmed to have such knee jerk reactions to anarchy without giving it much conscious thought..

One of the very first replies here, many stars, says that anarchy would result in no medicine, medical care,etc...WRONG!!

Anarchy as far as I know it means no state. Last time I checked a congressman wasn't my doctor...Obama doesn't say open up and say aaaah. Cmon people you got to think a just a little deeper here.

Don't get me wrong, if we were to flip a switch that automatically could make the state disappear then there would of course be disruptions of certain services that are now controlled by government but that is superfluous because there is no magic switch. If anarchy is to be had there would, I'd expect, be some sort of gradual transition so as not to leave people in the cold.

Just because the state would disappear does NOT mean that doctors will do the same. I don't understand why someone would assume so. The same goes for roads and other services "provided" by the state. Roads, defense, education/teachers, etc. do not need the state in order to exist.

Without the state, people who are passionate about curing and helping the sick will still be able to become doctors...Why shouldn't they? Also, there will most be much less red tape preventing them.

Same goes for teachers, electricians, the list goes on.

I get frustrated to see that people have been so successfully conditioned by TPTB to believe that the civilized world would come to a screeching halt without the almighty state. We are duped and fooled by their suits, ivory towers, smug and condescending attitudes (Obama).
Again, a proper transition needs to be had because the state is sooo entrenched in our lives as it is...SS, medicare, medicaid, gov. backed student loans, etc...BUT!!! This does NOT change the immoral nature of the state...(See my thread about this for more detail about the immoral premise of the state)

It's time for the world to snap out of our proverbial Stockholm's syndrome towards the state. THE STATE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU!! The state actually isn't even real, it's an idea. But you can be sure that our representatives do not care about us AT ALL! Ask them to accept term limits, no back room deals, no pork, cut in pay, ....Hell, ask the millionare congressman to just represent us out of the goodness of their hearts for free since they have plenty of dough and see how far that gets you.

I think that we are at a very important fork in the road historically. Either we break the chains of the state that keep us in submission as tax slaves and start on the road to our true potential....OR ...George Orwell's 1984 is going to become more and more of a mirror of the world around us....a warning that was not heeded because the populace was too busy being distracted by porn, iphones, ego games, sports, bickering about the details of the state thus missing the forest for the trees, money games, etc....It's time to wake up.


Hallelujah! Im glad someone gets me.
Not that Im some expert on anarchy,but its not like I want to go backwards and destroy the world. And like you say "THE STATE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU!!"

I couldnt agree more.
edit on 17-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
just because current organisations have messed everything up doesnt mean the answer is no organisation.

As long as we are human, order will be needed. How long after the current order is gone do you think it wil be until either good men band together to defend the weak or evil men band together to oppress them. eityher way an opposing force will band together to equal their power and war will start. With no rules to punish war crimes it'd be the worst war the world has ever seen.

We dont need to hit rock bottom like that to forge a better world with a better order.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I'm an anarchist that doesn't believe that a total collapse of the political and governmental structure of the world is the best idea. Through my study of the subject, it is my full belief that the system of no government would only work in a world in which we evolve into such thinking. It is not something to be forced or artificially brought about by revolution and collapse. Without evolution first of the individual and his or her way of thinking, the ideas of a complete lack of governance of the masses is nothing more than a pipe dream that will lead to what many define the word of "anarchy" already.. chaos.

Anarchism is about complete and total freedom to dictate your own life, but that comes with (what most people tend to overlook) maximum responsibility. The public is ready for the freedom, but not the responsibility.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Let's go all anarchy and get Mad Max-like on mofos!



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


On Point!
2nd line



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 





like Oscar Wildes essay The Soul of a Man and I think of it when people talk of things happening "magically". I think socialism will solve these things. www.marxists.org...


Sorry my friend you are sadly mistaken and misled. Socialism is what we have now and it is a disaster and we are on the brink of complete collapse because. The media talking pukes have succeeding in labelling it capitalism and thus keep the masses ignorant to what the real problems are. Socialism, fascism, Marxism, communism, corporatism etc. are all parts of the same pig. Sadly to many people have bought the BS even though it has failed time and again through out history. Men and women are entitled to the fruits of thier labors and to do with them as they please as long as they do not harm others it is the essence of freedom! When ever you take that away from them by force in the name of government or good of society etc it has and will fail every time because it simply is theft. Any society based on theft cannot last it must fall apart eventually...



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
I can relate to Chuck Palahniuks 'Fight Club'. It says alot about how the modern world makes us impotent. Makes us feel imasculated. The modern world makes us paralysed. The themes seem to blame consumerism materialism and commercialism. It is saying that by placing such importance on material gain we are missing out on things that are real. We are missing what is good. It is saying that societies values are all out of whack and it is difficult for those that are aware.


I agree. These things are the very heart of the world's problems. Society and civilization, or "the system" are not evolutionary and are not progressive - they only give the appearance of it, but in this world nothing is gained without someone or something losing, which means that progress is actually instability as it creates convenience at the expense of liberty. Nothing in this world can be given without first taking from someone or somewhere else. Our "system" has progressed far past any point of balance where humans (and other living creatures) can live happily because natural liberty is almost extinct. The evidence is in society itself and the war, violent crime, and environmental crimes it creates through both its insanity and the insanity it generates in others.

Despite all the rhetoric about how evil and destructive anarchy is, modern civilization has killed and can kill more people and ruin more lives and more "things" than primitive-anarchism could ever hope too even if it tried. If the big argument for civilization is that it serves the greater good, then anarchy wins that argument hands-down as it inevitably causes mass destruction when transitioning from civilization to anarchy, but afterwards it results in far far less death and destruction due to its natural disorder, which means disorderly extermination rather than the orderly extermination of the machine we call civilization.



I agree with all that. But I think the book is wrong by suggesting that we need to compromise. Why cant we all be Tyler Durden? I like that Durden does not care what comes after the rebellion. He does not fear it. He does not even plan for it. All he cares about is burning it to the ground. Smashing it up.I think there is something awesome about that. Why should we be scared? Why should we pull back?. When do we break the cocoon?.


If you dislike the system, there is no need to burn it to the ground. Simply refuse to participate in it and it will eventually fall as civilization is not a real thing, but a system which exists by the many individual parts of itself, which are living creatures. And when they come to force you to participate, then they are the bad guys, not you, so you win the moral ground, as they will have to resort to rhetoric about how great civilization is, and it is very easy to come by information on civilization (by its own hand) whereby to prove that it is a joke on all of us and is not the great thing they claim it is, so you'll have plenty of data to argue the evils of civilization with.




The most common defense of capitalism is that nothing else works. Well guess what? Capitalism isnt working. Upward mobility was a scam and all the major players are basically bankrupt. Its time to roll the dice. The world is broken. Its not worth fixing the way it is. We must burn it down so that we can rise from the ashes like the pheonix.


No proposed system of government or economy has worked or is working, which is why systems of government and economy are constantly changing. No one can argue otherwise, as history is the evidence of this fact.



And is anarchy really so scary? I think the nanny/police state that most of us live in makes us even more emasculated. More impotent.More paralysed.More locked up.Wouldnt it be kinda cool if you could challenge a guy to a duel and not have to worry about going to jail? In todays world we are forced to allow others to dishonour us. To insult us. To disrespect us. Someone can be a jerk to you and you cant punch them in the face.And they know it. It creates perfect conditions for jerks to breed. If jerks knew that they could get slapped with a duelling glove at any time there would be alot less jerks.


I have been studying society and civilization and anarchy is the one system which provides the most individual liberty, but it fails because it provides too much and will ultimately lead to some monster ruling over everyone by force. To me, the answer is some new form of civilization and society, because the formula used for them: government, economy, religion, arts, education, and science, is obviously the problem. Change the formula and find a solution, keep changing types of government and economy and we'll keep getting the same horrible mess. In my opinion, one of the first pieces of the formula that should go for good (and maybe the only) is economy.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anarchy would NOT be good for most people. Know why? I'll give you two big reasons ...

1 - Those who are ill or chronically ill. Anarchy means no medicines. No antibiotics. No insulin. No heart medications. No bloodpressure medications. No way to have operations. Women would die in childbirth. Chronically ill people (like me) would suffer insane pain. A simple tooth infection, that can be taken care of now by a root canal and antibiotics, would kill you if anarchy was going on.

2 - Financial collapse means most people in the USA would be beyond poor. Food production and delivery would stop. Nearly everyone would starve to death. Poor countries that depend on us for food and medicine - like in Africa - would be wiped clean of people. All dead.

Anarchy means MASSIVE numbers of dead.
There are 7 billion people on this planet now.
Almost all would die .. either of starvation, infection, freezing to death, or for lack of medical help.



Only the meek would survive. Those would be the people who don't live on the grid, in the city and by medicine. The aboriginal person who is still living in the woods would do just fine.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
I dont think total anarchy would work. Somalia is a good example of how total anarchy doesnt work. But I think it could work. It has been tried a couple times throughout history. Wouldnt it be cool if you work out your own problems? Most people are good,most are reasonable. I think it could bring people together.


No sir. Because once the idea that the law no longer holds merit and everyone is free to do as they please without repercussion from police or other law enforcement, all those good and reasonable people are going to disappear. I'm a nice guy, I play by the rules. But if there was no more repercussions from a large law enforcement agency for crimes committed, then you best believe my morals are going to drop to a degree. Not that I WANT to commit crimes, but in anarchy, you have to put your moral beliefs aside to survive. You have to protect yourself and your assets and family. No one else is there to do it for you. Anarchy means an every-man-for-himself world.

If you're lucky to be in an area with reasonable people, that's great. But it will only last for so long until someone gets pissed off enough at another person and things start to fall apart.

Wow, I sound so pessimistic there...kind of disgusting.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The pimp and escourt analogy goes real well with the thinking here. The pimp slaps you up takes 80% of you money and gets you to thank him for his kindness.

But what if the pimp wasn't around? Oh noes all the bad guys will take advantage of you. Right now the pimp is the government and the ho3s are the people. the saying "in a few days, weeks, months etc. you will be wishing for your big daddy government to save you from all the wackos", works perfectly well in this case.
edit on 19-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


Come on now...small penis? really lmfao I know guys like you who get hung up on penis size because you have been dealing with that problem. I was not being rude in the beginning, merely pointing out problems and flaws in your grand design. lol if only life were as simple as copying a movie. People see a movie and say hey that cools I bet I can do that too! From the childish comments you leave I'm left with the possibility I've been debating with a child. Or at the very least an immature young adult who has penis issues



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by theovermensch

And there is nothing wrong with violence if it is warranted. Even Ghandi knew that. Was he mental too?
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


Once again you show how wrong you and your thinking are. Keep 'em coming. Not that any more demonstrations are reguired to show just how nonsensical the things you say are.

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
Mahatma Gandhi

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
Mahatma Gandhi

www.quotationspage.com...




Text Text It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. Mohandas Gandhi
Read more: www.brainyquote.com...


Ha! Back at you Flash.
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


Ever seen 'White Men Cant Jump' Flash? Remember this line?
Billy Hoyle-"It's hard work. Hard goddamn work making something this pretty look like a chump."

Its hard goddamn work Flash
edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


Yet again you display your ignorance. Gandhi is the figurehead of peace and non-violence in the world as the quotes I showed clearly demonstrate yet the one you show appears to the superficial glance to utterly contradict it, doesn't it? How can we account for this apparent discrepancy? The reason is clear - you are misinterpreting the quote. The ones I showed, many, many more and Gandhi's life itself all illustrate the man's charcter and beliefs. History shows what he accomplished through non-violent means. The quote you showed is Gandhi's way of telling people not to be false but to be who they really are. I'm sure he would feel sorry for those people who are violent in their hearts though he understood that was their nature. It was not his way but his quote illustrates his compassion, even towards those so different from himself. He was a truly wise man.

Here are a few more gems.

"Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed."

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

... and here is one of my faves that goes hand in hand with the one you quoted!
"The only devils in this world are those running around in our own hearts, and that is where all our battles should be fought."

You got any more Gandhi quotes that support your point???

Did you ever see the James Bond movie Octopussy? Here is the quote that comes to mind:
"Game, set and match!"


Yeah bad example. Gandi had huge libertarian beliefs. So he was pretty close to being a .....anarchist...

Oh no!



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rezwar
reply to post by theovermensch
 


Come on now...small penis? really lmfao I know guys like you who get hung up on penis size because you have been dealing with that problem. I was not being rude in the beginning, merely pointing out problems and flaws in your grand design. lol if only life were as simple as copying a movie. People see a movie and say hey that cools I bet I can do that too! From the childish comments you leave I'm left with the possibility I've been debating with a child. Or at the very least an immature young adult who has penis issues


I assumed you were a child. And that you are not interested in debate. You seem more interested in being rude and trying to annoy me. Seemed like you were compensating for something. I guessed you had a small penis.

And if you really are a guy why do you say"lol" so much? Its like you are a 15 year old girl.

I think you must be a teenage girl or a sad guy with a small penis. It seems logical.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


This guy is dry trolling.

ignore him.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
As soon as anarchy was here for 2 months, you'd be kicking yourself and praying for a government.


that wasn't the case during the Spanish Revolution.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Not to bump an old thread, but I found a very interesting article/study that supports the idea of anarchy, take a look:

www.physorg.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeissRitter
just because current organisations have messed everything up doesnt mean the answer is no organisation.

As long as we are human, order will be needed. How long after the current order is gone do you think it wil be until either good men band together to defend the weak or evil men band together to oppress them. eityher way an opposing force will band together to equal their power and war will start. With no rules to punish war crimes it'd be the worst war the world has ever seen.

We dont need to hit rock bottom like that to forge a better world with a better order.


There is an assumption among people who are uneducated on the tenets of anarchism that, frankly, anarchism has no tenets. People automatically equate anarchism with disorder without doing any research, when in reality it is a series of various highly organized political, social, and economic ideologies. To paraphrase Proudhon (the first person who used the word "anarchism" to describe his political philosophy), anarchism is the highest political order, not a system based on disorder. You may want to do some research on mutualism (Proudhon's proposed system) before passing judgment.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


And I would suggest to you that irrespective of what its original definition may have been, it now encompasses the philosophy of disorganisation - as evidenced by posters here are well as regular demostrations across the globe.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by eboyd
 


And I would suggest to you that irrespective of what its original definition may have been, it now encompasses the philosophy of disorganisation - as evidenced by posters here are well as regular demostrations across the globe.


who is making the claim that those peoples' ideology is anarchic?? not those people, that's for sure. also, many "anarchist" protestors who were caught by other protestors have been proven to be police agent provocateurs dressed up as anarchist black blocs, and the police have actually apologized when their agents have been caught. so half the time the people who supposedly have anarchic philosophies who do bad things in the name of their philosophy aren't actual anarchists.

by the logic you are using, we can define conservatives as those who support little government involvement, liberals as heavy government involvement, capitalism as the free market, and socialism as government ownership of the country. but fortunately for me, people can't just appropriate and redefine these terms.






top topics



 
20
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join