Anarchy Would Be Good

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch



Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.
reply to post by steveknows
 


I think political anarchy and what you are talking about are different.

And I dont seek to lead anything. But I would lead by consensus. If they told me to [SNIP] myself I guess they would get a new leader.

If things went bad I say so be it. I dont think much of humans if we cant control ourselves. But I dont think things would descend into chaos just because the Nanny State wasnt holding our hand.

I think humans are better than most of you do. I think most people are good. And I dont fear the bad.




But the OP isn't talking about political anarchy and neither were you. It was about anarchy in the streets of a crumbling society.

Please excuse the "you leading " it was an analogy I wasn't meaning that you actually wanted to lead a revolt I mean that if you were to lead people would be harder to control than you think.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:12 AM
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 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?.

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.

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.

We used to be hunters. We are missing something. Anarchy would give it back. We dont know pain. We are non participants,non combatants. We get a DNP.. We are not in the game. I would welcome anarchy and something real. Cavemen had something that we are missing if you ask me.

Anarchy could be good.

And it would be good if we were all like Tyler Durden. (not that we should join Project Mayhem,but we should all embrace our inner ubermensch )


edit on 14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo
edit on 14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo
edit on 14-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo


you are just thinking like me
i want anarchy to
its nice to see people same minded like me
keep going some day we get wat we want

total freedom



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Text Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory.


Not really. I just think we should be able to kill each other. Just because we could doesnt mean we would. My anarchy is to remove most of the government. I dont think we need them. I think we would do better without them. Just because I dont fear chaos does not mean I seek it.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch



Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.
reply to post by steveknows
 


I think political anarchy and what you are talking about are different.

And I dont seek to lead anything. But I would lead by consensus. If they told me to [SNIP] myself I guess they would get a new leader.

If things went bad I say so be it. I dont think much of humans if we cant control ourselves. But I dont think things would descend into chaos just because the Nanny State wasnt holding our hand.

I think humans are better than most of you do. I think most people are good. And I dont fear the bad.




But the OP isn't talking about political anarchy and neither were you. It was about anarchy in the streets of a crumbling society.

Please excuse the "you leading " it was an analogy I wasn't meaning that you actually wanted to lead a revolt I mean that if you were to lead people would be harder to control than you think.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


Consider yourself excused.

I wrote the opening post.

I dont fear what comes after capitalism is what I was trying to say.

And I think we should be able to kill each other.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Text Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory.


Not really. I just think we should be able to kill each other. Just because we could doesnt mean we would. My anarchy is to remove most of the government. I dont think we need them. I think we would do better without them. Just because I dont fear chaos does not mean I seek it.


There's no governing body and you've got no infrastructure. You've got no Infrastructure and industry breaks down. Industry breaks down and biilion worldwide will starve. You get billions starving you get disease and panic. You get disease and panic you get anarchy.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch



Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.
reply to post by steveknows
 


I think political anarchy and what you are talking about are different.

And I dont seek to lead anything. But I would lead by consensus. If they told me to [SNIP] myself I guess they would get a new leader.

If things went bad I say so be it. I dont think much of humans if we cant control ourselves. But I dont think things would descend into chaos just because the Nanny State wasnt holding our hand.

I think humans are better than most of you do. I think most people are good. And I dont fear the bad.




But the OP isn't talking about political anarchy and neither were you. It was about anarchy in the streets of a crumbling society.

Please excuse the "you leading " it was an analogy I wasn't meaning that you actually wanted to lead a revolt I mean that if you were to lead people would be harder to control than you think.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


And I actually was talking about political anarchy. I have given a link to some stuff on Anarchy in Eastern Ukraine. It seemed to work there. I also put this in 'Political Ideologies" because I am interested in it right now and I was hoping to have a discussion about it.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Text Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory.


Not really. I just think we should be able to kill each other. Just because we could doesnt mean we would. My anarchy is to remove most of the government. I dont think we need them. I think we would do better without them. Just because I dont fear chaos does not mean I seek it.


There's no governing body and you've got no infrastructure. You've got no Infrastructure and industry breaks down. Industry breaks down and biilion worldwide will starve. You get billions starving you get disease and panic. You get disease and panic you get anarchy.


Someone mentioned Chomsky. Have you read much about him?
He would disagree,so would I.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Text Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory.


Not really. I just think we should be able to kill each other. Just because we could doesnt mean we would. My anarchy is to remove most of the government. I dont think we need them. I think we would do better without them. Just because I dont fear chaos does not mean I seek it.


There's no governing body and you've got no infrastructure. You've got no Infrastructure and industry breaks down. Industry breaks down and biilion worldwide will starve. You get billions starving you get disease and panic. You get disease and panic you get anarchy.


What I am really into right now is Libertarian Socialism. It knda goes with Anarchy. Its pretty interesting stuff.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch



Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.
reply to post by steveknows
 


I think political anarchy and what you are talking about are different.

And I dont seek to lead anything. But I would lead by consensus. If they told me to [SNIP] myself I guess they would get a new leader.

If things went bad I say so be it. I dont think much of humans if we cant control ourselves. But I dont think things would descend into chaos just because the Nanny State wasnt holding our hand.

I think humans are better than most of you do. I think most people are good. And I dont fear the bad.




But the OP isn't talking about political anarchy and neither were you. It was about anarchy in the streets of a crumbling society.

Please excuse the "you leading " it was an analogy I wasn't meaning that you actually wanted to lead a revolt I mean that if you were to lead people would be harder to control than you think.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


Consider yourself excused.

I wrote the opening post.

I dont fear what comes after capitalism is what I was trying to say.

And I think we should be able to kill each other.


So you did. Though you still didn't say political anarchy.

I'm not saying I fear anarchy either. I'd fear for my children of course but I don't need to wonder about what my mentality would be if society all fell apart.

If I had something and a person wanted it that would mean that he or she wanted to die. I would not mess around. I would protect me and mine and not even stop to second guess if I went overboard later. But I still believe that anarchy is something the world really would not want to see. Anarchy would be very bad indeed.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





Text Your anarchy is complete chaos or returning back to a creature state, where we'd be free as animals and kill each other for food or territory.


Not really. I just think we should be able to kill each other. Just because we could doesnt mean we would. My anarchy is to remove most of the government. I dont think we need them. I think we would do better without them. Just because I dont fear chaos does not mean I seek it.


There's no governing body and you've got no infrastructure. You've got no Infrastructure and industry breaks down. Industry breaks down and biilion worldwide will starve. You get billions starving you get disease and panic. You get disease and panic you get anarchy.


Someone mentioned Chomsky. Have you read much about him?
He would disagree,so would I.


I'll have to look him up. It sounds like it could be an interesting debate.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by theovermensch



Text Also what would you do if you lead a revolt and then the other humans said to you [SNIP] you if you tried to stop it turning into anarchy? And the other humans would tell you what you can do with yourself.
reply to post by steveknows
 


I think political anarchy and what you are talking about are different.

And I dont seek to lead anything. But I would lead by consensus. If they told me to [SNIP] myself I guess they would get a new leader.

If things went bad I say so be it. I dont think much of humans if we cant control ourselves. But I dont think things would descend into chaos just because the Nanny State wasnt holding our hand.

I think humans are better than most of you do. I think most people are good. And I dont fear the bad.




But the OP isn't talking about political anarchy and neither were you. It was about anarchy in the streets of a crumbling society.

Please excuse the "you leading " it was an analogy I wasn't meaning that you actually wanted to lead a revolt I mean that if you were to lead people would be harder to control than you think.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)


Consider yourself excused.

I wrote the opening post.

I dont fear what comes after capitalism is what I was trying to say.

And I think we should be able to kill each other.


So you did. Though you still didn't say political anarchy.

I'm not saying I fear anarchy either. I'd fear for my children of course but I don't need to wonder about what my mentality would be if society all fell apart.

If I had something and a person wanted it that would mean that he or she wanted to die. I would not mess around. I would protect me and mine and not even stop to second guess if I went overboard later. But I still believe that anarchy is something the world really would not want to see. Anarchy would be very bad indeed.


If you didnt follow its more my fault than yours. I can be confusing. I can be devisive when I want to start a conversation too
Seems the best way to raise a topic on here is to be a bit outrageous.
edit on 15-12-2011 by theovermensch because: whoops



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   


Text But I still believe that anarchy is something the world really would not want to see. Anarchy would be very bad indeed.
reply to post by steveknows
 


Yeah you might be right. We dont want the world to be Somalia.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
The problem with your post is; it is based on the false premise that what we have is capitalism, we don't and haven't for at least 70 years. I am all for anarchy (true meaning) however most of the rest of society is not they are for corporatism/socialism/fascism. In other words they are not ready for the personal responsibility of pure freedom/anarchy and unfortunately for us the majority is still the major influence of how our society operates whether passively or proactively.

Burning it to the ground will not move us forward it could set us back centuries. Enjoying and using the benefits of technology and modern society such as the computer you are typing on under the lights powerd by electricity etc. does not necessarily mean one is a mindless consumer. Someone still has to produce all those things it doesn't just happen magically and people expect compensation for thier production just as you or anyone would.
edit on 15-12-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I think we take alot of things for granted as a society.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Yeah,I agree most are not ready.And I agree that we dont have true capitalism.



Text Someone still has to produce all those things it doesn't just happen magically and people expect compensation for thier production just as you or anyone would.


I 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...


Text and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve.


I think we can meet our needs no problem.
edit on 15-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
See the thread linked in my signature: The Dependency Agenda

it echoes similar thoughts to this thread. When I was a kid, I thought 'Sex Pistol' type rebellious Anarchism was cool. Then I grew up. Now I've kind of gone full circle to realise that the only way for the human race to realise its full potential and happiness is to return to minimalist law. We can all agree that you shouldn't cause someone harm, loss or injury. It's all the other thousands of pointless laws we argue over. We need rid of them.

I suppose a more accurate term for my ideology is extreme Libertarianism, which is smart anarchy. We will never be truly free and happy while we are domesticated by State dependency and a crippling legal system. Does that mean the weak, disabled and sick will die? Not necessarily. Under Anarchy, people would organised into self-regulating communities with its own healers, compassion for neighbours, and trade. Everyone would know not to steal, harm or kill (that's simple common sense) and if anyone defied those natural laws they could expect to be dealt with appropriately by members of the community.

You'd be surprised how prosperous, peaceful and happy such a society could be.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 




I like your thread. I think you present your case alot better than I do.

I think you are right. They want us dependant. They need us dependant.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Lots of people here assuming anarchy means "no rules" or a bunch of punks with mohawks blowing stuff up. This is complete fantasy, born from a culture that relies upon governments (so its no wonder such a strange notion of the word exists).

The Native Americans lived in anarchy for a very long time. Did it work? Damn right it did. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" it simply means "no rulers". Also remember all of humanity lived in a state of anarchy until the invention of agriculture (which led to excess which led to people getting at your stuff which led to sedentary lifestyles -> walls -> cities -> governments -> standing armies/mass murder/nuclear bombs/etc)

Anarchy means freedom if you ask me. The current path obviously doesn't work. It will lead to either a complete extraction of the Earth's resources, nuclear armageddon, toxification of the atmosphere, the water, complete technological control grid, etc etc.

We are on a sinking ship and there isn't much time left (well, if you look at it through history's point of view). Maybe we won't see the ship sink in OUR lifetimes, but from all of the thousands of years of human history it's obvious that we're at a crossroads. Continue and die or change and live. Anarchy is one way to bring about that change imo.

The internet is "anarchy" and so much gets accomplished. I think it's silly to assume that anarchy equals no medicine or anything. Stop watching so much TV! That idea is absurd. It's funny to see the idea of Anarchy so unpopular in a nation that is founded upon the principles of extremely limited government and freedom. The only threat to freedom is government/police. Without those, you get freedom. Why the beef?

edit: Also what's with everyones fear of not having any medicine? You think you're gonna live forever or somethin? You didn't exist before you grew out of this planet and yet now here you are, so what's with the anxieties? "When ya worry it doubles!"
edit on 15-12-2011 by Matteroni because:



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Matteroni
 


Who could argue with that?





posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by theovermensch
 


ok, are you applying yourself for the position El Robert Paulsen (tm) or...





top topics
 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join