Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anarchism and the non-aggression principle

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I believe in the non-aggression principle. Do no harm(no empires,no arming religious extremists then sending them into a country,no offensive wars,no droning villages). Love instead of fear. I am against terroristic coersion(the state relies on this).

Why do poeple think anarchists are violent when most of them believe in the non-AP?
edit on 31-5-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I suspect politicians fear your ideas on anarchism and the non-aggression principle because they would not be able to make money through their directorships in industries that make money for themselves and families, consequently the media is geared to ridicule your ideas and make you look a fool for voicing them. If they can't shut you up and people start listening to your ideas, character assassination is another political trick of the trade.

Many people are either sheep who don't ever think to question what they read in the press or hear on the tv, or they simply accept the official line "for the greater good", such as the reason for arming the rebels in Syria despite the fact that there are at least 12 different groups of these Rebels in Syria, who don't cooperate with each other and one of which is Al Qaeda and it looks like at least one group may have used chemical weapons. Why would we arm these people especially if it was reversed and people armed groups of people acting to overthrow the government in this country - heaven forbid!

Its also a very good weapon against members of the public who don't toe the official thick public line. A case in question is the tirade released by the press and politicians against Arthur Scargill, whatever you think of him, he was right about the decimation of the coal mining business in this country.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
because of propaganda and disinformation, people believe the stereotypes because that is what is broadcast to all of us daily, through Media, Social situations, Religion Etc, they give a reason to hate someone/something

not to say there is never 'Violent Anarchist' as in anything you will find those offsets, but the main purpose of Anarchy has never been 'Violence'



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
People have been indoctrinated to believe in the necessity of the state for thousands of years, The simplest way to do this is to associate statelessness with savagery, even if little or none actually exists. Just look at all the propaganda spewed about American Indians. "Lawless and war-like". It's always been a steaming load. Who's calling who "war-like" anyway?

As for the NAP, many anarchists believe that violence against the state doesn't contradict the principle. Employing force in self-defense is justified, and because the state is seen as the glue (if you will) that holds oppressive and violent social institutions together and functioning, revolutionary direct action against it is legitimate as an act of self-preservation.

In other words, in such a view the "violent anarchist" is not the aggressor, but simply engaging in an appropriate response to aggression. The state uses this logic all the time.
edit on 6/2/13 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I would say because the vast majority only know 'Anarchism' in relation to the following 2 things

- Numbskulls in masks smashing up shops at G8 summits while wearing trainers made in a sweat shop somewhere (the vast majority of people)
- That the 1st world war was triggered by a Bomb thrown by a Serbian Anarchist. (those with o level history)

Currently there is no counterpoint to the above in the media.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I believe in the non-aggression principle. Do no harm(no empires,no arming religious extremists then sending them into a country,no offensive wars,no droning villages). Love instead of fear. I am against terroristic coersion(the state relies on this).

Why do poeple think anarchists are violent when most of them believe in the non-AP?
edit on 31-5-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)


How very utopian...nice dream, but it will never happen. Because...there will always be those among us who strive to rise to the top; to rule if you will. If some kind of anarchist revolution were to ever succeed (which, of course, it never will)...there would be an instant mad scramble to fill the power vaccuum.

The dominance/power game would start anew.

As other posters have indicated, some anarchists are themselves violent...but the real reason anarchistic thinking is inherently violent, is because the world after the implementation of such a philosophy would be a very dangerous and violent one. Unceasingly violent, until governance systems were once again introduced.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I believe in the non-aggression principle. Do no harm(no empires,no arming religious extremists then sending them into a country,no offensive wars,no droning villages). Love instead of fear. I am against terroristic coersion(the state relies on this).

Why do poeple think anarchists are violent when most of them believe in the non-AP?
edit on 31-5-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)


How very utopian...nice dream, but it will never happen. Because...there will always be those among us who strive to rise to the top; to rule if you will. If some kind of anarchist revolution were to ever succeed (which, of course, it never will)...there would be an instant mad scramble to fill the power vaccuum.

The dominance/power game would start anew.

As other posters have indicated, some anarchists are themselves violent...but the real reason anarchistic thinking is inherently violent, is because the world after the implementation of such a philosophy would be a very dangerous and violent one. Unceasingly violent, until governance systems were once again introduced.


Utopia is impossible. Social anarchism is not impossible.

It will happen. Eventually...
We are in a greed driven crony-capitalist phase right now. We have to evolve beyond this phase.How?
(virtually)unlimited Free energy. (virtually)Unlimited resources.

We have to have...

-free energy(vacuum energy,orbital solar arrays, Tesla free energy etc)
-free resource(asteroid mining,deep earth mining,deep sea mining)
-free work(fully integrated machine worker class)
-life extension technology and medicines (nano-machine medicine)

This would delegitimize crony-capitalism.

Anarchism requires a mature UNSELFISH society with no energy/resource limitations.
You cannot have anarchism with limited privately owned resources and limited privately owned energy.(because of greed and selfishness)
Take the limitations of energy and resources and you can have social anarchism.

Until we have grown to that level we must have limited government(libertarianism).

We are not mature enough to self-govern on a massive scale yet.
edit on 2-6-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-6-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mobiusmale

As other posters have indicated, some anarchists are themselves violent...but the real reason anarchistic thinking is inherently violent, is because the world after the implementation of such a philosophy would be a very dangerous and violent one. Unceasingly violent, until governance systems were once again introduced.


I don't understand why anyone would believe that a stateless society would be any more violent than the one we're already living in. Without even mentioning all of the coercive systems the state keeps in place, it (in various forms) has been responsible for the vast majority of the death and destruction on this planet. In the 20th century alone, governments have been directly responsible for the murders of well over 100 million people; all the while presiding over the pillaging of the planet's "natural resources". How's that for "inherently violent" thinking?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The last time anarchists actually took over a society was during the French Revolution.

We saw what happened with Robspierre and "The Terror" that followed in their wake.

You really think anarchists are non-violent?

funny



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

We are in a greed driven crony-capitalist phase right now. We have to evolve beyond this phase.How?
(virtually)unlimited Free energy. (virtually)Unlimited resources.

We have to have...

-free energy(vacuum energy,orbital solar arrays, Tesla free energy etc)
-free resource(asteroid mining,deep earth mining,deep sea mining)
-free work(fully integrated machine worker class)
-life extension technology and medicines (nano-machine medicine)


It's important to remember that "free energy" is a misnomer. It sounds nice, but the technologies used to produce such energy are not free by any stretch of the imagination. Let me ask you this: How many people you know would voluntarily (in keeping with the NAP) spend their productive years in a hot, dank, dark mine somewhere performing hard labor? Because solar panels don't grow on rooftops and Tesla coils don't sprout from the ground. I don't know many people who would choose to sign up for that. That's why they have to be coerced into doing it through economic systems. "I have to have money so I have to have a job. This is what's available, so..."

If, as an anarchist, you believe in the eradication of coercive social systems, economic systems (all of them) must surely be included. If there's no way to force people into the mines and the oil fields, you're not going to be able to sustain the lifestyles made possible by industrialism. Good riddance, I say.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


There are two main reason that are the drivers behind aggressions:

1) Money, Power for the country
2) Patriotism

The first point makes sense., but patriotism, which is devotion to one´s country, so what is wrong with it? Human nature is quite competitive, whether we want it or not. Keeping up with the Joneses mentality is a common knowledge, although when it expands to whole nation, it might cause problems.

If one country as a nation feels as they deserve to be better than others, it leads to US vs THEM attitude. If more aggressive people become leaders, there are problems to come, as sooner or later, they might want to become strengthen their country on the expense of others, as they believe they deserve it. It is not hard to sell such idea to a patriotic nation.

I love my nation, my country, although if even once they decided for aggression, I would not tolerate their actions. It is just wrong. There is nothing wrong in loving your country, it is wrong to attack others in order to become better, stronger, more powerful as a country.

I have nothing against state or different nations, different cultures, although not a single country in the world should have the belief they are better than others and deserve to expand their territory.

Even losing a piece of one´s country should not be taken seriously. For example, currently Catalonya has such issue. They are different nation with different language from spaniards, although Spain does not want to lose part of its territory, whether it is a different country or not, as that region is very valuable and their country would be less powerful, whether the power comes on the expense of another nation or not.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


There are two main reason that are the drivers behind aggressions:

1) Money, Power for the country
2) Patriotism

The first point makes sense., but patriotism, which is devotion to one´s country, so what is wrong with it? Human nature is quite competitive, whether we want it or not. Keeping up with the Joneses mentality is a common knowledge, although when it expands to whole nation, it might cause problems.

If one country as a nation feels as they deserve to be better than others, it leads to US vs THEM attitude. If more aggressive people become leaders, there are problems to come, as sooner or later, they might want to become strengthen their country on the expense of others, as they believe they deserve it. It is not hard to sell such idea to a patriotic nation.

I love my nation, my country, although if even once they decided for aggression, I would not tolerate their actions. It is just wrong. There is nothing wrong in loving your country, it is wrong to attack others in order to become better, stronger, more powerful as a country.

I have nothing against state or different nations, different cultures, although not a single country in the world should have the belief they are better than others and deserve to expand their territory.

Even losing a piece of one´s country should not be taken seriously. For example, currently Catalonya has such issue. They are different nation with different language from spaniards, although Spain does not want to lose part of its territory, whether it is a different country or not, as that region is very valuable and their country would be less powerful, whether the power comes on the expense of another nation or not.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


There are far more than two.

You left out the big one which is religion.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I agree with you, religion is also one of the driving factors, although it can also be considered as kind of a "patriotism". The only difference is one is for the state, the other for the god. Both of them have similar consequences, creating often a US vs THEM attitude and more aggressive leaders tend to take advantage of it to start wars.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I agree with you, religion is also one of the driving factors, although it can also be considered as kind of a "patriotism". The only difference is one is for the state, the other for the god. Both of them have similar consequences, creating often a US vs THEM attitude and more aggressive leaders tend to take advantage of it to start wars.


Well another one you left out, and probably the biggest, would be security.

Most wars have been fought over National Security. That is very different than wanting to profit or gain more power, it is about keeping in tact what you have.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Utopia is impossible. Social anarchism is not impossible.


Right off the top, we can agree that utopia is impossible.

But, it also seems to me that the term "social anarchism" is not only an oxymoron in a literal sense...but also just as unlikely. For anarchists to function within some sort of social framework, the framework itself would have to be established. Rules would have to be made (by whom amongst the leaderless anarchists?), and then enforced (an anarchist police force and court system?).


It will happen. Eventually...
We are in a greed driven crony-capitalist phase right now. We have to evolve beyond this phase.How?
(virtually)unlimited Free energy. (virtually)Unlimited resources.


Not to be pesky about such things, but who is it that will be supplying all of this unlimited free energy and free unlimited resources? Are you saying that men of science, or social do-gooders will just spring forward and create the technologies, and the equipment, and the delivery systems, and the maintenance resources required...and do it all for nothing?

And will we have another layer of altruistic component and parts suppliers...who will build factories on their own dime (not that there will be a monetary system in place which would lend meaning to the word dime)...and pop out endless quantities of whatever is needed, and give it all away too?

And no doubt, the workers in these factories will not only show up voluntarily on a regular basis, but they will provide their labours free of charge too - and they will be able to, of course, because food and housing will be free as well (will give new meaning to the term "poor farmer"...and slum lords will magically transform into shelter saints).


We have to have...

-free energy(vacuum energy,orbital solar arrays, Tesla free energy etc)
-free resource(asteroid mining,deep earth mining,deep sea mining)
-free work(fully integrated machine worker class)
-life extension technology and medicines (nano-machine medicine)

This would delegitimize crony-capitalism.


And these orbital solar arrays...for example...would just spring into being all on their own? No Governments to set standards...no universities (another offshoot of Government), or private research groups (without capitalism, why would anyone invest in creating new technologies)...no space agencies (or private ones) to launch them into orbit...nobody to build and manage the electrical grids that they would supply...

And...are these asteroids you speak of just going to softly touch down on earth by themselves, and spontaneously begin to shed precious substances?

I could comment further on your "needs list", but I think everybody gets the point here


Anarchism requires a mature UNSELFISH society with no energy/resource limitations.
You cannot have anarchism with limited privately owned resources and limited privately owned energy.(because of greed and selfishness)
Take the limitations of energy and resources and you can have social anarchism.


Well unless you are hoping to make wholesale changes to the DNA of the human species, which will remove our tendencies to be selfish (it's part of the survival instinct)...and our desires to not only keep up with the Jones', but to always be a step ahead of them. Unless you are going to somehow eradicate from the species, the tendencies of many to "achieve" and to "get ahead" and to "provide for their families". Unless you are somehow going to effect a wholesale cure for narcissists, socio paths and psychopaths (who make up a healthy percentage of those who end up in charge of things...as well as commit a lot of crimes).

Forget for a moment (though you shouldn't completely forget) the Hiltlers, and Stalins and Idi Amins of the world...how are you going to eradicate the people who have the tendencies that made people like Rockefeller, Trump, Ford, Jobs, Bush, Obama, Clinton etc., etc. extremely rich and/or powerful.

Unless you can curb all of this (which you cannot) your social anarchism will have a shelf life of about a nano second.


Until we have grown to that level we must have limited government(libertarianism).

We are not mature enough to self-govern on a massive scale yet.


You know, just because you can dream about jumping off of a building and flying...doesn't mean that you really can.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by mobiusmale

As other posters have indicated, some anarchists are themselves violent...but the real reason anarchistic thinking is inherently violent, is because the world after the implementation of such a philosophy would be a very dangerous and violent one. Unceasingly violent, until governance systems were once again introduced.


I don't understand why anyone would believe that a stateless society would be any more violent than the one we're already living in. Without even mentioning all of the coercive systems the state keeps in place, it (in various forms) has been responsible for the vast majority of the death and destruction on this planet. In the 20th century alone, governments have been directly responsible for the murders of well over 100 million people; all the while presiding over the pillaging of the planet's "natural resources". How's that for "inherently violent" thinking?


Well sure, let's agree that those charged with our governance are not always all that well behaved...and that without effective checks and balances...the personal tendencies that got these folks into positions of power in the first place, will often lead to abuses of power (or even deadly grabs for more power).

But, as a balance, perhaps we can also agree that since our systems of governance have evolved (in many places in the world) from monarchs and dictators, to democratically elected officials within states where the rule of law is (theoretically) the new "king"...that billions of people have risen out of poverty, have enjoyed greater freedoms, and shared generally greater social benefits.

I think we are likely going to disagree however, on what tweaks are required to move us even further along the correct path.

Anarchism, for me, is a step very much in the wrong direction...and if/when/wherever it was implemented, would by its very definition lead to complete lawlessness where the weakest amongst us would be quickly consumed...followed by mass starvation and death due to lack of warmth or power...followed by the formation of warlord mini-enclaves, where people would fall in with "strong men" who promise protection and restored social order - oops, there's the end of that joyous period of anarchism again.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Never mind whether anarchsts are violent or not, ou can argue that until you're blue in the face and it will get you nowhere. Man is a creature with a marked capacity for violence. But when groups of men consolidate their power, and form a State, this capacity suddenly increases to a level where War is.possible. So it's a no brainer. Get rid of the State. We no longer need to be ruled by tyrants. We got along very well before we had this notion of State, every other animal manages, why are we so crap that we cannot be trusted to take charge of our own lives? Because that's whate ite boilse down to. What does the State protect us from anyway? Ourselves? Nope that's weak. Each other? No, it makes no effort to do that. It protects us from having to think for ourselves. And that's just not good enough. We don't need to tear down "the system" Just ignore the more ridiculous bits of it. Use the useful bits, keep the good, and chuck the bad.

And if someone offers you violence, you have the same capabilities as he does. So offer it back. Or imply it. I want to srangle people who say "violence is never the answer" That's utter bollocks. Violence is always an answer. It's not a very good answer, and it's rarely the best answer, but sometimes it's the only one available. Suddenly you don't know how to speak. Your ability to answer fluently in violence has been co-opted by the State for so long now, you don't know how to do it. So learn. You have a duty to protect yourself and your lovd ones. Stop relying on the State for protection.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Well another one you left out, and probably the biggest, would be security.

Most wars have been fought over National Security. That is very different than wanting to profit or gain more power, it is about keeping in tact what you have.


I do not agree with attacking for security in most cases. Sometimes it is justified, in most cases it is used as an excuse in order to gain more power over some natural resource or some region.

There are nutcases in every country. Attacking an overally peaceful nation in order to get rid of the few nutcases out of the millions is not justified, as there is too much civilian casualties or how they are called during a war - collateral damage.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

We are in a greed driven crony-capitalist phase right now. We have to evolve beyond this phase.How?
(virtually)unlimited Free energy. (virtually)Unlimited resources.

We have to have...

-free energy(vacuum energy,orbital solar arrays, Tesla free energy etc)
-free resource(asteroid mining,deep earth mining,deep sea mining)
-free work(fully integrated machine worker class)
-life extension technology and medicines (nano-machine medicine)


It's important to remember that "free energy" is a misnomer. It sounds nice, but the technologies used to produce such energy are not free by any stretch of the imagination. Let me ask you this: How many people you know would voluntarily (in keeping with the NAP) spend their productive years in a hot, dank, dark mine somewhere performing hard labor? Because solar panels don't grow on rooftops and Tesla coils don't sprout from the ground. I don't know many people who would choose to sign up for that. That's why they have to be coerced into doing it through economic systems. "I have to have money so I have to have a job. This is what's available, so..."

If, as an anarchist, you believe in the eradication of coercive social systems, economic systems (all of them) must surely be included. If there's no way to force people into the mines and the oil fields, you're not going to be able to sustain the lifestyles made possible by industrialism. Good riddance, I say.


Free energy is not really a misnomer per say. Its expensive to setup but the years of virtually free energy from orbital solar arrays,thorium or other technologies.

The sun sends a lot of radiation to earth. Why not convert that into a useable resource?

Anarchists do not believe in eradication of the state. We just don't support coercive centralized violent top down governance.

Anarchists do not believe in eradicating economic systems. Stop it. People would still buy and sell things.
There just will be virtually infinite energy(orbital solar arrays,tesla, vaccuum energy etc), and resources and a machine automated worker class.

You don't have to force a machine to work in a mine or oil fields do you?






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join