Anarchy - Tell us why it's good

[truthspoon]

Originally Posted by spiraltrance

Anarchy is the road to hell and inferior existance. Anarchy is also the foundation of most satanic/left hand beliefs so if you think that's something to be aspired to be my guest.

Alot of people in the establishment are also anarchists and more adept ones than the sort that go out protesting against them. Many politicians that inititate wars and bankers who act detrimentaly towards society are essentialy anarchists. They're sowing the seeds of choas and disorder and on a much grander scale.

I think there's some truth in that....

The Anarchy movement has always been an illuminati board piece. Like you say I bet the highest echelons of the illuminati are satanic anarchists hoping to bring primordial chaos to the world in order as they see it, to purify us all.

[amaralsright]

Originally Posted by phildee3

With actual democracy (cultural norms being determined by the people) you still get some disagreeing with the rules, sure, but they get ostracised by their community to an extent which renders their activities non-disruptive.

The more extreme would get ostracised - perhaps - but then again why should they - this is anarachy isn't it?

But that would be the exception.

People disagree in large groups over lots of things.

And that doesn't get away from the fact that on a daily basis thousands of decisions need to be made that it would be impractical for 60 million people to get intricately involved in.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by amaralsright

The more extreme would get ostracised - perhaps - but then again why should they - this is anarachy isn't it?

No.
That's a rule that forbids the people from being free to ostracise.

[spiraltrance]

Originally Posted by edelweiss pirate

I think there's some truth in that....

The Anarchy movement has always been an illuminati board piece. Like you say I bet the highest echelons of the illuminati are satanic anarchists hoping to bring primordial chaos to the world in order as they see it, to purify us all.

I honestly don't think it's a case of wanting to 'purify humanity'. I think it's just a case of they enjoy the temporary power trap and rebeling against order in the same way people who ran riot smashing cake shop windows in London and throwing paint-balls as everyday people driving there cars do.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by amaralsright

> ...on a daily basis thousands of decisions need to be made that it would be impractical for 60 million people to get intricately involved in.

Of course.
Decisions are made by individuals rather than groups.
They are then enacted by those who agree with them.

So if someone comes up with a shite plan which benefits some fat cats to the detriment of the people (like happens now) it won't get carried out by the workers.

[lilith light]

How can anyone be an anarchist without being a hypocrite in society?

[amaralsright]

Originally Posted by phildee3

Of course.
Decisions are made by individuals rather than groups.
They are then enacted by those who agree with them.

What about the people who don't agree with them?

What if one group decides to build a road through another groups village?

What if one group doesn't want the Hospice building next to their lovely houses?

Do you know how this will work practically?

[djhooker]

Originally Posted by john devine

Definition of ANARCHY (merriam-webster dictionary)

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature.

sounds good to me, like stanhope says, if you wanna be led so much, hire a dominatrix.

[sannox]

to be played at maximum volume .

[dogsmilk]

Originally Posted by amaralsright

Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society (or whatever the term is for the thing)?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds and repairs the roads?

(I could go on).

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just noticed you're doing your usual trick of going on about something you clearly haven't got a fucking clue about and making yourself look stupid in the process.
Anarchism as a political philosophy comes in several forms. Hence, you will get a multitude of interpretations as you might with other political philosophies.
However, organisation has typically been of paramount importance for anarchists. It doesn't mean everyone runs round setting fire to things and society collapses.

Imagine you and some like minded people started a group. Maybe the Holocaust truth group you won't start because you realised how idiotic you'd look. As a collective, you discuss and agree the best way forward. You might agree certain individuals perform certain tasks, but nobody is in charge and tells everyone else what to do. Nobody is more important and you try to give everyone their say. Disagreements are solved by negotiation and rules are mutually agreed. That is a very crude example of anarchy in action. Self organisation without external authority. There is no barrier between the ruling and the ruled.
And you can find numerous problems and contradictions (proper ones - not the ignorant shit you've been talking) you can debate forever. A bit like every other political philosophy ever invented. It's just anarchists believe it is the best solution for a fair and just society, just as fascists, Marxists, Tories and everyone else believes theirs is.

Though obviously women and slaves were out, the kind of direct democracy practiced in ancient Athens has been influential on anarchy. Fast forward a couple of thousand years and you've got what anarchists were doing in the Spanish civil war before the Stalinists insisted on taking over.

There is a long and rich history of anarchist and proto-anarchist ideology and examples of people trying to put ideas into practice. Have you tried reading any of this before saying incredibly asinine things like "who builds the hospitals".?
Obviously not. That's never been your style before. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

Start with William Godwin as that's the first instance of rational anarchism in a post-Enlightenment stylee (this was from a utilitarian angle). Then look at Proudhon, Bakunin and certainly Kropotkin and Malatesta. Emma Goldman is worth looking at just because she was so passionate, Alexander Berkman too. Look at Rudolf Rocker for a more syndicalist angle.

[sorath]

I think anarchy is a good idea but wouldn't work in practice. To use the freeman on the land concept of not having to pay for car insurance, because it has nothing to do with common law (i.e causing loss, damage or harm). What would stop someone from crashing into you and then just saying "I'm not paying you a penny because I don't have to." I know it's a minor example but if you apply it across the board in a country where anarchy is the norm, I don't see a utopia. If anything the country would quickly descend into total chaos.

Good thread.

[dogsmilk]

Originally Posted by sorath

I think anarchy is a good idea but wouldn't work in practice. To use the freeman on the land concept of not having to pay for car insurance, because it has nothing to do with common law (i.e causing loss, damage or harm). What would stop someone from crashing into you and then just saying "I'm not paying you a penny because I don't have to." I know it's a minor example but if you apply it across the board in a country where anarchy is the norm, I don't see a utopia. If anything the country would quickly descend into total chaos.

Good thread.

Being cynical about anarchism being realistic today, I would have to concur is a serious point. Except maybe anarcho-capitalism which personally I find to be a repulsive notion.
Nevertheless, I think you have to get past the notion people could do exactly what they like. Freedom necessitates responsibilty. Anarchism generally doesn't mean no rules. It means the people decide the rules within their communities.
However, the question is complicated by the fact anarchism veers from anarchist communism to ultra individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. So you're potentially talking about a range of approaches. But none of them mean no rule following behaviour.

[sorath]

Originally Posted by dogsmilk

Being cynical about anarchism being realistic today, I would have to concur is a serious point. Except maybe anarcho-capitalism which personally I find to be a repulsive notion.
Nevertheless, I think you have to get past the notion people could do exactly what they like. Freedom necessitates responsibilty. Anarchism generally doesn't mean no rules. It means the people decide the rules within their communities.
However, the question is complicated by the fact anarchism veers from anarchist communism to ultra individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. So you're potentially talking about a range of approaches. But none of them mean no rule following behaviour.

Do you think that the cynical nature of the society we now live in and how far we have fallen from grace, so to speak is the number one reason why anarchy just couldn't work anymore.

I am no expert and maybe my analogies are a bit simplistic. For some reason the Amish popped into my head. It's not enough to just live in an anarchist society but you also have to be moral as a country for it to work.

[martg]

Originally Posted by knightofthegrail

It can work, on a small and pre-industrial scale as a relationship between adults......if people realise that the individualistic notion of identity is misleading and instead catch on to how the majority of their identity is located in a wider self than the "personal self".

Outside of those parameters, it is a recipe for chaos.

This^

in my opinion it's something to work towards, as we reduce the power and control of governments and decrease the influence of the social manipulators like the Tavistock institute that have done so much to destroy the bonds between people.

If we were suddenly plunged into anarchy it would be chaos, but given a few generations of rebuilding the family unit, removing the destructive media influences and educating people to look after each other it might one day be possible.

[amaralsright]

Originally Posted by dogsmilk

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just noticed you're doing your usual trick of going on about something you clearly haven't got a fucking clue about and making yourself look stupid in the process.

Oh look a personal attack.

Anarchism as a political philosophy comes in several forms. Hence, you will get a multitude of interpretations as you might with other political philosophies.
However, organisation has typically been of paramount importance for anarchists. It doesn't mean everyone runs round setting fire to things and society collapses.

Piss off and read the thread.

Imagine you and some like minded people started a group. Maybe the Holocaust truth group

This is what your personal attack is really about.

What's the matter?

Bored or something?

[arthas6014]

Originally Posted by amaralsright

I've seen lots of people here avocating anarchy.

I'm assuming they mean "Rule without Government".

Please could these people tell us why it's so great.

Thanks.

(PS. I think rule without Government is impossible, just so you know).

Umm, sir? How did you grow up? You parents were your government agents?

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by sorath

I think anarchy is a good idea but wouldn't work in practice.

Anarchy is not an idea - it's the natural order of things.
All other political systems are ideas - and none of them work in practice (except to serve the elite for a limited period).

[john devine]

Originally Posted by martg

This^

in my opinion it's something to work towards, as we reduce the power and control of governments and decrease the influence of the social manipulators like the Tavistock institute that have done so much to destroy the bonds between people.

If we were suddenly plunged into anarchy it would be chaos, but given a few generations of rebuilding the family unit, removing the destructive media influences and educating people to look after each other it might one day be possible.

"If we were suddenly plunged into anarchy it would be chaos, but given a few generations of rebuilding the family unit..."

are you willing to sacrifice the lives of yourself, your children, family and friends for the sake of future generations of strangers ?

[amaralsright]

Originally Posted by phildee3

Anarchy is not an idea - it's the natural order of things.

There is no "natural order" in human society.
There hasn't been in recorded human history.
There has always been a governing entity no matter how large or small the community.
A governing entity is the ONLY practical way for human society to function.

All other political systems are ideas - and none of them work in practice (except to serve the elite for a limited period).

They are all working in practice.
You just don't like them.

What wouldn't work in practice is a system where everyone decided on everything all the time.

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by amaralsright

Who catches the criminals in an Anarchist society (or whatever the term is for the thing)?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds and repairs the roads?

(I could go on).

co-operation of the people..