Anarchy

[CarleyGee]

This is a general discussion of Anarchy.

This thread was influenced by the "EMO" thread,
as I got onto a topic of punks, which reminded
me slightly of anarchists.




I'm not sure if this is an apporpriate thread or not, but as
someone who is strongly against the government, media,
politicians, etc, I was wondering if anyone else had the
same beliefs.

DICTIONARY - The most reliable!
Main Entry:an·ar·chy Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\ Function:noun Etymology:Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek,
from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-Date:1539
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 government2
a: absence or denial of any authority or established order
b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>



Wikipedia - It comes in handy quite often!


A political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all forms of compulsory government.[10] The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers".[11][12]


Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all forms of coercion, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution, on the path to anarchy.[25]





The founding fathers of United States were against government,
just as Anarchists are. No government was what the country was
built on.

Anarchy also can be considered to have no religion, but I'm
not quite sure of that, myself ^_^





Anarchists are known to protest and riot.
Basically, they are like hippies, only violent.


They carry the belief:

There's No Government Like No Government.


Discussion?

EDIT:

Well damn! There is a Wiki for everything.
Just discovered Anarchopedia.
Main Page - Anarchopedia

[OliveJuice]

Nice.

I don't know about COMPLETE anarchy, cuz if everyone went around doing whatever they wanted, everyone would be dead lol, or mamed at the very least.

I do however like the idea of an anarchy lite lol. Watered-down anarchy. The idea of government isn't the enemy in my opinion, it's the heartless, money-hungry bigots that end up running the government that's the problem lol. Government is a beautiful idea, as long as the people in power have a SOUL, truly have the country's best interest at heart, and work with and for the people, and not do everything they can to oppress them.
(Boo for run-on sentences lol)

But I can count on NO hands how many times that's happened lol. I don't know if it ever will in my lifetime, but it'd be lovely.

Just my thoughts ::shrugs::.....

[minimin]

Yea, I like this thread mucho better than the emo thread

[CarleyGee]

Originally Posted by OliveJuice

Nice.

I don't know about COMPLETE anarchy, cuz if everyone went around doing whatever they wanted, everyone would be dead lol, or mamed at the very least.

I do however like the idea of an anarchy lite lol. Watered-down anarchy. The idea of government isn't the enemy in my opinion, it's the heartless, money-hungry bigots that end up running the government that's the problem lol. Government is a beautiful idea, as long as the people in power have a SOUL, truly have the country's best interest at heart, and work with and for the people, and not do everything they can to oppress them.
(Boo for run-on sentences lol)

But I can count on NO hands how many times that's happened lol. I don't know if it ever will in my lifetime, but it'd be lovely.

Just my thoughts ::shrugs::.....

Thank you for your opinion ^_^
I wasn't sure if anyone would take interest.

From Anarchopedia.com - Anarchy 101 Page

FIRST STATEMENT:

Well, if you donʼt elect officials to make the decisions, who does make them? You canʼt tell me that everybody can do as he personally pleases without regard for others.

Anarchists have many ideas about how decisions would be made in a truly voluntary and cooperative society. Most anarchists believe that such a society must be based on local communities small enough for people to know each other, or people at least would share ties of family, friendship, opinions or interests with almost everybody else. And because this is a local community, people also share common knowledge of their community and its environment. They know that they will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike politicians or bureaucrats, who decide for other people.

Anarchists believe that decisions should always be made at the smallest possible level. Every decision which individuals can make for themselves, without interfering with anybody elseʼs decisions for themselves, they should make for themselves. Every decision made in small groups (such as the family, religious congregations, co-workers, etc.) is again theirs to make as far as it doesnʼt interfere with others. Decisions with significant wider impact, if anyone is concerned about them, would go to an occasional face-to-face community assembly.

The community assembly, however, is not a legislature. No one is elected. Anyone may attend. People speak for themselves. But as they speak about specific issues, they are very aware that for them, winning is not, as it was for football coach Vince Lombardi, "the only thing." They want everyone to win. They value fellowship with their neighbors. They try, first, to reduce misunderstanding and clarify the issue. Often thatʼs enough to produce agreement. If thatʼs not enough, they work for a compromise. Very often they accomplish it. If not, the assembly may put off the issue, if itʼs something that doesnʼt require an immediate decision, so the entire community can reflect on and discuss the matter prior to another meeting. If that fails, the community will explore whether thereʼs a way the majority and minority can temporarily separate, each carrying out its preference.

If people still have irreconcilable differences about the issue, the minority has two choices. It can go along with the majority this time, because community harmony is more important than the issue. Maybe the majority can conciliate the minority with a decision about something else. If all else fails, and if the issue is so important to the minority, it may separate to form a separate community, just as various American states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Utah, West Virginia, etc.) have done. If their secession isnʼt an argument against statism, then it isnʼt an argument against anarchy. Thatʼs not a failure for anarchy, because the new community will recreate anarchy.


Anarchy isnʼt a perfect system — itʼs just better than all the others.


AND YOUR OTHER STATEMENT:


Has there ever been an anarchist society that worked?
Yes, many thousands of them. For their first million years or more, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers in small bands of equals, without hierarchy or authority. These are our ancestors. Anarchist societies must have been successful, otherwise none of us would be here. The state is only a few thousand years old, and it has taken that long for it to subdue the last anarchist societies, such as the San (Bushmen), the Pygmies and the Australian aborigines.

Originally Posted by minimin

Yea, I like this thread mucho better than the emo thread

I agree <3

[minimin]

Well I think Govt. gets in the way of everything, it controls everything even your morals and how you should live. what you should do in daily life and I see why people want to fight and believe in there rights to do what they want. I wish we still had many politicians with souls but souls are irrelevant in the matter now, cuz most dont, they dont care about your needs only there own selfish greed. I hate it too. I see why Anarchy exist in the first place.

[CarleyGee]

Originally Posted by minimin

Well I think Govt. gets in the way of everything, it controls everything even your morals and how you should live. what you should do in daily life and I see why people want to fight and believe in there rights to do what they want. I wish we still had many politicians with souls but souls are irrelevant in the matter now, cuz most dont, they dont care about your needs only there own selfish greed. I hate it too. I see why Anarchy exist in the first place.

The media is what I see as the main warping of children.

My family doesn't allow the news on the television anymore.
Basically everything that is said is a lie to make the government
look better, and what they really are doing is using propaganda
to make up excuses for their actions.

I don't want to start in on conspiracies, because that's a whole
other thread, but really, as the most paranoid person you will
ever meet, I warn people to question what you hear.

These are two quotes I keep close to heart:

"Institutionalism and central authority are parasites
feeding on human freedom."

and

“Make yourself a sheep and the wolves will eat you.”

For a while my family couldn't decide what they were :
Hippies or Anarchists?
(not including my father - he's in denial haha)

Like I said before, the only difference is how they go about
getting the peace :

Violence

Which I don't mind to much, the government won't listen to
you any other way. I sometimes find myself dreaming of rioting.

P.S :
I'm an extreme believer in anarchy.
There's a 2% chance you could change my mind.

Which I will warn now : This is just discussion, not debate.

[minimin]

Yeah I agree I watch the news tho, when they say stuff about how good Govt and politicians are helping, its hard to believe tho. What you see on tv does change your perception of reality. I say trust no one with news they tell you unless you hear it yourself. I see the government as a money hungry waste, as much as you put into it its never enough and you still suffer of course they wouldnt have it any other way.

I say violence is a good thing if it makes someone change there ways. very good thing and definitely helpful at proving a point. Usually you see violence is the only way to change a problem.


P.S. I like this thread, and I don't really much try to change peoples minds of anything.

[OliveJuice]

Originally Posted by CarleyGee

Thank you for your opinion ^_^
I wasn't sure if anyone would take interest.

From Anarchopedia.com - Anarchy 101 Page

FIRST STATEMENT:

Well, if you donʼt elect officials to make the decisions, who does make them? You canʼt tell me that everybody can do as he personally pleases without regard for others.

Anarchists have many ideas about how decisions would be made in a truly voluntary and cooperative society. Most anarchists believe that such a society must be based on local communities small enough for people to know each other, or people at least would share ties of family, friendship, opinions or interests with almost everybody else. And because this is a local community, people also share common knowledge of their community and its environment. They know that they will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike politicians or bureaucrats, who decide for other people.



Anarchists believe that decisions should always be made at the smallest possible level. Every decision which individuals can make for themselves, without interfering with anybody elseʼs decisions for themselves, they should make for themselves. Every decision made in small groups (such as the family, religious congregations, co-workers, etc.) is again theirs to make as far as it doesnʼt interfere with others. Decisions with significant wider impact, if anyone is concerned about them, would go to an occasional face-to-face community assembly.


The community assembly, however, is not a legislature. No one is elected. Anyone may attend. People speak for themselves. But as they speak about specific issues, they are very aware that for them, winning is not, as it was for football coach Vince Lombardi, "the only thing." They want everyone to win. They value fellowship with their neighbors. They try, first, to reduce misunderstanding and clarify the issue. Often thatʼs enough to produce agreement. If thatʼs not enough, they work for a compromise. Very often they accomplish it. If not, the assembly may put off the issue, if itʼs something that doesnʼt require an immediate decision, so the entire community can reflect on and discuss the matter prior to another meeting. If that fails, the community will explore whether thereʼs a way the majority and minority can temporarily separate, each carrying out its preference.


If people still have irreconcilable differences about the issue, the minority has two choices. It can go along with the majority this time, because community harmony is more important than the issue. Maybe the majority can conciliate the minority with a decision about something else. If all else fails, and if the issue is so important to the minority, it may separate to form a separate community, just as various American states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Utah, West Virginia, etc.) have done. If their secession isnʼt an argument against statism, then it isnʼt an argument against anarchy. Thatʼs not a failure for anarchy, because the new community will recreate anarchy.


Anarchy isnʼt a perfect system — itʼs just better than all the others.

That's the thing tho, the ideal is always nicer the the actual result lol. It looks good on paper, but is it realistic.

I don't trust human nature that much. Large communities of people working together with no leadership, all toward the greater good. I personally love the sound of it, but there are too many snakes in the grass, too many glory hounds, too many crazies wanting to "play God"; they ruin it for everyone. It's sad, disappointing, and I wish we lived in a society where greed doesn't gobble people up whole, but it seems we haven't evolved to the point of self-sufficient societies.

As for rural communities and tribes, they may lack a formal government system, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a form of government is toally absent. There may not be official laws and elected rulers in place, but there are wisemen, shamen, or the council of elders, etc. There's almost always a person or persons with some sort of standing within the community to which the people turn to or are advised by. It's not a monarchy or a democracy, but there are a few in place guiding the greater numbers in a cooperative collective effort, which is essentially what a government is.

[OliveJuice]

Originally Posted by minimin

P.S. I like this thread, and I don't really much try to change peoples minds of anything.

Me tooooo. I don't like the changing people's minds stuff, but I love the exchange of ideas.

[minimin]

@OliveJuice: Yeah, it is pretty sad we don't think about how greedy we really are, even as a nation we are greedy and want to play god to better suit are needs or most people do. The best things always get filled with venom and turn out to be more trouble than there worth. This place is like a car you keep putting money into and it just keeps breaking down.


I think the small tribes have the best form of Govt from how you put it they really do, maybe we ought to adopt there ways and people wont be so greedy and obsessive over there own wants and they'd work to help out there communities and we can be better people that way....but I dont see that happening anytime soon.