I've been doing some thinking. This all started when I joined a "revloutounary leftist" forum. Weird I know. But I figured I could start some things with my capitalist ways. But one thing that confused me was their refrencing to anarchists and how it is a semi-strong form of government.
But the thing that confused me was the fact that they used anarchy and government in a positive way. But, considering that an anarchist (at least as far as I know) is against any form of government, which means that an anarchical government is totaly hypocritical. Let me explain.
We all know that people need motivation. Whether that be for work OR play, people need an incentive or someone to push them to do something. So, given this fact, the idea that an anarchical government is hypocritical in the strongest of ways. Not only would the members of the anti-establishment have to have a leader, but that leader would have to be overthrown immideatly after the distruction of the prior form of government. Why? Becuase any form of leadership seems to go against their doctrine.
Not only that, but every individual involved must be autonomious (sp?). Meaning that they would have to be "enlightened" all by themselves, and follow no leadership. I guess and example would be similar to the Matrix, except they must free themselves.
Also, anarchy doesn't make any sense becuause if there is to be no government, then they must destroy the basic family unit itself. The children must be taken from their mothers immideatly and raised away from them. But that brings up another point, in which children will imitate those who teach them, and will hold a certian loyalty to that individual or group. Which once again comes back to my point that anarchy, as a whole, not only makes no sense, but is hypocritical in it's idology.
I guess the main reason I bring this up is becuase of the rise in "teen anarchists." These immature little pukes annoy the hell out of me. Mainly becuase they don't understand what they say or what things stand for. Like seeing someone walking around in a Che shirt. I always wonder if they even knew who he was and what he stood for. But thats kids right? Stupid @!#$s...
/rant
Anarchy is not chaos.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
This reminds me of a friend's neigbors... the little @!#$s don't work, don't go to school, don't do anything, except for blast @!#$ty music all day(and night), smoke dope, and spraypaint anarchy symbols everywhere.
One day my friend told one of them how rediculous it was - after all, our system of government is what allows them to sit around and smoke weed all day while being a constant drain on society. She also told them that if they wanted anarchy so bad, they should move to downtown Kabul and see how they liked it.
"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Anarchy is not chaos.
x2
What is being described as anarchy is the farthest thing from it. Today, 'anarchists' are a bunch of whiny bitches who think their school is too harsh, or the government doesn't let them exercise their rights to an extent.
True anarchy is essentially a eutopia, the most basic of civilization. The reason anarchists today are all retarded is because they think true anarchy can happen. To have true anarchy, everyone muct get along, and follow a set of unwritten rules. I like to call it common courtesy. Everything would be free to use, so long as respect in all forms was paid to everyone equally. Anarchy would be one of the greatest things to experience. However, that will never happen because it requires everyone to think alike, and work toward the common good for the anarchical society. Life and society in their simplest forms are truly beautiful. No worries of anything, no crime, etc. Eutopic, to say the least. But that will never happen because everyone has their own agenda to tend to without taking into consideration the agendas of others, or of the common good.
anarchists are TOOLS. They want to rid of the government so they can rule the world, and be their own government.
its called the natural law theory look it up.
the thign is however, natural law cannot exist forever because as humans we will inevitably move towards soem form of set organization and government.
look up john loch or look up hobbes for opposing views on what the world would turn into if we were in a state of naturla law. they each have opposite views.
this topic would usually be covered in poly science 101
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
I know a few people who claim to be anarchists (adults). It's funny to me how they condemn government as a whole, but will accept the free food card, medical card and other assistance. They're also pretty quick to call the police for noise around their house, which is really funny if you think about it...
Anarchy isn't the answer. We need laws because people don't follow their religious teachings. What would government be if everyone obeyed just the 10 commandments? Our leaders would only have to collect tax revenue for roads and schools. And I'm a devout athiest. (which means I strictly follow the rules of nothing)
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
You all make anarchy sound a lot like communism. If so, you should be hung at sundown! Go back to your eastern block bread line, Pinkos!
Team GREEN
Suspension Division - "Handling Before Horsepower"
Making the turns since 1999
1998 EK Civic Hatch - Yes, it's a Honda.
john- since when did atheists have no "laws"?
atheists still have morals and ethics (or at leas tthey SHOULD to be decent human beings)
Creative Draft Art Media Forums
True Anarchy is an unworkable idea. It puts all of it's faith in the least trustworthy of groups: The people.
People are weak. People are cowards. People are easily led and greedy. And let's not forget stupid. A smart individual becomes a brain dead pawn if you plop him down in a big enough mob. Say what you will about the government but at least it operates with a modicum of intelligence and cunning.
I think of myself as an Anarchist, but I'd never want for the government to dissapear, or even to change. Liberal or Conservative leaders are meaningless to me. What does it matter anyway if you don't pledge your alliegiance to them? Could be Gandhi or Hitler running the show and it makes no difference. I believe that the desire for freedom is something personal and not some loud empty symbolic anti-authoritarian gesture like what the jagoff survivalists in the mountains or the little kids with the Anarchy shirts think they're doing by acting like idiots.
You have to be free mentally in order to be free physically from the obligations that society wishes to impose on you. Otherwise it's just silly boasting.
In any case, to answer the original question. The reason that Anarchists talk about "government" and segment themselves into so many sub-categories is that the whole thing can't be done. It doesn't work. It's an even more impossible concept than Communism. Personally, I take pleasure from seeing these idealistic idiots fail. Serves them right.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Anarchy is not chaos.
I suppose this is true.
It has just annoyed me, as the rest of you, how this ideology is being preached...it annoyes me.
Thanks everyone for their opinions and insights
Anarchy is utopia at best. It could never happen--and sustain itself with the current populace of humans. You have just about 20% that need to rule, just about 80% that need to be led, and the scant rest are the only ones that could make it work, but are so outnumbered that it could never happen.
How it could work, though, is looking at things from, say a Tiger's lifespan. it gets raised to the point of self-sufficience by it's mother, then is abandoned. it continues on its own until it's mating season, and then mates and the two leave each other.
Technically, it could work, but tigers are solitary animals, humans are for the near-entire part social.
The people that preach anarchy now are incredibly short-sighted, though. In order for anarchy to work now, you have to somehow convince the "rulers" that they don't need to rule and just basically not screw with people, and you have to convince the populace en masse that they have to accept full personal responsibility and have to work everything out for themselves.
That has about as much chance of happening as Tammy Faye Baker in a gang-bang with the Golden Girls and the Defensive line of the Green Bay Packers. (For those of you reading that had pariapisms, you're welcome).
True anarchy could never happen because:
1) There's no way the tyrants would give up their rule over the sheep.
2) There's no way the Sheep would ever fend for themselves
----This is similar to "The junky needs the dealer; the dealer needs the junky"
and:
3) Those that preach anarchy now have no clue what it takes.
Anarchy itself isn't chaos, it's order, getting from -archy to anarchy, though, is pure chaos, and only those that could deal, or thrive on it (chaos) would survive.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
True communism sounds good and is fair. But when instilled by politicians and not the people it turns corrupt. But true communism could not work in todays world. Too many people, and there are people who can be corrupted. I think if there was Communism that would work it would have to take place on a global scale. I'm no expert on Communism but you know one person would have the final say so. And the global balance between rich and poor nations is too great. So who would want one person from another group controlling global interests especially the ones that are way ahead in life. But yeah most experiences with communism gives rise to Commie's!!!
John Wilken wrote:And I'm a devout athiest. (which means I strictly follow the rules of nothing)
I was fairly certain that atheist meant you didn't believe that there was a god. Learn something new every day, huh? </sarcasm>
But on another note, most 'true' forms of most any government would be great for this world. But people as a natural instinct simply can NOT be wholly selfless. There is always something to be gained by what they do, and though most people can be shown that total world order is much to be gained, they still won't be able to work it out. There's a reason that utopia doesn't exist in our world (nowhere we've found at least), and that is merely because we're all too god damn interested in ourselves to devote ourselves to the greater good. Plain and simple, as sad as it is.
^^^I think the bigger problem is that people are too easily duped into trying for a greater good. All we've seen of the greater goods of the past just mean that one or two self-serving @!#$s wind up with everything while the sheep get @!#$.
True anarchy would only be able to work if everything was self-focused rather than greater good focued. the problem wuith that is by-and-large, humans are a social specie, and most people can't seal with a solitary mindset.
The neo-punk anarchists just want the ability to do what they want--they don't want some crusty trouserstain telling them what they can and can't do--all and well. The only way they could actually get there is to be able to life totally without the crusty trouserstain giving them support in any way shape or form and totally fend for themself. That is about as likely to happen as Sally Struthers winning the Boston Marathon.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Jason (Pilz-E) wrote:John Wilken wrote:And I'm a devout athiest. (which means I strictly follow the rules of nothing)
I was fairly certain that atheist meant you didn't believe that there was a god. Learn something new every day, huh? </sarcasm>
.
It was a feeble attempt at humor... An athiest doesn't believe in God, as a "devout" athiest, I don't have a book to follow, so there's no rules to obey and nothing that I can strictly follow...
Anyhoo, if it has to be explained it isn't funny.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
