anarchy

[DeletedUser25379]

general thread about the beauty of anarchy and the hallmarks of the mental slavery required to claim otherwise.

 

[Algona]

Anarchy, so lovely. But it will be even better after I kill you, and since there's no one to stop me...

 

[DeletedUser10415]

What do you mean there's no one to stop you? While there are indeed pacifist anarchists, pacifism is not a requirement of anarchism.

 

[DeletedUser9433]

What do you mean there's no one to stop you? While there are indeed pacifist anarchists, pacifism is not a requirement of anarchism.

Gandhi is a case in point for the pacifist perspective.

 

[DeletedUser23123]

Funny how Anarchy Activist scream for cops when they're getting their ass whoop. Very true. I was one of them that was doing the whooping.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Pictures or it didn't happen.

 

[DeletedUser23123]

Hum. Don't got pictures. Kind of hard to do when coming out of a strip joint in Cleveland, OH, half smash, celebrating a Cousin Bachelor party. Had fun with it. Me going to jail wasn't.
P.s. Also didn't have many cameras back in the early 90's

 

[DeletedUser25379]

What do you mean there's no one to stop you? While there are indeed pacifist anarchists, pacifism is not a requirement of anarchism.

forgot i started this thread.

agreed, glarg. anarchy does not mean a sudden loss of conscience or the absence of conscience. i would happily shoot someone in the face to protect you, algona.

Gandhi is a case in point for the pacifist perspective.

exactly. a case for not being a pacifist.

pacifism is peak human stupidity. it is perfectly consistent with the non-aggression principle so there is nothing wrong with it, but don't trust that a person claiming to be pacifist would ever actually be so stupid. commies love pacifists, love to promote pacifism. i recommend not forgetting that.

 

[Mustapha00]

Gandhi is a case in point for the pacifist perspective.

Gandhi's pacifism worked only because, in the British, dealt with a society which recognized the concept and did not see it as a sign of weakness.

Had WW2 gone differently and the Japanese had defeated the British and made India a colony of their own, I doubt Gandhi and his actions would have impacted the Japanese plans any longer than it would have taken for them to shoot him.

 

[DeletedUser25379]

Gandhi's pacifism worked only because, in the British, dealt with a society which recognized the concept and did not see it as a sign of weakness.

Had WW2 gone differently and the Japanese had defeated the British and made India a colony of their own, I doubt Gandhi and his actions would have impacted the Japanese plans any longer than it would have taken for them to shoot him.

worth mentioning that the brits still plowed over countless people.

 

[Mustapha00]

worth mentioning that the brits still plowed over countless people.

True, but they could have ended the passive resistance much earlier had they executed- not merely arrested but executed- Gandhi. Not many of his followers were as willing to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of freedom.

I can't think of many instances in which colonization benefited both the colonizers and those colonized equally, but I can think of examples where those colonized fared far worse than in others, both historical and ahistorical examples. No doubt that India and its citizens did suffer under British rule, but their plight would have been almost infinitely worse had their 'masters' been militaristic Japan (or Nazi Germany, which was only somehwhat less likely than Japan).

 

[DeletedUser]

Ain't anarchy wonderful? Excuse me, somebody's knocking on my silo door.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

general thread about the beauty of anarchy and the hallmarks of the mental slavery required to claim otherwise.

It certainly is turning out to be a general thread, owing in large part to the vagueness of your initial statement, which gives no examples of "the beauty of anarchy" or "the hallmarks of the mental slavery required to claim otherwise."

Unless you can produce some solid anarchist theory sir muley, I'll have to assume it's just a fashion accessory for you.

 

[DeletedUser25379]

It certainly is turning out to be a general thread, owing in large part to the vagueness of your initial statement, which gives no examples of "the beauty of anarchy" or "the hallmarks of the mental slavery required to claim otherwise."

Unless you can produce some solid anarchist theory sir muley, I'll have to assume it's just a fashion accessory for you.

ok. anarchy basically means 'without rulers'. so, what do rulers do that would be objectionable enough to want to be without them? rulers murder and steal. in general, rulers use force. otherwise, they would not be called rulers. therefore, anarchists oppose force and initiating violence against people and their property. therefore, the non-aggression principle is central to being an anarchist and promoting anarchy. therefore, anarchy is the complete absence of aggression towards others. obviously, humans will never ever stop hurting each other completely but what we as anarchists can do in our own capacity is to act peacefully and promote that peace and respect. it's really very simple. if there are some finer points you are not sure about let me know.

edit: anarchists differ from pacifists in that it is moral or permissible to resist violence with your own violence. all actual pacifists (who would not resist their own rape or home invasion and, as a result, are exceedingly rare in nature and the animal kingdom) are anarchists in that they oppose ALL violence. Since actual pacifists don't initiate violence, they are anarchists. Also consistent with the non-initiation of violence is the use of defensive violence to repel an aggressor. All actual pacifists are anarchists but not all anarchists are pacifists. An anarchist cannot initiate force against another just as a pacifist cannot initiate/resist force.

capitalism is voluntary exchange without force, therefore anarchy is capitalism. therefore capitalism's foe, socialism, is violence and slavery.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

As I've spent the better part of twenty years discussing and debating with anarchists, I'm not much interested in continuing to do so. While I count myself among them ( as an anarchist with more than one but certainly not all of the adjectives), I'm convinced that nothing short of Yellowstone blowing it's top or a hostile extraterrestrial invasion would disrupt The State and more importantly it's hold on the collective subconscious enough for any of the forms of Anarchism to have a chance at flourishing beyond such temporary autonomous zones as exist today.

Since I don't have the inclination to debate with you, sir muley, I'll just leave this here, which pretty well covers most of the "finer points":
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarchism

As for 'Anarcho Capitalism', which I and many more consider to be an oxymoron, the rational wiki has given it a page all it's own:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[DeletedUser25379]

As I've spent the better part of twenty years discussing and debating with anarchists, I'm not much interested in continuing to do so. While I count myself among them ( as an anarchist with more than one but certainly not all of the adjectives), I'm convinced that nothing short of Yellowstone blowing it's top or a hostile extraterrestrial invasion would disrupt The State and more importantly it's hold on the collective subconscious enough for any of the forms of Anarchism to have a chance at flourishing beyond such temporary autonomous zones as exist today.

Since I don't have the inclination to debate with you, sir muley, I'll just leave this here, which pretty well covers most of the "finer points":
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarchism

As for 'Anarcho Capitalism', which I and many more consider to be an oxymoron, the rational wiki has given it a page all it's own:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalism is redundant.

 

[DeletedUser26159]

anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron, anarcho-capitalism is redundant.

Mutualism is the dankest ideology behind individualism when it comes to anarchist schools of thought

 

[DeletedUser11463]

Any state organization is basically a legalized mafia. The point of government is to take from you at the point of a gun to give to someone else. Lest anyone think otherwise, please provide ANY current government that does not tax it's population and then transfer that tax to someone else (usually to those in power).

 

[lemur]

I'm convinced that nothing short of Yellowstone blowing it's top or a hostile extraterrestrial invasion would disrupt The State and more importantly it's hold on the collective subconscious ...

The climate chaos looming on the horizon will offer much more than the state can control. Very few people understand that one of the most urgent problems will be crop failure, due to grain crops failing to pollenate. Hunger does a great job of focusing the mind on action, especially in a society of extreme inequity.

 

[Mustapha00]

Going back centuries, we've been told by prognosticators that, one day, there will be just too many people on earth for us to feed, yet fewer farmers on less land are growing more food now than ever before. Yes, there are still issues with famine, but most of those instances are the result of governmental corruption or conflict (and said conflict is almost never over resources but rather over ideology).

Climate change is merely the latest effort to initiate the global transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor ones. The real answer to global income inequality is capitalism, which will make poor countries richer, rather than socialism, which will make rich countries poorer.