Anarchy

No you are completely missing the point. Anarchy is the natural order of things, change happens all the time. If you think properly about this - for once - the present systems of governments are there to PREVENT change. This means that our 'leaders' are acting against society in order to keep their control/power in place. Also, anarchy has been the dominant 'political' system in human history, it's only when nations developed in the last three thousand years that the trouble really started. The real argument now is do we change things peacefully or 'by the deed'. Bakunin argued that you have to destroy in order to rebuild - this is where the violent wing of anarchism gets it's creed. Before you start Anarchists do NOT want to replace capitalism with north korea, both are just as bad as each other. Also that there have been modern examples of anarchy working perfectly well in practice especially in spain during the civil war and in the ukraine. So when you hear 'it will never work' wrong wrong wrong... only the second world war prevented further advances... Oh by the why Gandhi did OK in india with this system, he ended british rule with non violent resistance - a model for future anarchism imho...

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rjhJcUBRKg]YouTube - ‪Capitalism Is Anarchy = Anarcho-Capitalism‬‏[/ame]

 

*Whoosh*

That was the sound of Kylesa's post going over your head.

 

yeah check out his post history. kylesa is about as anarchist as they come...his avatar is Murray Rothbard forchristsakes...one of history's most famous anarchists

 

Government is violence, but i have to agree with aaron.

Only intelligent people can make a "no system" society work. They have to be smart enough to survive on their own, work together, and live in a way that is sustainable considering their resources. If we burned government today, and watched the results, we would be fucked. We would be invaded so quickly, and nobody would know WTF to do.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though, because the road to anarchy, is a road that conditions people to live in such a manner. A slow progression to a stateless society would force adaptation to such an environment. A self fulfilling prophecy so to speak.

If im not mistaken, Aaron prefers the idea of a minimal, self sustaining, liberty assuring government, focused on local power, rather than federal. If we move towards this goal, we are also moving towards the possibility of a stateless society.

A stateless society is the natural evolution of the ides of government stated above.

I believe a no state situation is the best goal. But id be lying if i said i would not be satisfied with the type of government Aaron seems to be seeking.

 

Exactly, it cannot work overnight. But if we continue to educate, we might able see in our life times.

 

Why wud u destroy society all at once with no progression? Humans are still oriented towards our current form due to social conditions, so it wud be a matter of time before it returns. Your best bet is to remove undesirable social conditions that prevent man from throwing off the chains of oppression we call society.

 

Well first we need to get some things straight. The state itself is just a group that monopolizes violence, that is essentially the state at its most basic form. Why do humans use states? If you think about it, there will always be a group that uses force to ensure it goals are met. The government will always be the biggest. ANYWAYS the state is always a tool of oppression for one group, progression for others. So in that sense, the state is flawed. The ruling class/elite of a state use their influence to effect policy, their representation of the lower classes is simply to prevent riots in the streets. If no one gave a fuck about imposing fair taxes on middle and lower classes, there wud be absolute chaos as these classes outnumber the higher classes. So what we have is a state heavily influenced by the elite, forced to promote the middle class and lower class.

Anarchists wud have u throw away this entire system, which won't happen. Why?

1) Doubtful that any radical ideology, no offense because I myself am a far far leftist, will gain resources to force elite's hand at voicing their issues and compromising

2) There is no way you can immediately throw away society without effecting necessary change

I may have not said shit clearly, still lil baked , I will clarify if needed. But anarchy won't happen in my opinon and if it does, it will just regress to our current society. We should just try and make social changes necessary: Attempting to organize wage workers and middle class workers into real organizations that realize their explotation, not unions which distort it. Then get these groups in power and go from there.

 

1. Anarchy is not a societal system, it is not a governmental system, it is the distinct lack of such things. It is not something you can implement. It is a lifestyle choice of respect for individual rights.

2. It has been used, is being used, and will be used for a long time. Again, rarely on a societal level, but on an individual or group level. It has worked, is working, and will continue to work for a long time.

If you want to get into whether or not the world could function without government the answer is yes. What point is there in saying that some entity has specific power over you? They are no different than the thugs down the street read to take your wallet. Why call the one in the suit government and the one in the beanie a thug? Because they pave the roads? Bahahaha...

I just want people to realize that there was a time when people didn't go to public school. There was a time when the government didn't pave the roads. There was a time when the government was out of the hands of businesses. Nearly every example of why the government is necessary can be explained away by saying that we survived without it for thousands of years before it.

In fact, the only thing the government benefits are the thugs themselves. We see people dying, we see them test their own citizens, we see our tax dollars going to back, militarily, the interests of corporations. Sex scandals, tax scandals, etc. What are our politicians doing? We don't need them. In fact, they need our unhindered support so they can keep raping hotel maids and third world countries.

 

Anarchy doesn't work.

 

Anarchy does work.

See? I can do it, too...

Now, try forming a coherent argument. Explain why it doesn't work. Will people just randomly start killing each other and taking their shit? Is that what you think will happen? Because I can guarantee you it won't. People are not the evil monsters everyone always wants them to be. Is everyone waiting for the day that rape will become legal? No.

The idea of anarchy forces you to accept the fact that, ultimately, you are responsible for yourself. This is why it is superior in every aspect.

 

Like I said, in an Anarchist society there would just be too many people I'd murder it's not even funny. I know many people who would do the same as well. Too many times I think "man that person needs to die" and then I think of the consequences and decide against it. We need cops unfortunately. Entitlement programs and the social safety net though, is something we can do without. IMO it's not government that's the problem, but a strong central government.

lol at people aren't evil monsters. Not all people, obviously, but many people are inborn warriors. It's in our blood everybody isn't John fucking Lennon

 

So in regards to murder, you have no moral code? To you, killing people is just dandy? You could live with yourself after taking the life of another person? Many people, according to you.

Ultimately, what are cops if not an entitlement program and social safety net? They function in exactly the same way. The government forces you to pay them for the ability to use them. Sounds like Social Security or Medicare, to me. Some people can actually defend themselves...

 

The weak and elderly can't defend themselves. I'm not going to just let them fend for themselves. I have a daughter, and if someone rapes/kills her I will kill them...slowly. I have a mother, and if someone rapes/kills her I will kill them...slowly. I have sisters, and if someone rapes/kills them I will kill them....slowly. In an anarchist society I could kill child rapists all day (even if they raped someone unrelated to me) and I would have no qualms about it. Call me a monster all you want but then you'd just be unfairly judging me in order to push your political agenda.

 

Platitudes for platitudes make the whole world mindless.

 

You really need to take a step back and look at what would be going on.

Imagine for a moment, there would be no government. What do you think the first thought to any sane person would be? To arm themselves. Everyone would have a gun. Killing people wouldn't be as easy as it is now, and the repercussions of doing so would be carried out much more quickly. Without the government, people would be able to choose who gets to use their property. Property includes things like transportation or stores. The bus driver doesn't need to let the shady mother fucker on the bus because it is his bus. The shop keep doesn't need to let him in because it is his shop. People who steal, kill, rape, etc. would either be dead or would be outcast from society because no one will service them.

And yes, I can defend my property while I'm not in it. By many different means, actually. Technology is a wonderful tool. Security, surveillance, and even automated weaponry are all contenders as well as hiring a service (which people feel the need to do even today, with the police).

 

I actually would never call you a monster for killing a monster. This is not what I thought you meant when you said you often find people you want to kill. This is actually my point about anarchy...

The elderly and the young would probably live with the rest of the family, like people have done for thousands of years. If they had no one to rely on, they could hire the help necessary. If they had no money to rely on, charity would still be there to help them out (probably more so than today).