Anarchists?

[Geekosaurus]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

I think that's a synonym for the word 'anarchy.' The Anarchist movement believes in giving power to people, rather than an elected government.

 

[Sun Flash]

No I'm not. Although I don't have anything against people who are

Anarchy is the point at which there are no higher authorities, therefore it does not necessitate complete and utter chaos, that is just what it would naturally degenerate to.

"True" anarchists somewhat hope for a hippy commune, no? Where the community decide without any one man telling them, no?

Sorry, I just thought I'd throw in all I know about anarchy. Now if you'll excuse me...

*settles in wing back chair in corner with pipe and gramophone*

♫ They seek him here, they seek him there...♫

 

[Jack_Uzi]

True anarchy can not ever happen again. Just before we invented and started to practice all kinds of ways to rule and govern anarchy itself terminated. If there would ever be such a thing again, it will turn back to democracy, despotism or what not in no time. Because we already know the concept of it. Also because people tend to need a certain structure and thus safety in things.
I think that the saying: "The more things change, the more they stay the same.", works here.

I would like to see it, because I think freedom is a great thing to have, but I don't think that peace and harmony will fly very long.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

I think that's a synonym for the word 'anarchy.' The Anarchist movement believes in giving power to people, rather than an elected government.

A government... that is elected by the people. How hard would it be to get anything done otherwise.

 

[No One Jones]

Not necessarily a commune. The communo-anarchs sure do, but there are other branches.

 

[capin Rob]

I think it's something only ignorant little punk kids would feel is a good thing, because they feel like rebelling against "the world" and haven't thought it through. Which is why they typically grow out of it as soon as their hormones start settling down.

Indeed. It seems quet a few people in my Classes at High School think Anarchy is the way to go. and they are stupid people who want to "Stand up to the Government." Even though they are off by about 10 years to have a Gov' That needs to be stood against

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I am. I'll leave it at that.

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Wrong.

Not really, anarchy can only really work on a small scale, it could never run a country, there's just too much stuff to deal with without some sort of structured higherarchy.

 

[AWAR]

I'm an anarcho queer, with an anarcho-christian flavour.

 

[No One Jones]

I am. I'll leave it at that.

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Wrong.

Not really, anarchy can only really work on a small scale, it could never run a country, there's just too much stuff to deal with without some sort of structured higherarchy.

In anarchism, there are no countries.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

I think that's a synonym for the word 'anarchy.' The Anarchist movement believes in giving power to people, rather than an elected government.

A government... that is elected by the people. How hard would it be to get anything done otherwise.

I'm not an anarchist, so I can't argue their theories. However I think their main argument is that, despite our government being an elected democracy, it doesn't give a voice to the ordinary person. And besides, a government only 'represents' the people who voted for it; what about the people that voted for the opposition?

Like I said, I'm not an anarchist; I just thought I'd point out the difference between actual anarchists and synonyms of the word.

 

[Palademon]

Based on the forms you've mentioned I'd go with Anarcho-Pacifism.

 

[Drakmeire]

anarchy is a broken philosophy. just look at the typical American citizen. are they fit to run anything? I guess in other counties it might be easier because they don't have the same inflated sense of entitlement we do, but I think people need someone to pull the strings from behind the scenes just to keep us in line.

 

[HT_Black]

Any anarchists on the forums?

Yes, yes I am.

If so, what form of anarchism?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that, though.

 

[Ampersand]

I am. I'll leave it at that.

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

Wrong.

Not really, anarchy can only really work on a small scale, it could never run a country, there's just too much stuff to deal with without some sort of structured higherarchy.

Who said there would be countries?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I laugh at anarchy. It's a contradiction in itself. You can't 'organise' an anarchic takeover without becoming a massive hypocrite. True anarchy is chaos, complete and utter chaos.

I think that's a synonym for the word 'anarchy.' The Anarchist movement believes in giving power to people, rather than an elected government.

A government... that is elected by the people. How hard would it be to get anything done otherwise.

I'm not an anarchist, so I can't argue their theories. However I think their main argument is that, despite our government being an elected democracy, it doesn't give a voice to the ordinary person. And besides, a government only 'represents' the people who voted for it; what about the people that voted for the opposition?

Like I said, I'm not an anarchist; I just thought I'd point out the difference between actual anarchists and synonyms of the word.

That's where it falls flat on its face. If anarchy is the individual, how could anything get done if another individual disagrees with you? It seems more libertarian to me, "I can do what ever I want as long as it doesn't bother anyone else." A group of individuals would still need to organise and someone is bound to disagree with a decision and we end up back at democracy again, whereby the majority decide.

 

[No One Jones]

That's it i have to post this...

Solid reference.