The goal of Anarchism isn't chaos, it's merely the political philosophy, which believes in the total absence of the state, where all people have equal sovereignty.
Anarchy? Really?
- Thread starter Blindswordmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Many people I see who "promote" anarchy don't look like they could last a day in a society without rules...
There are as many shades of anarchy than there are shades of oligarchical totalitarianism. Fascism, Corporatism, Statist Communism, Monarchies, Juntas and autocracies are OT, and I'm sure I can think of more examples if I wanted too.
On the other end, you have anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, libertarianism, volutarism, and other kinds of individualistic doobobbers.
Really, the differences are often in terms of how that individualism is enacted. Libertarianism and its more extreme cousin, Anrcho-capitalism, believe free trade is the only way that that kind of system can work. Anarcho-communism obviously disagrees. I don't even know what volunarism means, or if I'm spelling it right.
So in the end of the day, Anarchy as nothing but chaos is the most simplistic, high-school wanna be punk dipshit view of the world there is.
People who are actually fellow travelers - as a friend of mine calls those who seek smaller government and more freedom for everyone - have more depths and understanding to their views.
So, if someone tries to sell you the dipshit form of anarchy, you can tell them to fuck right off, signed Namewithheld. Cause that's just giving the collectivists ammo.
On the other end, you have anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, libertarianism, volutarism, and other kinds of individualistic doobobbers.
Really, the differences are often in terms of how that individualism is enacted. Libertarianism and its more extreme cousin, Anrcho-capitalism, believe free trade is the only way that that kind of system can work. Anarcho-communism obviously disagrees. I don't even know what volunarism means, or if I'm spelling it right.
So in the end of the day, Anarchy as nothing but chaos is the most simplistic, high-school wanna be punk dipshit view of the world there is.
People who are actually fellow travelers - as a friend of mine calls those who seek smaller government and more freedom for everyone - have more depths and understanding to their views.
So, if someone tries to sell you the dipshit form of anarchy, you can tell them to fuck right off, signed Namewithheld. Cause that's just giving the collectivists ammo.
Anarcs believe that as long as everyone does the right thing, there is no need for possecions, laws or goverments...
And i admire that... But just as mutch as i wanted for the Democratic socialists of Denmark to have all the monney they needed... (Cause then it would be a utopia... or in my eyes anyways... ^^)
But i admit that for every 5 good people there is 1 bastard who wants everything... thats why anarchy does not work T_T
And i admire that... But just as mutch as i wanted for the Democratic socialists of Denmark to have all the monney they needed... (Cause then it would be a utopia... or in my eyes anyways... ^^)
But i admit that for every 5 good people there is 1 bastard who wants everything... thats why anarchy does not work T_T
I'd be all for it, if it where possible. I suppose it would be chaotic but I wouldn't give a damn. Life is fucking boring and full of trivial bullshit. Unfortunately, there is nowhere you can go to escape that short of becoming a hermit.
I definitely think there should be at least one country with complete anarchy, though not necessarily that any country should convert to anarchy. I'm sure there's some uninhabited land somewhere that could probably go towards that purpose. I doubt they would interfere with the rest of the world much being as to do that they would need to form some kind of government or faction to do so. At very least it would give anarchists an option not to participate in government if they don't want to without putting anything at risk, and it would be extremely interesting to observe.
I definitely think there should be at least one country with complete anarchy, though not necessarily that any country should convert to anarchy. I'm sure there's some uninhabited land somewhere that could probably go towards that purpose. I doubt they would interfere with the rest of the world much being as to do that they would need to form some kind of government or faction to do so. At very least it would give anarchists an option not to participate in government if they don't want to without putting anything at risk, and it would be extremely interesting to observe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-anarchism
Please people: At this point in history, even the most marginal amount of literacy is essential, and simultaneously available with an objective non-amount of effort. Citations of the Joker from the last Batman movie as some original point of interjection is fucking embarrassing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-anarchism
Please people: At this point in history, even the most marginal amount of literacy is essential, and simultaneously available with an objective non-amount of effort. Citations of the Joker from the last Batman movie as some original point of interjection is fucking embarrassing.
If you really want to work that problem out i would recommend reading the respective literature starting with Aristoteles, Platon and Cicero and commencing with Hobbes, Locke and Kant (i myself clearly favor Kant's solution though it is rather an individual mindset than a way to form a better society). However, if you dont have the time or spirit to do that, here are the problems with a lack of leadership i have figured out:
1. Not anyone is equally capable of making "weighty decisions" (e.g. "should there be a death penalty?") intellectwise.
2. As long as our ressources (food, energy or in my case female mates) are limited, a lot people will probably tend to favor their needs over everything else (not applying to all of mankind, but shown to be true in history many times), which often results either in a decision thats bad for the entire group of people or finding no consent at all.
With leadership on the other hand there is the problem of corruption and the abuse of power, because no matter how clever you design your hierachy, there will always be a person or a group of people whos actions are neither entirely verifiable nor entirely controllable (often but not necessarily the top of the system).
If you took the time the read this, you have probably recognized that these thoughts - though reasonable - are rather unsatisfying. In the end it comes down to this for me: you have to decide wether you want to live a life which satifys either your personal needs or those of the socalled society or a bit of both. There is no right or wrong - neither in the choice nor in the way you shape your environment (not only the nature part). Just make sure you're at least sometimes happy with it.
Wether this was offtopic or not i dont really care, because i tend to write my clever thoughts down the rare times i have them no matter what.
1. Not anyone is equally capable of making "weighty decisions" (e.g. "should there be a death penalty?") intellectwise.
2. As long as our ressources (food, energy or in my case female mates) are limited, a lot people will probably tend to favor their needs over everything else (not applying to all of mankind, but shown to be true in history many times), which often results either in a decision thats bad for the entire group of people or finding no consent at all.
With leadership on the other hand there is the problem of corruption and the abuse of power, because no matter how clever you design your hierachy, there will always be a person or a group of people whos actions are neither entirely verifiable nor entirely controllable (often but not necessarily the top of the system).
If you took the time the read this, you have probably recognized that these thoughts - though reasonable - are rather unsatisfying. In the end it comes down to this for me: you have to decide wether you want to live a life which satifys either your personal needs or those of the socalled society or a bit of both. There is no right or wrong - neither in the choice nor in the way you shape your environment (not only the nature part). Just make sure you're at least sometimes happy with it.
Wether this was offtopic or not i dont really care, because i tend to write my clever thoughts down the rare times i have them no matter what.
Anarchy, as people have mentioned, is not necessarily chaos. The way I see it (and this is not based on anything other than my own opinion) there are two kinds of anarchy: The one OP is imagining, with chaos, mob rule, looting, burning witches at the stake, whatever. The other one is the idyllic utopia hippies dream of, where all the people are fair and nice to each other, so they don't NEED government.
Huh you right. I didn't even notice and it's my own avatar. Good catch.Fappy said:Your avatar is a nice companion to your postAlways_Remain said:
Well in a breif description; Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.
If you are going to pass judgment on the way some people belive, at least learn something about the way they belive before you say anything.
Umm, you do realise that in an idealist communist society, it would be anarchy, because there would be no government as that would create power and class differences. So really, communism and anarchy are both very close on a political scale.gamerguy473 said:
Obviously I was assuming you meant anarchy as in 'no government' not 'chaos', if you meant 'chaos', then I'm not really following where you want the government to sit.
I meant government should be between "no control at all" (anarchy). And "Government controls everything you do and the whole free market" (Communism).Biosophilogical said:
That would be more Fascism than communism. All those 'communist' governments aren't actually communist, they just say they are.gamerguy473 said:
Well, when you phrase it as "chaos", it certainly sounds bad. I had a roommate who was an Anarchist and he actually put a lot of time and thought into his views.
Of course, I think it rests on an extreme level of idealism that isn't practical. When push comes to shove, many people become incredibly selfish, and cease to act rationally. They're the reason why anarchy wouldn't work.
Of course, I think it rests on an extreme level of idealism that isn't practical. When push comes to shove, many people become incredibly selfish, and cease to act rationally. They're the reason why anarchy wouldn't work.
Humans started out just like any other species on this planet, no order or law, just try and survive was the name of the game.