Anarchy? Really?

[Caradinist]

If anybody supports anarchy, and then quotes Dark Knight's Joker as their only reason, im going to kill someone.

 

[Hussmann54]

Anarchist just want to sound Badass, but they probably dont know what its like to live in any other kind of Government than their own. in other words: Morons

 

[Hussmann54]

*SNIP*

Anarchy is the lack of AUTHORITY (whether it is political, state, or police), NOT the lack of ORDER.

It's both actually. A lack of authority is inherently chaotic.

No its not. That's nothing more than an assumption.

*SNIP*

Anarchy is the lack of AUTHORITY (whether it is political, state, or police), NOT the lack of ORDER.

In a state where there is no authority chaos will ensue when those with power seek to claim said authority.

Remove organized government, police, military and watch as crime syndicates oppress all around them to claim authority for themselves.

Gangs, mobs, KKK, people like this will not suddenly drop there weapons and go "naw, it was all a big mistake, lets all be brothers under a rainbow". They have guns. They have power. They exist for no other reason then to take more power. Kept only in check with the threat of the military and swat teams crushing them utterly.

They will fight and kill to become the new authority. Those who can not fight will be killed or enslaved or robbed of everything till they die of starvation.

Not to mention not everyone wants to do away with authority and police. So to force anarchy would be forcing over half your country to lose soemthing they believe in. Force them to lose soemthing against there will. It will oppress them.

I like the police. I like the military, and while i do not appreciate my current political party I sure as shit am going to vote for the liberals again next year and encourage everyone else to.

Humans instinctively work in groups. Forming tribes was one of our steps towards becoming the powerful race we are. You can try and enforce anarchy all you want but all you will do is bring inner war as groups of people build what would essentially be tribes and begin warring against one another. As well from the outside as other countries move there organized and well lead armies into the country claiming everything for there nation.

You obviously have no clue about what Anarchists stand for. You cannot "enforce Anarchy - that's an oxymoron. Crime syndicates cannot survive in an anarchist society, where people rely on themselves and on the solidarity of their community for their safety and well-being.

Read any book by Piotr Kropotkin and then come here and present your case against his theory.

"You cannot enforce Anarchy"

Yes, that was the point i was making. That in order for anarchy to work everyone would have to be accepting of it and want it. We are not, and many people do not want to live in a society without authority. The whole point of what i said was that as much as you try to create anarchy people will instinctively form groups and people will instinctively take on roles of leader and follower. Its kinda our thing.

"Crime syndicates cannot survive"

Yes... Thousands upon thousands of people who are armed, trained, organized, and have had bullets fired at them before will fall before the common man with no weapons, training, and combat experience... Yes because history has proven that an unorganized, under trained, ill equipped and lacking the will to fight army is the one you place your bets on. Organization requires someone or someones to take control and give orders. With no authority you have everyone running around confused, having hundreds of people screaming what should be done, and having no clue who you should listen to.

So while your group of people are more concerned with there well being, meaning a large number of people will either a)Plead to join the gang, b)run like hell, the syndicate has someone giving orders, telling people where to go, and routing your unorganized civilians who are more concerned with there's and there families own lives then anyone else's. Which is natural.

"People rely on themselves and on solidarity of a community"

You mean like a tribe? Or a group of people coming together? I wonder how long it would be till someone or someones started explaining and enforcing rules to make sure everyone was safe and happy... You know.. like an authority figure. People look to the strongest to lead them out of instinct. People feel the most safe and in control when there is a plan of action. This is because as much as you want to think you are a strong independent leader your probably not. Humans work best in packs. Humans work best with orders.

Twenty people squabbling over what should be done versus five people taking suggestions and forming a plan.

Try an experiment. Get a group of strangers together and try and get them to build a shed. Only one person is allowed to know how to build a shed, the rest should have little to no experience. Watch as people start going to the one who knows what he is doing for instructions and rely on him for help. Watch as he takes the role of a leader, and authority, to get the job done. The first words out of any the participants mouth after a greeting would be "So who knows how to build a shed? You? Alright your in charge"

You cannot have order without authority. Without authority rules and laws are nothing more then words.

"Don't take the cookie"
"Or else what?"
"Nothing"

If i came to your house and took your computer what would you do? Attack me? What if i shot you first? How would i be punished? Who would punish me? Anyone taking the initiative to arrest me would assume a role of authority. Seeking to deal justice against me by enforcing a rule. Even if it was to simply hunt me down and kill me that person would assume a role of authority. Otherwise someone who knows me can just as easily hunt him down and kill him. So on and so on people would kill each other to get revenge. Except for in cases where one person is not able to kill. So if Jim kills James but no one is willing to risk there own death to kill Jim, Jim just got away with murder.

What if someone crept around at night murdering people. You have no police to investigate. Not only that but for anyone to seek out answers that person would be assuming the role of an authority figure there for violating the no authority ideal. How would you investigate? You have no authority to enter my house.

The whole anarchy belief relies that everyone will suddenly drop all there difference and come together and welcome each other as brothers and sisters. To be one massive unified group.

If that were possible we would already be doing it, and we would have no need for anarchy if everyone was polite and kind to another as our governments would be utterly free of corruption as well.

"Read any book by Piotr Kropotkin and then come here and present your case against his theory."

Pick up a psych book and read up on human nature and the fact we thrive functioning in an authoritative society.

That children thrive growing up with parents who create and enforce boundaries and rules but allow the child to use logic and reason to explain why a particular rule can be twisted or broken at times.

That children growing up in an environment with no authority tend to be lazy, easily angered, and unable to function as well in there adult lives.

Rules need to be enforced for them to weigh any meaning. No authority means no one is there to enforce the rules. Try and experiment. Go to a busy area in your town and leave a couple hundred dollars out in the open with a sign saying "Please do not take" Go back in a day or two. See if your money is still there.

As well as i said in my original post even if everything was all peachy keen how long will it be before an undivided strong country comes and conquers your country. You have no standing police or military. You have no commanders or generals because a leader would be an authority figure. So strong, well trained soldiers armed and organized against pockets of denizens with no one to lead them in combat....

How long would it be till Community A notices they have more guns and people then community B and decide they need there land in order to feed there families.

By the way. Unless you can bring forward a country that is current, thriving and full of happy smiling people living in an anarchist society then the whole Theory of anarchy is just that.

A theory.

Which in this case is nothing more then an assumption that it will work.


"It's both actually. A lack of authority is inherently chaotic."

"No its not. That's nothing more than an assumption."

So is anarchy working in our society. So is that crime syndicates will magically get defeated by unorganized, self serving civilians. So is that people will magical forget there differences and suspicions and come together to work in happy brotherly love.

Just because i and others disagree with you doesn't mean our thoughts and feelings are invalidated because we haven't read what you read. I could say the same thing about you, however i won't. You have a right to think what you want and i respect that. If you think that sort of system could work then work towards it. However...

Claiming i have no idea what I am talking about because i don't agree with you and have never read your books is a poor way to try and get people to listen to you. You ignored everything i have said and replied with stock answers. The first time my point was that lack of authority lead to people claiming authority in blood shed. That to work towards creating an uncorrupted system is better then just burning it. Not that Anarchy = chaos. I know anarchy is about no authorities. I however think that without authorities to enforce laws and keep order we will simply enter a state where people will fight and kill to become that authority. That the most positive situation would be that the entire country would get divided, then destroyed bit by bit by other countries seeking resources.

The second time you still ignored the majority of my post, missed the fact i was saying i feel Anarchy can not exist because humans instinctively seek out leaders and guidance, then threw out that crime syndicates can not exist simply because communities wouldn't like it.

Ignoring the fact that gangs and mobs would vary well create there own communities. Only they would be led by strong leaders and enforced by people who have guns and the ability to use them. They would go to war against unorganized groups of individuals with significantly less weapons, less advanced weapons, and less practical knowledge and ability to use said weapons. Along with no one in charge, no one to lead them, and no one to help when they start dying.

Then you claimed unless i read your book I could not speak against Anarchy.

No, i feel i have the right to express my opinions despite not listening to your guy. I feel i have the right to speak my mind about things just as you have the right to ignore anything i have to say and just walk away.

Oh, a side note.

Telling me to read a specific persons book would imply they are the person to listen to in this matter, which would be placing him in a position of authority, as you are listening to him and subscribing to his thoughts and beliefs. Following his ideals and example. So you have just made an authority figure out of a person who apparently is against authority.

Hmmmmm.

All this: I like. You win Hussmanns awsomeness award of the day.

 

[Capcom4ever]

One would support anarchy if one has something to gain from removing a authorty of power (gov't) from existence. Whether it be a gang that will gain power by removing another power or a mercenary who benefits from more chaos, supporting a political ideology is based on what one can get out of a change.

 

[paragon1]

Anarchy isn't "imagine no possessions/I wonder if you can" like the anarchists apparently think it will be. It's barbarism. It's europe post-Rome. It's if my land can feed more thugs than your land, I am your king and we reset the government merry-go-round to feudalism

Yeah, pretty much this.
Everything I know about history says Farms+No Government=Feudalism. You need agriculture to support a large population. Taking food is easier than growing it. So the stronger people will inevitably end up forming gangs to protect their food source and/or go raiding others.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

No, humans are chaos and they bring chaos to the world. They attempt to create order from it and commonly fail.

This.

As a character from Shutter Island said: "God was violent and created human beings to commit violence in his name." I really think this statement is true. We've tried to create order, but we've also created war since we first used our motor functions as cavemen.

 

[DuplicateValue]

If you notice, the people who support anarchy are generally the ones who would die first at the hands of their peers should law and order be abolished.
Funny that.

 

[Chogg Van Helsing]

No, humans are chaos and they bring chaos to the world. They attempt to create order from it and commonly fail.

agreed. but im probably the most anti human being since, ..., well anything lol

 

[delet]

No, humans are chaos and they bring chaos to the world. They attempt to create order from it and commonly fail.

agreed. but im probably the most anti human being since, ..., well anything lol

An anti-human human? More likely than you think!

I've personally got quite the dark view on humanity, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Anarchist are just people trying to be cool...
There has never been anarchy since after... the iron age perhaps?

 

[Duskwaith]

Isnt anarchy the right for the people to rule themselves individually and not just complete crazyness?

 

[The Arc of Eden]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Thats a joke on how societies get started. People helping each other for common good. And how anarchy can't work effectively in this day and age.

Humans, no matter how technologically advanced they are, will always be primitive to an extent. Anarchy is for those who seek to help themselves. In order to do this anywhere near effectively, they have to separate themselves from society and its laws.

 

[Jack_Uzi]

Funny to see that most people here think that it is total caos that bring us to nothing. But don't forget that ehmm... how did we start again?..O, yeah, as tribals with no laws no government, no 'nothing' and from that anarchy sproutet ideas and from that ideas we came to this point. True anarchy doesn't exist anymore, nor can it, in my opinion ever exist again (alltough I would like to see it). Because there are too many people and, again my opinion, don't see the value of other individuals as that great anymore as we did in those days. Just because every member of a tribe was needed to survive as a whole.

*Edit: If there ever would be another great scaled anarchy, sooner or later we would come back to parallel types of governed powers as we have now.

 

[ginger_vitus]

The existing argument for Anarchy is a Swiftian one, a logically made, if fundamentally illogical, argument for people dissatisfied with the current state of the world, made against the powers that be who are, at least to a certain extent (although many Anarchists give them too much credit) responsible for the way things are. Look at the US Government's response to the BP Oil spill, look at the way the Bush/Blair administrations handled the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Jesus, look at the number of unemployed, undereducated, hungry and homeless. Look at certain members of the NYPD, the LAPD, even small town cops, as they violate the rights of the citizens they're supposed to serve and protect, and get away with it, over and over again. Look at corrupt elections and preemptive military actions. Look at religious institutions and lobbyists dictating national policy. Look at genocide. Look at AIDS. Look at all the inequities of an allegedly "civil" governed world and tell me you aren't pissed off.
Not that the Anarchists have got it right either.
Anarchy, like Socialism, is just a nice thought. And NO, I do not mean a 15-year-old mall-punk's concept of Anarchy as total chaos. Yeah, kid, I like moshing too, but the world is not a punk show. The world is a knife fight. Anarchy would work if people weren't greedy, opportunistic, or plain mean, but they can be, and there's no subtracting that from the human equation. So, an Anarchic state ends as soon as someone exerts a power no one else has (i.e., someone brings a gun to the knife fight), and takes control, turning Anarchy into fascism. On paper, a government is SUPPOSED to function as a watchdog, making sure that people who play fair are rewarded, people who break the rules are punished, and people who need help get it. Unfortunately, all governments are operated by human beings, who not only possess the potential to be greedy, opportunistic and mean from the start, but because they have worked their way up to positions of power, have gained from being greedier, meaner and more opportunistic than average. It's all very broken and messed up. A democratic republic, to me, anyway, seems to be the least of all evils, but that's not really saying much. I'm friends with a number of Anarchists, I think they have some cool ideas, and they say a lot of stuff I agree with, but more than anything I just envy their optimism.

PS- Fuck the Black Bloc. When will these dipshits understand that all violence does is undermine their cause?

 

[The Austin]

Anarchists are morons. (My opinion.)

Anarchists don't understand the difference between Entropy and Anarchy.

Entropy is the amount of disorder in a system, and humans naturally incline to be entropic. (That's why most humans would rather throw their clothes on the ground instead of in the hamper) This is anarchist's main argument against government, but they don't realize that entropy only applies to the tenancies of an individual.

It is 100% impossible for humans to functionally exist without a government.
Need of leadership is a basic instinct, and people don't seem to get that.

Just imagine a pack of wolves.

 

[Grigori361]

Progress is made through change. Change is made by conflict. Anarchy helps create conflict

One reason among many, but one that I second.

 

[Rubashov]

To begin a meaningful discussion of anarchism, it is first necessary to identify what exactly anarchism proposes to do without. Anarchism aims to abolish states. But what counts as a state? What qualities must an organization have to be considered a state? Not all anarchists agree on this question (which is why arguments continue over which sects of anarchism are truly anarchist). It's possible that the common objections to anarchy are founded on an incorrect assumption regarding anarchism's goals.

 

[nick n stuff]

Must! Resist! Joker Reference!

Your avatar is a nice companion to your post

my thoughts exactly.

OT: anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

 

[Rubashov]

Must! Resist! Joker Reference!

Your avatar is a nice companion to your post

my thoughts exactly.

OT: anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

Except, y'know... these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia