Anarchists?

[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.

 

[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.

Who said there would be countries?

Never heard of a higherarchy.

 

[Dezmond]

I consider myself to be an Anarchist and this is what my definition is:

Anarchy is a condition of equality and freedom in which there is no hierarchy and agreements are made voluntarily or directly democratically. It does not mean 'without order' or even necessarily 'without rules'. It means 'without masters.'

 

[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.

Who said there would be countries?

Never heard of a higherarchy.

hierarchy*

[sub]Goddamn grammar nazis.[/sub]

 

[SinisterGehe]

People want organization, rules, guidelines and hierarchy. These provide peace and control in even modestly working society.
When there are hierarchy, people don't need to take responsibility about things they can't/shouldn't take care of, it relaxes them.
Guidelines help those who are lost and can't tell what would be the right things to do (Right here is defined by the societies moral standpoint which varied person to person, but I am referring to the "baseline" moral).
Organization avoid confusion, which make things easier to do, cuts down the workload and demands less resources both physical and mental.
Rules set markers to the society that support the idea of guidelines. Main difference being guidelines are there to give you a pointer to right direction and law is there to tell you what you must not do, punish you fro doing something willful that has been condemned to be wrong and to set an example to other what they shouldn't do.

This is how I see this, feel free to call me "brainwashed immoral governmental puppet that is here to destroy freedom with hes capitalistic ways" Like one person in my school though it was firring description, after I managed to discuss hes ideas about Wind and solar being perfect source of energy to whole mankind and prove them wrong. Not saying green energy is not good, hes ideas were.

 

[Dezmond]

Oh and no, it won't work. Too many people are nationalists and/or patriotic and (In the words of Richard Dawkins) have this urge to carry a vendetta across generations and group fasten label people instead of seeing them as individuals.

 

[TheNarrator]

As noble as the idea may be, actually believing in it is plain naïve. There have been a few moments of 'anarchy' (the absence of government or police force) in history, generally in wars. If you look at WW2, for example, when the Germans were busy packing their stuff and retreating back to Germany, there were usually a few days in between the retreat of the Germans and the arrival of the Allies. The state these towns were in is quite close to what we would call anarchy (perhaps not intentional anarchy, but anarchy nonetheless).

What did people do during that in-between period? They decided that this would be a good time to loot warehouses and publically humiliate or murder anyone who was remotely suspected of collaboration, without even a chance of fair trial. Sure, not everyone acted like that, but the point is that without a system to prevent and/or punish crime, only a few people actually can fuck it up for the rest of the community. There are always people who will do whatever they can get away with, and anarchy allows them to get away with anything.