Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

Who here is a fan of anarchy? I mean it in the most peaceful sense. I for one would be more than humbled to bow down to a rightful leader, but as of yet, I do not see any worthy alpha male in the US government. Obama has his head in the clouds, but he is a great speaker in my opinion. Where are all the leaders? Our government is run by greedy wasps! All the men who I like are just pansy ass pusses. Why can't a strong male figure rise above this propaganda and lay the truth out before us without being so wimpy?

If anyone can rise against the establishment, it must come from an aspie who has nothing to lose. It's unrealistic for a woman to do it at this point in time. Why are liberals so weak and sentimental, so scared of being outcasts?

If you laugh, go alone and cry. I'm not looking for popular opinion but just one who recognizes the importance of political reformation.
Is there one man out there who wants to see a change in the upcoming NWO?

It seems like an unrealistic utopian idealism to me.

This is one of the reasons I believe to be an impossible system.

You are such a cynic, don't tell me you're a realist either. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he's a realist.

Hi there,

Yeah, there is a real shortage of strong and nobel leaders. Men or women with visions, heart and backbones.

I don't think anarchy will be the answer thou, 'cos that will be returning to a sort of survival of the fittest state where surely the wealthy and the bold will benefit the most. And the so called somewhat 'weaker' will suffer the most. This is happening at the moment in a way. The strong, wealthy and bold can do pretty much as they like. Big monopolistic companies rule the world and some are quite ruthless. Not concerned for people in general and not concerned for nature, I trully hate that.

Most politians are first class liars and followers of those companies. Probably real democracy is an illusion. Maybe the Swiss have a system that looks the most like democracy. With referendums and giving their people good and sensible information to make well thought over decisions. But maybe I'm somewhat naive.

C.

Last edited by Erminea on 20 Sep 2008, 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anarchy incorrectly assumes

a) goverment is unnecessary
b) everyone knows right from wrong, good from evil
c) everyone is motivated by the desire to make society work
d) crime, poverty, and all manner of suffering will cease to exist once anarchy reigns

~~

Anarchists are the ones with their heads in the clouds. Sometimes they call themselves Libertarians in an attempt to fool us.

Are you sure you have what it takes to be an anarchist??

I like ideas of anarchy.

Anarchy actually only assumes the first. A number of individualist anarchists have actually been egoists, which takes care of b and c. Not only that, but I think non-utopian anarchistic ideas exist.

Finally, as for the libertarian-anarchist thing, to be honest, libertarian was a term that originally belonged to anarchists. US libertarians stole the term from the anarchists. As well, anarcho-capitalists are often within the same ideological spectrum as libertarians, as both hold to a very market oriented view of the world. Finally, libertarian socialism as a term for other anarchists is not illegitimate either, as they do support liberty.

Sounds like a confusion between anarchism and monarchism.

Monarchism has more of a chance than anarchism, because with monarchism the compelling factor for everyone is fear. Fear of punishment by the agency of the monarch for not obeying the monarch's rule. With anarchy, there's no one in charge so there's no one to fear. Or to blame.

Alpha males don't make it into the US government, or any other government. The very fact that they are elected officials signifies that they are not alpha males.

Maybe, in anarchy, one of the things avoided is a society run by fear.

Society will always have fear as a motivation, in one form or another. Fear is natural to the human being. If there is no semblance of law anywhere, what is there not to fear? I still don't understand how lawlessness is a superior way of life. It would hurt you more than it would help you.

Actually, I would not be surprised that this will always motivate society, the issue is just coercion. Anarchy is not lawlessness though, it is a more decentralized notion of governing forces. Finally, even if it were lawlessness, I prefer authenticity towards the world rather than submission to a much much greater power than myself. At least I would be an individual, not only that, but you don't know what would help me, help is subjective.

IF I know what can hurt you, I also know what helps you. Some kinds of help, everyone needs. Even you, AG.

No, you don't. You can't anti-stab someone, so no, you don't. Not only that, but I still think you are holding to a non-subjective notion of life, which I disagree with on a fundamental level.

Did someone stab you?