Anarchy, misundersood - Page 2

Yes...only if...but anarchy would forever be a dream...

anarchy is total chaos, as in no law or order or police or rule of law, lot's of dead bodies and mass killings, lot's of destruction, racial killings and no control over who want's to kill you to take what you have or your land, property and your life. anarchy is a false punk rockers dream that in reality is bullshit where no one's rights or lives have any meaning or value... this would be when national gaurd and the military would be called in to clean up the dead bodies, burned buildiings and to kill the people running amuck in the streets... anarchy is a very bad thing and will never happen.

yes...anarchy wouldn't work because we're not perfect, so we're inclined to selfishness. Without a government, it'd just be worse then how it is now.

Some good points here, i don't even know the anwser to some of your questions myself. I'm not an expert, i need to read some books on Anarchy and in there it will show the anwser, to your questions.

Here is where i look up governments by myself. www.google.com, search for any form of government you want and it will show up. wikipedia is also one of my favorites.

edot: poser exposer, that is exectly what i am talking about when i say Anarchy Misunderstood. The vision all of us Anarchist have is much different than that. There would still be law and police and etc. Just no government, also MAYBE there could be military, mainly for the facts stated above. What you said is what the government wants you to think about anarchy and how it is impossible. I don't know if anarchy (wish anarchist dream) would work, there is one country in this world that is under anarchy but it is a bad example.

Anarchy, as we would like to believe it, is being confused with an autocracy, in which case a nation runs itself without the need for laws or enforcement of said laws. Everyone would know exactly what to do in every situation, and because of the high-risk predicament, there would be no margin for error; if a mistake was made, we would all be fucked, basically.

I see alot of posts talking about "true anarchy". It's ironic, because true anarchy, as I have always seen it, is at least more practical than the type of anarchy that is, as I said, alot closer to autocracy than anything else.

Anarchy is giving up on the government, and deciding that the hell society would face as a result of it would still be better than the laws a particular government put in place for its citizens to follow. Anarchy gets a bad rap, but it would undoubtedly be a better alternative for the self-sufficient, yet oppressed, citizens of third-world countries being ran by corrupt dictators. If you can picture living in Iraq (during Saddam's reign) for a day, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind being forced to live your life with at least the opportunity of success. After all, anarchy would promote the survival of the fittest, and if anything, should be considered "fair".

Even still, it would never work. Too many people have faith in their governments, regardless of how corrupt, misguided, or unlawful they may be. It would take a majority effort for an anarchy to succeed, and that majority would almost definitely have to include assistance from the military, which would then define it as a coup.

It's not the worst idea for a "government" (anarchy is a form of government in the same sense that atheism is technically a "religion" that I've heard, but it certainly is the least likely to ever take place.

^yeh, it does kinda suck it won't. I like the fact that everyone is treated equal and that no one is superior. There are alot of things i like about anarchy, but there are flaws. Does anyone know of a form of government with some of the characteristics of anarchy, mainly what is stated in my first few sentences.

Without a government, there would be no laws, no need to inform the people about what is going on, and no need to provide a reason for militaristic actions. What you speak of sounds good, but it can only work if everyone on the planet decides to cooperate. it seems that we are moving towards this right now, though.

Consider this:

look at the Iraq war, there was no reason to go to war but we went anyway. It seems like the longer Bush is in office the worse things get. Also

A question: (you don't have to answer,just think about it.)

Did you know when Star Wars III was going to come out?

Did you know that there was a grenade thrown at the president in the past week?

I'll bet you knew the first one, but you might not have known the second.

One more:

Do you remember where you were when you heard about 9/11?

Do you remember where you were when you heard that the Egyption Resort Hotel was bombed? (At least 100 people died)


The more we are cut off from information regarding the outside world, the more we slip towards anarchy.

There is some seriously contrdictory logic flowing in here, but do you know who made the most sense?

Poser did.

Anarchy is not a form of government, its a term synonymous with chaos. And to try to associate it with society, civilation, law or order is in complete contradiction to the meaning of the word.

Governments govern, rule enforce law, anarchy is anti law, and anarchy cannot be enforced as a law either.

It is a simple fact of life that there are people who either want to, will, or do hurt others for no reason or personal benefit. The only protection from it is organization against it.

Government is not the problem, Corruption is.

Jesus Christ, there are more than one form of government. Poser refuses to see that there is more than the kind that has been jammed into your brain. Individual Anarchy, Communist-Anarchy, and etc. Yet you refuse to believe in non of these. www.wikipedia.com read the different forms of government to the sides and the history of Anarchy.

edit: You'll need to search for anarchy when you get to it...

Of course there is more than one form of government, don't be silly.

My personal post was in referrence to a limited dictionary's definition, which does not delve into these forms of government, that quite frankly I was not even aware of, based on the apparent actual meaning of the word, which was explained in your link as "no rulers" or "no hierarchy", which I thank you for posting.

But what you might do well to keep in mind when conversing with others about anarchy is that it holds more than one meaning and even degrees of meaning, including the meaning most are referring to as well as my above post. Clarifying and expressing the lesser known reality that Anarchy (by a specific definition) and Law are compatible, at least in theory.

And given the responses in the thread I do believe most of us could use some better understanding of the term's other meanings.

As for these forms of government, they are all the existing forms, just with no ruling class or hierarchy.

As for your question Jimi

quote:

---

I like the fact that everyone is treated equal and that no one is superior. There are alot of things i like about anarchy, but there are flaws. Does anyone know of a form of government with some of the characteristics of anarchy, mainly what is stated in my first few sentences.

---

You should look into Libertarianism and go from there, that would be my first suggestion, individual rights and freedoms above all else, while having government if necessary but only for such functions as absolutely needed.

And since you can add and tweak and interchange any elements of any form of government you might just find what you like, but Libertarianism seems to be good starting point given your focus on freedom and equality.

I'm not really an anarchist, i was when i made this thread, but not really anymore. The reason i made this thread though is to show people that Anarchy is more than just the "chaotic" and "disorder" that alot of people seem to believe these days. Like i said in my post, the page they show you first is the page that shows the anarchy after a government colapses (which is NOT the way anarchist want the world).

Anywho, i was looking into being a Libertarian or socialist, i would look into becoming a communist but that isn't to great of a form of government right now.

I think its sad Jimi444 that you're no longer an anarchist. You shouldn't give up so easily. Anarchism is a hard subject to get your head around, but its well worth it. Its the only system that treats everyone and anyone with equality.
If the world's police force and military suddenly dissolved, would you run around killing people, because you could? You could do it anway.
There are types of authority that anarchists respect. Like empirical knowledge, a docter, for instance, can help you get better than a butcher can.

You should read a book called "the dispossessed" by Ursula Le Guin. She's written heaps, but this one will give you some insight on how things might work in an anarchist society. At the very least, read the first chapter