Anarchy, misundersood - Page 3

too bad on the communism front, you may the answers you seek there, but anywhy, anarchy puts the trust of power and personal responsibility to the people, and most couldn't handle it. why do you think people turn to religion? because they need a system to exist and believe in to tell them what is right and wrong. without that kind of system, most good people would be outright killed by an evil minority. sadly, most people just couldn't handle the respon. or the power

I don't think you should be so quick to dissmiss the ability of ordinary people to organise themselves. I do agree though, that people keep turning to organised relegion and because of it, they are used to not thinking for themselves.
One of the problems of anarchism is how to achieve it. Currently, i agree that people don't seem ready to govern themselves. At the same time though, most people aren't well enough in the head to vote for someone to represent themselves either, Bush is a prime example.
What anarchy seeks to do is dissolve ideas like nationhood and rubbish like that. We are all people, none can tell another what to do. There is an argument that follows that if it was up to people to take charge of themselves, there would be less pathological behaviour because they would create a better, more fulfilling society. There certainly would be nothing to steal or kill for, because everything is shared, there is no private property. You just have to wait your turn.

I have always understood Anarchy to be the ultimate form of Democracy... everyone gets what they want.

I course, this means if I want to kill someone, I can, and if that person wishes to kill me in self defence, they can.

Self governance is quite simple when you're too afraid to leave your home, and others are too afraid to enter it!

Everybody cannot have everything they want and the stronger people will always win out and become a ruling class. Who's right is more valid? My right to see all left handed people dead, or the left handed people's right to live?
Thus is the breakdown of the system both rights cannot coexist thus we need laws and people to govern them. In whatever system you choose you must discriminate against certain groups or simply face extinction. And discrimination, while not inherently bad, leads to destruction just as the complete absence of it leads to the same fate. And only a governing body can justly (or unjustly) decide which discrimination it wants.

With anarchy, once all those who fight lose... as all who fight eventually do, the only ones left would be those who chose not to fight.

People seem to think that a massive overhaul of governments is a smooth and quick procedure. But it WILL end in huge death tolls, entire races and creeds wiped out, but leaving only those who do not pick up arms in its wake.

The concept goes against everything you want for yourself, and your friends and family. So the world will never change, because everyone else wants the same as you do... a smooth transition.

quote:

---

leaving only those who do not pick up arms in its wake.

---

Are you suggestion that people who do not choose to fight are exempt from the consequences of war? Some may not fight but they will still perish in the civil war. Your method requires excessive bloodshed in order to weed out those who do not conform to your ways. You and Saddam should hook up and compare notes he might be able to lend some weapons of mass destruction.
Face it no system will be perfect especially without a government.

Govenrment is what is known as a neccesary evil. I believe someone said earlier that just because we had no govenrment, they wouldnt start running around killing people, but the point is that is, that someone would. There are people in our world who would take what they want by force, and government is reqired to provide a force to stop them. it was suggested that we could have police without government, but we cannot, for a start the police force is run on taxes. no goernment, no tax, no police. unless the police demand tax straight from the people, and arrest those who dont pay, but at that point u have government, and anarchy is over.

the other idea that everyone can do as they want and co-operate equally, is equally invalid. if we reverted to anarchy from our current society, who would run the businesses that provide the things we need. no-one, cos no-one is allowed to be in charge, or to oversee what goes on. does that mean anarchists have found some suitable way to survive without cookers, tvs, computers, and those two totally irrelevant ones food and heating in the winter. i somehow doubt it.

The most that could happen is that anarchy would occur for a tiny amount of time, then we would group together with family and friends, until a sort of feudalism occured, with everyone protecting their friends and family. after that the same would happen as happened last time their was feudalism, someone will come along and manage to unite all the little groups or tribes and well be back were we started, except about 100 years further back in technological development etc than we would have been otherwise.

anarchy share ground with communism, in that they are both potentially good ideas if it werent from problems such as human nature, or in the case of anarchy, the nature even insects show of grouping together in some form of social group in order to protect their interests.

Ok, here's the idea. I am an anarchist and basically we believe in anarchy because we see the world as corrupted only by the state. (All governments.) History tells us that people have lived their lives with greed and hate but all that stems from government. Before Europeans took their governing power and destroyed Africa, many Africans lived a peaceful life. Europeans then hit America and destroyed the lives of many Indians who had peace. Now with capitalism, communism and other governments all over people are committing crimes out of desperation. But this is all seen as normal human behavior. Like for example, a fish swims nicely in water but when you take it out it flops like crazy. Well, if you've never seen a fish swim freely you'd think they were crazy animals that just flopped on land like maniacs. Just like a fish out of water, humans don't work well under government authority. I'm proposing a peaceful revolution where we abandon this market and live off of nature and find true freedom. Governments tell us it's ok to kill in war, they give us a reason to steal, they pin us against each other when all we want is to live our lives in peace and take care of our families.

i agree wholly with your sentiments. unfortunately you have completely failed to understand anything vaguely relating to anarchy. all you are against is central government. africans and indians lived peaceful lives, but they didnt live in anarchy, they lived in tribes, each tribe had rules and leaders. which anyone who can read a dictionary will tell you is not anarchy. anarchy is absolute chaos, no leaders no rules, a state which has not existed since the only life was amoebas incapable of interaction.

quote:

---

communism and other governments

---

Communism has no form of government (stateless classless society) anarchism and communism share the same end goals.

Maybe a tribal life will be freer and still hold a form of authority but you have to understand that us anarchists realize it IS human nature to form into groups. Anarchy is traditionally a connecting point from one government to another. For example, bomb the hell out of one place, create anarchy and let a new government form. But the term, "anarchist" also comes with a feeling of far left ideology. We don't call George Bush an anarchist even though he basically brought chaotic anarchy to Iraq. Anarchists today feel that we need a peaceful revolution that will tear down the state, create a stable anarchy and then we form liberal societies of tribes. (And since this peaceful revolution can only be accomplished by a pacified majority of people, it'll be easier to establish communities.)