Anarchy

[BadBeast]

don't get the wrong idea, I liked the rant, but if it ever sneaks out onto the street there's probably a barstool lurking in a dark alley waiting for it.

Oh totally. I'm not getting the wrong idea at all. But I am getting some really decent feedback from this, more than I expected, to be honest. 

[BadBeast]

most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,

I do that.  

You don't run around yelling about it though.

*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*

Um, okay.  

Or more importantly, you don't run around yelling that you are an anarchist.

Apparently I've been on been on MI5's ''watchlist'' since 1984. So you can probably guess how much of a fuck I give about this.

[BadBeast]

Political power is by definition violence.

Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.

The threat of violence is always there.

That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.

For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.  

All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
 

Finally. A good use for the illegals. We draft them, send them to invade Mexico, welcome them back here as heroes, then deport them.

Nice. Brits are too quick to believe yanks don't 'do' satire. But this certainly raised a giggle.

[BabylonHoruv]

Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.

I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.

Generally the complete lack of cohesion is a sign of those labelled by others as Anarchists.  Of course as a self labelled Anarchist I may be seeing cohesion where others see only confusion and self contradiction.

I'm also not at all the same sort of Anarchist as Bad Beast.  I am very much about opposing oppression wherever possible.  It's not so much about overthrowing bad governments as minimizing their effects, and, as an Anarchist, I think they are all bad, just to different degrees.

Like Dok Howl however I am very much in favor of beaurocracy and also oppositional party politics, both tend to keep government from actually getting things done, which is a good thing.

[BadBeast]

Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.

I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.

Generally the complete lack of cohesion is a sign of those labelled by others as Anarchists.  Of course as a self labelled Anarchist I may be seeing cohesion where others see only confusion and self contradiction.

I'm also not at all the same sort of Anarchist as Bad Beast.  I am very much about opposing oppression wherever possible.  It's not so much about overthrowing bad governments as minimizing their effects, and, as an Anarchist, I think they are all bad, just to different degrees.

Like Dok Howl however I am very much in favor of beaurocracy and also oppositional party politics, both tend to keep government from actually getting things done, which is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much about opposing oppression. It's just that we are so disempowered that the ''Wherever possible'' tends to just apply to one's own personal shit, and of those around you. That's one of the principle tenets of Anarchy. I will NOT just roll over and comply when faced with someone or something that demands I go along with their rules or thier bullshit. If the fight is worth fighting, I will fight every time. On my own, or someone elses behalf. I don't even know where you got that impression from.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I still maintain that the only sort of Anarchy that could exist in our world is 'rational anarchy'. That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding. It's "Think For Yourself, Schmuck" as a political/philosophical position.

Personally, I think that humans are tribal critters and will always fall into tribal hierarchies. The idea that everyone in the US will agree on anything seems absurd. This is a nation of tribes... religious tribes, political tribes, ethically driven tribes. philosophically driven tribes... the anarchist systems which eschew "The State" in favor of small voluntary associations seems like a natural way to handle these extreme differences. It's impossible in our modern society, but its nice to consider.

However, we'll still make fun of anarchy as impossible, while representative democracy fucks us in the ear, dictatorships fuck other people in the ear and whateverthefuck Russia is, gets drunk on Vodka.

Fuck that first monkey that climbed down out of the trees. Goddamned Stupid Monkey!

[Doktor Howl]

That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.

This is patently bullshit.

[Cramulus]

care to elaborate?

[Don Coyote]

it requires people to be rational.

[Doktor Howl]

care to elaborate?

Sure.  Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences.  To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.

Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver.  She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning.  The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally).  The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.

Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?

Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?

Were they both at fault?

Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?

[Cramulus]

according to rat's definition, if you occasionally break laws which you feel are bullshit, you're acting as a rational anarchist.

Rational Anarchism seems to recognize that human civilization does need laws and order, but as individuals, we should handle everything on a case-by-case basis.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what's so patently bullshit about that.

[Doktor Howl]

according to rat's definition, if you occasionally break laws which you feel are bullshit, you're acting as a rational anarchist.

Rational Anarchism seems to recognize that human civilization does need laws and order, but as individuals, we should handle everything on a case-by-case basis.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing what's so patently bullshit about that.

Wait.  What?

Dok,
Doesn't know why he bothered.

[Doktor Howl]

That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.

This is patently bullshit.

THIS is what I was calling "patently bullshit".

[Cramulus]

sorry, I posted before I saw your post

[BadBeast]

care to elaborate?

Consequences again. None of them are 100% responsible for this horrible situation. But the drunk driver will have ended up taking the whole rap for it.
(That's part of the reason the Pigs over here are very reluctant to pursue a driver determined not to stop)
Sure.  Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences.  To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.

Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver.  She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning.  The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally).  The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.

Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?

Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?

Were they both at fault?

Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?