As the election approaches, i hear people talking politics everywhere- school, TV, internet, the dinner table.... And when i here people talking about whether bush should win, or whether kerry could win, i always want to (and sometimes do) speak up and say 'who cares who wins, the government is still in the hands of the corporations'.
of course then some prick will say 'okay genius? what's the alternative? ANARCHY? how'd you like anarchy? i bet you'd love it when i bust into your house, beat the crap out of you, and steal all your stuff. anarchy, yeah right' etc etc etc.
and i can't come up with a good response. could anarchy work? or would it always fail as long as humans remain greedy and selfish?
No two anarchists will give you the same answer.
Will anarchy work? Well, we could ask, would anything work? Their
question does assume that something works, doesn't it? Their question
also assumes that anarchy and thug rule are the same thing.
Anarchist collectives have been tried, on small scales, and for the most
part have failed when the larger world has intruded, or the internal
dynamics have been overwhelmed by politics. So the track record
for anarchy is dismal. But then, so is the track record for everything
else.
I do not believe that anarchy will work on a large scale. There are just
too many people, and not enough resources, for it to succeed.
There are more people than there are resources available for all of us
to enjoy an "American Dream" life style. There must be some
mechanism to distribute the resources unfairly amongst us, if some of us
are going to enjoy "the good life." That requires a system which
discriminates against some people arbitrarily. (Currently the
mechanisms are race, sex, nationality, parents, brains, athletic or
artistic talent, etc.) An anarchist utopia can not survive in such an
environment where some people have to settle for substantially less.
Sorry.
I see anarchy as a philosophy which helps direct your decisions. You
can not achieve an anarchistic utopia (or any other utopia for that
matter.) However, you can, when confronted with a decision, use
an utopian vision as a guide to help you decide which option would be
best. When confronted with a decision concerning the US Presidential
election, you can choose to vote for Bush or Kerry, or for someone who
will not win, or not to vote at all. Which choice would most impact
your life? Which choice would most move your world towards the
anarchist ideal, that is a world where you are free to make your own
choices without an authoritarian government monitoring you and
imposing its choices upon you.
You are right when you say that the candidates of the two major US
political parties are tools of competing corporate interests, and regardless
of who is elected, very little will change. However, you are wrong when
you allow the pricks to frame the argument into strict "black and
white" terms. They force the decision to be "the system" or "anarchy."
The possible choices are much greater than that. You need to read more
about all kinds of political systems. And make up your own mind.
As for the prick who says, "How would you like it is I came into your
house and beat you up?" Tell him, "I'd just blow your head off with my
AK-47." or " All the farmers would get together and refuse
to sell you assholes any food. You'd have to work for a living and be
nice to everyone else, or we would shove you out on the street and
refuse to let you have anything." Or, well, you get the idea. There are
more choices available. Don't let them box you into an either-or
decision matrix. That's what Bush has succeeded in doing to the "terror"
question in this election, which is why there are so many people who
dislike him, but will vote for him anyway. Because they see the choices
as two dimensional.
Free your mind.
yeah it could work. I think there would be as much order as there is now exsept insted of in the gov't it would be in personal life.
Chaos and order have a tendinsy to to balance out.
If someone says that to you again just reply.
"So if you could get away with it you would beat me up and steal my stuff? Shows how lovely a person you are"
And besides it won't be the people beating people up and stealing stuff that will be succesfull in an anachy anyway.
Quote from: SlartibartfastAs the election approaches, i hear people talking politics everywhere- school, TV, internet, the dinner table.... And when i here people talking about whether bush should win, or whether kerry could win, i always want to (and sometimes do) speak up and say 'who cares who wins, the government is still in the hands of the corporations'.
of course then some prick will say 'okay genius? what's the alternative? ANARCHY? how'd you like anarchy? i bet you'd love it when i bust into your house, beat the crap out of you, and steal all your stuff. anarchy, yeah right' etc etc etc.
and i can't come up with a good response. could anarchy work? or would it always fail as long as humans remain greedy and selfish?
I can burst into your house, beat your stuff, steal you, and eat your curtains *now*. So can various governments, organizations, and chaosations.
There are also many, many non-anarchy alternatives to corporate industrial feudalism, some of which may be better or worse than CIF. Pure feudalism, theocracy, hierarchy, democracy, republicanism, militarism, lottery, and some communist sects come to mind, though theocracy has not been implemented in recorded human history.
I think some anarchic systems could work reasonably well; culture is an important element in maintaining them, however. If any competent group decides to adopt a given worldview, they will be able to enforce it on a number of people who oppose it. Just ask anyone who lives near corporations, biker gangs, or evangelists.
I think anarchy might work short term, but it wouldn't last. Ideally it would be a situation where a balance of power exists between all people. But eventually individuals and groups would build power, and essentially become governments. I guess a group of people could impose anarchy by always killing the developing rulers off, but they'd have to have no interest in ruling...
Humans are herd animals.
Quote from: Bob the MediocreI think anarchy might work short term, but it wouldn't last. Ideally it would be a situation where a balance of power exists between all people. But eventually individuals and groups would build power, and essentially become governments. I guess a group of people could impose anarchy by always killing the developing rulers off, but they'd have to have no interest in ruling...
Which is why one should always select one's rulers against their will.
Quote from: DelusionQuote from: Bob the MediocreI think anarchy might work short term, but it wouldn't last. Ideally it would be a situation where a balance of power exists between all people. But eventually individuals and groups would build power, and essentially become governments. I guess a group of people could impose anarchy by always killing the developing rulers off, but they'd have to have no interest in ruling...
Which is why one should always select one's rulers against their will.
Power attracts people who want power. It is people who want power that
impose their will on others. That is the attraction and flaw of anarchy: to
eliminate the abuse of power by eliminating power. But it can't be
eliminated. Catch-22.
Quote from: Wenchmaster KHumans are herd animals.
I feel that we are closer to being a hive collective. Still, the vast majority of humanity are little more than worker drones.
Quote from: Delusion
. Pure feudalism, theocracy, hierarchy, democracy, republicanism, militarism, lottery, and some communist sects come to mind, though theocracy has not been implemented in recorded human history.
the taliban was a theocracy. i'm sure there have been others., in fact i'm pretty sure iran is democratic theocracy(that is, it has a democratic(elected by popular vote of citizens) element which quti eremsebles western deomcracy models which is subservant to the dominant council.
btu no, while i liks eomse aspects of soem the forms of anarchism i've seen, i dont; think any system with the name of anrchiy or wahtever would workl. in fact, sorry to say it this way but it's the stupidest thin g i;ve ever heard. i knew an otherwise inteligent man who argued with me rather badly over the ridculaous notion that non central government system knwon as syndicalism, was anarchism. except anarchy Init's TrueForm, is oppsoed to all cooperative systems, except possibly outright slavery. but hen again that's nto qutie anarchism either.
generally, i have the prejudice that that people callign themselves anarchist are either the type of people that get all worked up and break stuff for fun (or angst as it were) or the type of fool that think the plmbers are simpyl going to fix everyone's plumbign because it needs to be done.
and so anarchy sucks. and doesn't work. because people like me , and peopel liek you. and people like my neighbor who between her two kids and her full time job, doesn't have time to sit in on the realistically 100 hour a week meetings that would realistically nbe needed to coem to a consensus agreement on everything, in order to avoid tyranny at all costs, at the cost of becoming a tyranny in and of itself.
in fact he whoel anarchist ideal(on the brighter side of it) has really coem to erode my own ideals as i wander into teh opposite there off in contemplation of a somewhere that works without teh corruption seen ni both elected and absolute or near asbolute power structures.
I could speel about how a society of people where everybody can vote about everything would be a good thing but I'm afraid I'd become a burnt communist for my way of thinking, therefore I'm just a republican with democratic leanings who has no thoughts whatsoever about communicrats except maybe the thoughts that anti-communists tell me to think. Shhh. The FIFTH I plead the FIFTH!!!!
When people don't have governments, they MAKE governments, of one form or another. It's been that way since we came down from the trees. I don't see it stopping any time soon.
Quote from: SlartibartfastAs the election approaches, i hear people talking politics everywhere- school, TV, internet, the dinner table.... And when i here people talking about whether bush should win, or whether kerry could win, i always want to (and sometimes do) speak up and say 'who cares who wins, the government is still in the hands of the corporations'.
of course then some prick will say 'okay genius? what's the alternative? ANARCHY? how'd you like anarchy? i bet you'd love it when i bust into your house, beat the crap out of you, and steal all your stuff. anarchy, yeah right' etc etc etc.
and i can't come up with a good response. could anarchy work? or would it always fail as long as humans remain greedy and selfish?
You want to see the world under anarchy?
Google "Liberia", and "Nigeria".
No time for Haiku games THERE, pal. Just an ocean of blood.
Quote from: EraPassingWhen people don't have governments, they MAKE governments, of one form or another. It's been that way since we came down from the trees. I don't see it stopping any time soon.
To quote a farmer who spoke before congress during the federalist debates:
"People will take tyranny over anarchy."
Course, that's when congress would listen to a farmer.
Take 6 rats.
Put the rats in a cage connected to a submerged hall ending with a food distributor.
Come back the next day, you will find the rats organized as follows:
1 free rat that goes and take food and eats it
2 exploiter rats that steal the food from the rats that go fetch it
2 slave rats that go take food for the government rats then for themselves
1 rat that get the crumbs and kicks
You can take the exploiter rats from three cages and put them together, and you'll get the same organisation spontaneously the next day. Same with 6 "free" rats. Same with SOD rats. Same with slave rats.
It's kinda the same with humans. Put too many anarchists together and some will subdue others and form an organised government within the group, forcing the remaining anarchists to fight for their own sake.
A sizeable portion of the population prefers a master and instructions on how to enjoy life, and another portion likes to get more than it deserves and to rule over the others.
I like to think that we're the free ones, but it'd be a mistake to think that everyone would agree to embrace the Ways of Eris.
Quote from: Delusionthough theocracy has not been implemented in recorded human history.
The Taliban.
The Mullahs of Iran, circa 1980.
The Mexica (Aztecs).
Shall I go on?
Also, religious authorities have had a lot of say in many european monarchies over the last couple milleniums.
Quote from: horab fibslageri knew an otherwise inteligent man who argued with me rather badly over the ridculaous notion that non central government system knwon as syndicalism, was anarchism. except anarchy Init's TrueForm, is oppsoed to all cooperative systems, except possibly outright slavery. but hen again that's nto qutie anarchism either.
Ha ha ha ha. Syndicalism was tried in Italy in the 30s. It eventually
evolved into Fascism. For the American version of syndicalism see
Hillary Clinton's health care proposal.
Wow, lots of responses, and lots of good points. I think we've established that unless humanity happens to have a major major major consciousness shift, anarchy would not work. We need some form of government.
Gnimbley, you're right. I'm still too caught up in aristotelian logic i guess. There are obviously a lot more options than Anarchy/'What we have now'. I guess you could just try to guide society towards anarchy as much as you can, knowing that you're probably not going to get there. You're still improving the balance of it all though. For a more anarchaistic (sp?) society to working, people will have to rely on each other, and be friendly and get along, etc.
Delusion, did you come up with the term CIF? i like it a lot, it seems like a good description of the way things are in america.
Bob, i think you're right there. I don't think complete anarchy would work in the long term.
.
Anarchy can work if you have groups of less than 2 persons.
Anarchy works best as a personal philosophy. Its essentially the same basic thing as modern satanism, except you dont have to read all that la'vey bullshit. Maybe I'm biased though, I think of anarchism as being an inherantly selfish thing. The only true anarchists I've known were the type of people who got by in life through very non-conventional methods, hopped trains, and spouted off inane political ranting at the drop of a hat. I thought they were all nuts... I just dont see the need to try and circumvent morals by claiming that it serves some sort of cause.
While walking across town today, I realized that there is a fault with my morality. That is, I'm a moral person out of fear of consequence and not a genuinely moral person. This is a problem, because I get all the limitations of morality and yet I'm not a better person for it. If I was less moral, but still cautious, I could benefit myself without feeling bad about it. If I was a truly moral person, I could benefit from this with a sense of pride. I think that Anarchism, as i've seen it in the past, is kind of a psychological cheat to get around this. A person who despises corporations in general can feel good when they scam them. In a way, these people have their own sense of morality, albeit different (some would say twisted.) Its the same way discordians might feel good when they pull off a decent jake (like that ever happens), or a subgenius might feel when he attains a good deal of slack.
In the end, this just leads me to believe that most anarchists these days arent anarchists, they're crust-punks.
Quote from: horab9Quote from: Delusion
. Pure feudalism, theocracy, hierarchy, democracy, republicanism, militarism, lottery, and some communist sects come to mind, though theocracy has not been implemented in recorded human history.
the taliban was a theocracy. i'm sure there have been others., in fact i'm pretty sure iran is democratic theocracy(that is, it has a democratic(elected by popular vote of citizens) element which quti eremsebles western deomcracy models which is subservant to the dominant council.
Where was Allah when the US bombed Afghanistan? Where was Quetzalcoatl when the Spaniards took Tenochtitlan? Where was JHVH when the Romans took Jerusalem and various flavours of rampaging nomads took Rome? Where was Wotan when Berlin fell? Where was the dialectic of history when they took out a loan to build a Mao button factory in Beijing?
The gods were, at most, giving little suggestions ("Hey, I'm on your side, so what if these guys have a few centuries industrial edge on you, you'll win... SUCKER!") or too busy punishing them for being disobedient to bother running the damn countries.
They may *call* themselves theocracies. But when push comes to shove, the
priests seem to make the decisions...
Quote
btu no, while i liks eomse aspects of soem the forms of anarchism i've seen, i dont; think any system with the name of anrchiy or wahtever would workl. in fact, sorry to say it this way but it's the stupidest thin g i;ve ever heard. i knew an otherwise inteligent man who argued with me rather badly over the ridculaous notion that non central government system knwon as syndicalism, was anarchism. except anarchy Init's TrueForm, is oppsoed to all cooperative systems, except possibly outright slavery. but hen again that's nto qutie anarchism either.
generally, i have the prejudice that that people callign themselves anarchist are either the type of people that get all worked up and break stuff for fun (or angst as it were) or the type of fool that think the plmbers are simpyl going to fix everyone's plumbign because it needs to be done.
At some point, the former fools get it politely explained to them that "the system" didn't build the fragile object they are eyeing, and that the builders are considering a little breakage of their own, and the latter fools break down and fix their own damned plumbing. At least, so I would hope...
Quote
and so anarchy sucks. and doesn't work. because people like me , and peopel liek you. and people like my neighbor who between her two kids and her full time job, doesn't have time to sit in on the realistically 100 hour a week meetings that would realistically nbe needed to coem to a consensus agreement on everything, in order to avoid tyranny at all costs, at the cost of becoming a tyranny in and of itself.
Consensi are overrated - one needs a clear-cut dividing line between "this must be agreed to by all in open council" and "they're my toys and I'll eat them if I want to.".
Quote
in fact he whoel anarchist ideal(on the brighter side of it) has really coem to erode my own ideals as i wander into teh opposite there off in contemplation of a somewhere that works without teh corruption seen ni both elected and absolute or near asbolute power structures.
Quote from: Slartibartfast++
Delusion, did you come up with the term CIF? i like it a lot, it seems like a good description of the way things are in america.
.
Industrial Feudalism (unqualified, if I recall correctly) was first sighted by me in Desolation Road (by Ian MacDonald.)
Anarchy is working right now.
ANARCHY = EXCUSE FOR TEENAGERS & HIPPIES TO ACT LIKE IDIOTS
8)
"Anarchy is your sixth grade gym class for all eternity!"
http://somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.shtml
Why do some people feel that anarchy means the absence of personal responsibility?
Quote from: LMNOWhy do some people feel that anarchy means the absence of personal responsibility?
BECAUSE, WITHOUT LAW, ALL OF MANKIND IS TALUFA.
CHEF DIESEL,
DOESN'T LIKE THAT THOUGHT.
Hey! Educate the Noob. What the fuck is "talufa"?
After I know what you're talking about, I can better respond.
Now probably Chef will tell us who Talufa is.
I'm frightened.
I suspect those people simply have no sense of personal responsiblity. They want to be able to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to, and to hell with anyone else who might be offended (but heaven help anyone else who attempts to live in the same manner and consequently offends *them*).
I also suspect that the idea of anarchy appeals to them because they think it means they won't have to answer to anybody - there isn't anyone in a position of power to discipline or punish them for their actions, so they can do anything they want. If they were to see anarchy as requiring self-discipline and genuine consideration for others, there's no way they'd embrace the idea.
Quote from: LMNOHey! Educate the Noob. What the fuck is "talufa"?
After I know what you're talking about, I can better respond.
MY FATASS COUSIN. HE IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY, AND A PLAGUE ON ALL WHO COME NEAR HIM.
ESPECIALLY ME.
CHEF D,
HASN'T SEEN TALUFA OR THE VAN FOR A WEEK.
Bob Dylan: "to live outside the law, you must be honest."
Quote from: DJRubberduckyI suspect those people simply have no sense of personal responsiblity.
IF "THOSE PEOPLE" = THE HUMAN RACE, THIS IS THE CORRECT MOB OF PRIMATES.
I always thought it was unreasonable to lump a group of people into a single category.
Quote from: LMNOI always thought it was unreasonable to lump a group of people into a single category.
I DIDN'T. I LUMPED *ALL* HUMANS INTO 1 CATAGORY.
OWNED, SON.
"All" is considerd a group.
And can we get Roger back, please?
Quote from: LMNOI always thought it was unreasonable to lump a group of people into a single category.
I, for one, have made a very deliberate point of never referring to myself as reasonable or rational. I know myself better than
that.
Quote from: DJRubberduckyI suspect those people simply have no sense of personal responsiblity. They want to be able to do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to, and to hell with anyone else who might be offended (but heaven help anyone else who attempts to live in the same manner and consequently offends *them*).
I also suspect that the idea of anarchy appeals to them because they think it means they won't have to answer to anybody - there isn't anyone in a position of power to discipline or punish them for their actions, so they can do anything they want. If they were to see anarchy as requiring self-discipline and genuine consideration for others, there's no way they'd embrace the idea.
Yeah. I can think of some people around here who think the same way.
Looks like the gnome is puttin on his fightin' pants!
the gnome has pants? i thought he only wore shoes...
well, he can't wear his fightin' pants all the time, now can he? Otherwise, he'd be a fightin' gnome, and then who'd want to give him cookies?
cthulu?
Hey, when did cthulu start giving away cookies?
I want a cthulu cookie, dammit!
id unno if cthulu gives cookies or not, but at the same time it seemed the only possible explanation.
proof 1: cthulu prefer teh taste of people wearign pants
proof 2: gnimbley not wearing pants inciting cthulu to want him to wear pants
proof 3: gnimbley has no morals int eh pursuit of cookies and would trade the freedom to go pantless for a cookie or two before you can say go here he comes, here coems speed racer, he's a demon on wheels.
there fore, cthulu would give gnimbley a cookie to wear his fightin pants all the time.
Ah. Got it. Makes perfect sense.
:roll:
No, you gotta listen to horab here. He and I are the only ones on this forum who actually have to live with Cthulu, as he likes to hang out with us. And mostly mooch off of us. What horab said makes more sense than you realize. gnimbley has a cookie obsession and Cthulu has a pants fetish of inordinate proportions. All I can say is rolling my eyes at Cthulu is what called his attention to me in the first place and if you don't watch it, he'll be at your house next.
Eating your refridgerator.
I wouldn't worr about that. When I went as Rasputin for halloween, I put the Seal of Protection on my back that I got from the Necronomicon
(http://img107.exs.cx/img107/9799/rasputinback.jpg)
+ 50 uber geek points
haha you kids today and your necronomicons..
Quote from: LMNOI wouldn't worr about that. When I went as Rasputin for halloween, I put the Seal of Protection on my back that I got from the Necronomicon
Old Abdul will love to hear that once again someone fell for that "Seal of Protection" prank.
I hope you like tentacles..
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomNo, you gotta listen to horab here. He and I are the only ones on this forum who actually have to live with Cthulu, as he likes to hang out with us. And mostly mooch off of us. What horab said makes more sense than you realize. gnimbley has a cookie obsession and Cthulu has a pants fetish of inordinate proportions. All I can say is rolling my eyes at Cthulu is what called his attention to me in the first place and if you don't watch it, he'll be at your house next.
Eating your refridgerator.
Inviting him to restaurants is the key here. Not any good restaurants mind you and especially not your favourite ones. And as long as you choose one where the waiters do wear pants you don't even have to pay.
Of course after a few visits they either go out of business (actually few = 1) or start calling some army to their protection. This then results in Cthulhu eating said army (especially if they wear pants, kilted armies mostly just get crushed) which makes him, me and the restaurant oners happy. Of course not the army but there is no pleasing some people.
HTH
gotta go and catapult some absinthe at the old squid head
oh they all get eaten. he jsut prefers people to wear pants. flavour and texture or soemthing.
Quote from: horab9id unno if cthulu gives cookies or not, but at the same time it seemed the only possible explanation.
proof 1: cthulu prefer teh taste of people wearign pants
proof 2: gnimbley not wearing pants inciting cthulu to want him to wear pants
proof 3: gnimbley has no morals int eh pursuit of cookies and would trade the freedom to go pantless for a cookie or two before you can say go here he comes, here coems speed racer, he's a demon on wheels.
there fore, cthulu would give gnimbley a cookie to wear his fightin pants all the time.
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
pants on?
pants off?
DAMN IT! I WISH YOU PEOPLE WOULD STOP DOING THAT!
NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESET HIS BRAIN AGAIN!
JESUS! AND I JUST GOT DONE INSTALLING THE NEW HEAT SINK!
YOU PEOPLE ARE TRYING MY PATIENCE!
WANT ME TO UNCHAIN THE ANTI-GNOME?On the bright side, the Anti-Gnome would probably trash Chef[/i]
There's an anti-gnome?
I want one!
[/bongwater]
Quote from: Schweinepriester G.Quote from: LMNOI wouldn't worr about that. When I went as Rasputin for halloween, I put the Seal of Protection on my back that I got from the Necronomicon
Old Abdul will love to hear that once again someone fell for that "Seal of Protection" prank.
I hope you like tentacles..
He's still alive? I thought he died after the 1024th orgasm when the Invisible Things ate him.
Hey, it's not a prank, though. The seal of protection really does work.
It stops the transmission of a couple diseases that can be transmitted from primate to tentacle demon.
i thought the prison was sposed to be five sided(odd angles, like five sided shapes and what not affect the elder gods as well as their spawn.)
-cthulu for instance, loves star shaped cookies.
Quote from: Delusion
He's still alive? I thought he died after the 1024th orgasm when the Invisible Things ate him.
Hey, it's not a prank, though. The seal of protection really does work.
It stops the transmission of a couple diseases that can be transmitted from primate to tentacle demon.
Well he faked the 1024th one (and the 336th, but that's another story) so he could escape more or less.
And og yes the Seal is a prank even from a tentacle demons point of view as the bearers never live up to the ad.
MAKE WAY FOR THE COMING OF THE FNORD!
Quote from: Irreverend Hugh, KSCMAKE WAY FOR THE COMING OF THE FNORD!
fnord just called: ''ll be late a month, sit down make a scone'
Quote from: Schweinepriester G.Quote from: Irreverend Hugh, KSCMAKE WAY FOR THE COMING OF THE FNORD!
fnord just called: ''ll be late a month, sit down make a scone'
*Stabs the next poster in anger*
*viciously and repeatedly*
goddamn it! I just bought this shirt, too!
*shoots the last poster in the face with no warning*
8)
Quote from: Turd Fergusongoddamn it! I just bought this shirt, too!
*shoots the last poster in the face with no warning*
8)
*Turns the victim of the above quotation over to Rumsfeld's Bunghole Inquisistion team*
*just for shits and giggles*