Reading Politics

Feb 25, 2004 02:33 # 19959

eljefe *** takes out his flame thrower...

Anarchy... Not Really

100% | 6

an·ar·chy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
www.dictionary.com

I've really started to notice alot of kids really getting behind the idea of "Anarchy" (just havn't really looked before). I see quite a few in High School (don't know how many there are in and out of college), and frankly I think Anarchy is one of the worst possible ideas ever. I hear people tout anarchy as "great", a "revolution", "no more oppressive government", and most particularly "no more U.S.A." I have yet to see a logical explanation as to why Anarchy would be best, the greatest, for anyone. Go ahead, ask me why, 'cause I'm going to tell you anyway.

Most kids are all about "No More Government", when in fact there will be no such thing as "No Government". The Amercan Hertiage Dictionary (from www.dictionary.com) definse government in on of its definitinos as The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. Lets stick with this definition for now, because government is derived from Govern, or to control.

Lawless sounds great, no police to catch you doing drugs, stealing, etc. But there's something missing. There is a downfall to everything, and there's a major one here. Not only are their no official to stop you doing from what you want to do, and this also applies to other people too. If, in an Anarchist area, you piss someone off, who's going to deter him from killing you? There are no incintives (like staying out of Jail) for him not too, and who's going to protect you? They could get killed too, and frankly, Anarchy really lets greed take root. Now what about stealing? Well, if their is no government to protect them, who's going to worry about bringing in a few bucks? All people are going to be able to care about is surviving. No one is going to want to peddle anything because there is nothing protecting their interests. Their merchandise could get stolen and, guess what, they can't do anything about it. Now, many would talk about banding together. Guess what, in order to stay together, you have to have some form of organization. Guess what? Just for reinforcement: The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. Know what that agency is? Your "gang". Know what that individual or body is? Your ringleader.

So basically, every single Anarchist proponent is either (a) hypocritical or (b) doesn't truly understand human nature. The anarchy I hear described by my more shameful peers is chock full of mini governments and even more problems than we would ever have now. Humans are naturally greedy, and I don't need to tell you this. Human Greed was the #1 killer of Socialism/Comunism. Why has it failed every time? Because there is no incintive for the "worker" to perform, and the leaders greedily soak up power. All the proponents scream "CHAOS WILL RULE!" Guess what, chaos is exactly it: chaos. Chaos has no master, it pays no favors, not even to it proponents. No one but Satan, or whatever you may considder to be the root of all evil, depending on your religious standpoint, would benifit from Chaos. Also, if you saw above, Anarchy is the lack of a cohesive principle.

What's funny is the Anarchists scream "NO GOVERNMENT" when in fact they benifit from the very government they are trying to destroy. Especially in the US. For all the Anarchists out there: Did you know that every time you scream your views, you just futher strengthen what the US was built on? Don't believe me? Read our First Amendment, then go to China and try to express, publicly, views that the Government doesn't like. Before you go, go ahead and set aside about $6,000 for you funeral. When you think about it, of all the problems here in the posh, cozy little US are miniscule to the real problems in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. How may full scale armed rebellions have you participaded in? How many of your friends have been ripped apart by landmines set by revolutionaries in your backyard or you old playfield touting your message? How many people do you know have blown themselves and many other innocents on a bus to bits? How many people do you know have lived all their lives in a state of fear?

I guess I've boiled down to my main point. Yes, America has problems, and yes, we make mistakes, but we have it good compared to everyone else. We have time and money to squabble about politicians, should we add more medicare that others don't. We have time and the FREEDOM to post publications bashing our government without fear of said government lashing back at us with a bullet in our head. We have the freedom of choice to do nothing with our life except complain and contribute nothing to society. Not many countries on the other side of the Atlantic get to make these choices. Their choices are most always pre-ordained by either the government, or their current state of society. A person in an anarchist can't chose to better his life because there is nowhere to go. No jobs to fill, no government postitions to work, no army to fight for, no nothing. Nothing but fear, despair, and famine.

Oh yeah, and when anarchy comes in, so goes all your pleasure, like t-shirts, prints, punk rock music, and the internet. You will be busy trying to SURVIVE.

Did you know that every anarchist proponent I know lives a nice easy life in a calm neighborhood? Funny. All those that have experienced Anarchy in some form or fashion hate it, while those who see it through the censored biased media and websites support it?

I'm through. (sorry for disorganization, if any. I tend to do that sometimes)

Also, I do know there is already an Anarchy topic posted, but this is more of a bash rather than an answer to a question, so I started a new topic.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

This post was edited by eljefe on Feb 25, 2004.

Feb 25, 2004 23:14 # 19976

Jaz *** replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

Excellent post, eljefe. I wonder if someone is going to post a rebuttal.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Feb 26, 2004 01:00 # 19978

wizz *** replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

?% | 1

Excellent post, eljefe. I wonder if someone is going to post a rebuttal.

Hmm, Maclaincausey seems to be out of shouting range.

Yet, I think this is to some extent a definition problem. Real anarchy as in "no governing whatsoever" is certainly a very bad idea. Yet governments on a smaller scale (what you might have meant with "mini governments"), which is what some "anarchists" mean if I understand them correctly, might not necessarily be a bad idea. Which doesn't mean I support it.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Feb 26, 2004 02:03 # 19980

eljefe *** replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

?% | 1

In my opinion, smaller governments (which, yes, is what I meant) would not be benifical, ex: Rivalries. Now, if all these smaller scale governments would get along (which would push out the fear of intense rivalries), would it not just be more logical and efficient to join up together? If these smaller scale governments get along, which wouldn't happen, the next evolutionary step is an alliance, which will lead to a larger government which is what we have, or how the US was formed (see colonies -> states -> US).

If (and for sure) these small scale governments can not get along, the rivalries will intesify over land, vital resources such as food, water, etc., which will bring back the warring governments some anarchists are trying to rid themselves of.

Just my thoughts.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Feb 27, 2004 14:35 # 20012

Jaz *** has all the information you need...

The Observer on Christiania

?% | 1

I discovered a very interesting Observe article about the current situation in Christiania. 30 years ago Christiania started out as a free commune without laws and rules. The article talks about what has come out of it.

It is a very interesting read.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Oct 02, 2004 05:01 # 27259

The_Blue_Ghost * replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

Chief, great post as usual.

- insightful.
- concise.
- pithy.
- and a plethera of information and analysis.

My thought on Anarchy:

In the reality we live in, with the nature that things occur...there is no such thing as "total anarchy". Sorta going back to what eljefe said, you may have anarchy in the beginning, but for the successful progression of the species or a society, the natural tendency is to return to a hierarchy.

Essentially, Total Anarchy is the dream of the peverse, inmature, idealogical misunderstanding of an obtuse adolescent culture devoid of indepth insight into the order of nature and human behavior.

anyway. great post.

To each his own...

Oct 02, 2004 16:21 # 27270

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

Firstly, do not take my reply as a disagreement. I'd just like you to explain yourself a little more clearly for my benefit.

Sorta going back to what eljefe said, you may have anarchy in the beginning, but for the successful progression of the species or a society, the natural tendency is to return to a hierarchy

Hmm... a few of your beliefs can be read from this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say that you believe:

Humanity's destiny was to create the ultimate civilization

and concurrently

The natural state, or the state in which humanity was destined to evolve into is a hierarchy

These beliefs make Total Anarchy a pretty stupid idea. How can anarchy work when it's been proven that humans function best in a hierarchy?

You're right. It can't. When placed in the context of our society, anarchy is the stupidest idea ever. You can't expect a civilization to function when nobody's there telling it to.

Since we're really just another animal, let's use the animals as an example. If horses didn't have any chief horse telling them how to live, they'd stumble around their whole life like clueless idiots. If they didn't have a chief horse forcing them to work all day to find food, they'd forget to eat! That of course explains why the chief horse is so much more important than the rest of the horses, because without him, they wouldn't know what the fuck to do with themselves.

Anyway, let's go back to your statement.

Sorta going back to what eljefe said, you may have anarchy in the beginning, but for the successful progression of the species or a society, the natural tendency is to return to a hierarchy

Can you define successful? What is it that makes a civilization or a species successful?

True, it seems like the answer would be obvious. But sometimes success can be decieving.

For example, lets say I take a shotgun and kill everyone in my neighborhood. In the beginning, my new way of life would seem incredibly successful. I'd have loads of cash, tons of food, houses, cars, boats, etc.

My justification is simple: I'm the only one with a shotgun, therefore it was my destiny to kill everyone else and take their stuff, just like it was their destiny to be killed by me.

But looked at objectivly, is my system really successful? Not really. Eventually one of two things will happen:

1. Someone will pick up a shovel and smash my head in when I'm looking the other way

or

2. (more likely) I will kill everyone on the planet. Should take about 10,000 years (not that long really). And then there will be no more food, no more houses, no more cars, boats, tv's, etc. And I'll die.

Total Anarchy is the dream of the peverse, inmature, idealogical misunderstanding of an obtuse adolescent culture devoid of indepth insight into the order of nature and human behavior

In spite of a couple spelling errors, I think you are an excellently programmed human being, perfectly designed to be a proponent of our society. I'm sorry if that sounds like an insult. I can't see why you would consider it one.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

Oct 02, 2004 17:29 # 27272

The_Blue_Ghost * replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

In spite of a couple spelling errors, I think you are an excellently programmed human being, perfectly designed to be a proponent of our society. I'm sorry if that sounds like an insult. I can't see why you would consider it one.

Well, if i was one of those "I hate authority, I want to be free and have no responsibility, anarchist wannabe's," then I would take an offense to that comment. But since I believe in the order of nature, and the destiny of all individual beings to have a place and purpose in the world, I'll accept it as a compliment.

Can you define successful? What is it that makes a civilization or a species successful?

Well, I guess what I meant by successful is a society that is prosperous enough to divert it's whole attention from just getting food, shelter, and what not; and is able to create the greater things of a society: mathematics, religion, science.

Although, some anarchists might say that these are the "evils" of society. Why so? Anarchists believe they "bound" humans from achieving enlightment or something like that. So what I guess the anarchists are saying is that knowledge and truth ruin people and take away their innocense. Well, ignorance is bliss.

Yet again, it is another ideal that will never materialate. Humans are consumers. We take and we conquer. This is true in the sense of knowledge. It is our nature to learn, to ask, to defy, to dissent; it is what keeps us going. We always ask, "what is beyond that horizon?" or "how do I make it better?"

Progression of knowledge, it won't be stopped.

Anarchy....a pipe dream.

To each his own...

This post was edited by The_Blue_Ghost on Oct 02, 2004.

Oct 04, 2004 01:38 # 27325

eljefe *** replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

Anarchy....a pipe dream.

More aptly put, Anarchy... an easy way out of responsibility and work (even though when thought about logically, it creates more work).

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Oct 04, 2004 04:27 # 27333

The_Blue_Ghost * replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

Essentially it's not anarchy they really want, as much as they may say so, it is really a social revolution they want because some people just want everything their way. Doesn't have to be the right way, but atleast it's their way.

So let them wave their little sticks and dream happy thoughts of mindless, leaderless, uncivilized life without the consequences of human nature and reality.

Some people just need to pull their heads out of their asses and think about their actions, cause there is always, i mean ALWAYS, a reaction.

To each his own...

Oct 05, 2004 16:19 # 27386

Bunk *** has all the information you need...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

95% | 2

Sorry I trailed off here, I was somewhat occupied over the weekend.

Essentially it's not anarchy they really want, as much as they may say so, it is really a social revolution they want because some people just want everything their way

Hmm... it occurs to me that I said I was an Anarchist.

After failing to get a reaction out of me by insinuating that total anarchy was a teenage fantasy of deluded wannabe's that they all grew out of (a VERY obvious truth), you are changing tack, and insinuating that anyone who wants to change the way they live is a greedy, lazy, delusional idealist. They want an easy life with no hardship. And for some people, that may be true too.

Let's switch area of discussion for a moment. Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with the way we live quite clearly has their head quite deeply up their ass. You your self stated that the world is going to end...

The world is going to end, that is to say the end of mankinds existence, in 2012. At the peak of political chaos, terrorism, decadence, and sin; a comet will snuff out the human race like a cigarette butt

The comet is not our fault... but you see the rest. So you awknoledge our society has deep, deep problems. But at the same time, you seem to be against anyone who is willing to make the drastic enough changes required to fix them.

What do you call someone who KNOWS there's a problem but is unwilling to fix it? Lazy.

In my mind, there are two exceptions.

1. If the problem appears to be impossible to fix, then there is no point in trying to fix it, right?

2. If the world is going to end in 7 years no matter what we do, we obviously have free right to do whatever we want because it doesn't matter in the end.

You seem to be a subscriber to both of these. And since so many people share your views in that way, it almost makes them both true. Almost.

Bunk's Anarchial Views

There is a better way of living for everyone on earth.

That better way is not necessarily the same for everyone.

The way we are living now is destroying the earth.

We DID NOT ALWAYS LIVE THIS WAY.

We were not "destined" to live the way we are living now, meaning that there is/was more than one way our history could have unfolded.

The government alone does not propagate our way of living, therefore a CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT IS IRRELEVANT.

We should work to live, not live to work.

Right now, we are slaves, meaning we MUST support the system in order to survive.

We don't HAVE to be slaves in order to have good food.

We don't HAVE to be slaves in order to have science, history, art, and quality of life.

Well, if i was one of those "I hate authority, I want to be free and have no responsibility, anarchist wannabe's," then I would take an offense to that comment

Of course. It wouldn't be true. They wouldn't qualify as being excellently programmed.

They would be wrong. We are all programmed. Every single piece of information that we recieve as input becomes part of us, and influences us in ways to subtle for us to notice.

Well, I guess what I meant by successful is a society that is prosperous enough to divert it's whole attention from just getting food, shelter, and what not; and is able to create the greater things of a society: mathematics, religion, science

I think you have to continue that a little further. What is the point of mathematics, religion, science? Are they things to be had simply for their own sake? What benefit do they provide?

This is a fairly obvious question, so I'll fill in the answer. If you disagree with my answer, say so.

They improve quality of life, right? What other point could there be.

So stating it a little simpler, would you say that the most successful civilization is the one that provides the best lives for the people it affects?

You are right when you say that if you cut the leadership out of our society, it would cease to function. Our society REQUIRES that the majority of our wealth is controlled by the minority of the people. Yes, quality of life trickles down eventually, but for the majority this just means that they are better able to use the people below them.

I'll let you in on a secret: I'm not really in touch with other Anarchists right now. I don't know what their philosophies are, our where they stand on different issues. And if they are really saying shitheaded things such as

knowledge and truth ruin people and take away their innocense

I'm not going to call myself an anarchist. As a rule, I hate labels. Labels make people assume certain things about people. for example, there would be no point in me calling you a "Hip-swinging old flower girl", because (a) it doesn't apply (?) and (b) trying to sum people up in a sentence or a word doesn't work.

Humans are consumers

The definition of life is an organism that consumes. All life forms consume. But not all life forms are destroying the earth as a result.

You might say the difference is that we are smarter than all other forms of life. But that fails to account for the vast portion of human history where we WEREN'T destroying the earth.

What's different is the way we live.

Progression of knowledge, it won't be stopped

This is the essential proving point behind your argument. But the truth is, progression of knowledge is not the driving force behind the way we live, nor is it the cause of all our problems.

Let's look at the negative points of our society. They go far beyond the unhappiness of a few unemployed bums. You listed some of them yourself. They include suicide, depression, persecution, hate, war, famine, overpopulation, decadence, crime, slavery, malevolence, sin, ignorance, and the most important, The destruction of the planet.

Progression of knowledge did not cause all these problems, nor will it ever be the solution to them (as much as we may think or want it to be). I don't know if the world can be saved, but we have to at least understand WHY before we condemn it so.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

Oct 05, 2004 17:34 # 27389

The_Blue_Ghost * replies...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

?% | 1

Ok, I get where you are going.

Let me lay down my "utopian" ideals.

--------------------Ideals---------------------

- [A society with a continued "hierarchy"] -

As repeated before, a society must have a spectrum of rank. There must be a leader at the top, and a patron at the bottom. There's no getting around it. Trying to make everyone have an equal share in the complete governing of a nation may work in a small village, but it would be insane to try that in a "million strong population" country. The Soviets tried something like that, although it was highly hypocritical and corrupt, and it didn't work out very well. If you think about it, the closest thing to Communism in a society that was actually successful, was the heirarchy of the Tribes of the Native Americans. Too bad us white man had to destroy that, as with everything else we find. :-/

- [A society NOT obsessed with money/power] -

Money.....the true evil. Well, you can't look at it that way totally, money was a way to relate value of something to another. Problem is: how do you truely set a "price" or value on something? I mean,

"one man's garbage is another man's treasure..."

In the essence of the meaning, money is power. The more money you have; the more you can do, the more you can "consume", the more you can control, etc. And that's one of the problems with society, we are too obsessed with power and control. And what does it get you? happiness? Does another Porsche sitting in your driveway make you that much more at peace with yourself. The monks of Tibet have no money, yet they are at total piece and enlightenment. For thousands of years, the Native Americans had no sense of monetary value, yet they prospered (That is..until the European settlers came in, took their land, and claimed it for themselves). What I'm trying to get at is...what value does money really have? The dollars in your wallet? What are they good for? Ok, if you have enough dollars in your wallet, you can exchange it for a brick of gold (or so the monetary system of America has it valued). Now you have a brick of gold...a shiny, metal brick.......wow, lots of fun with that. In a practical world, it's a useless chunk of shit. It's what WE made it to be that has given it "value".

- [A society that appreciates the skills and traits of the individuals and puts them to good use] -

If a guy is good at lifting boxes, hook him up. If a guy is good at painting and enjoys doing it, hook him up. If people do what they like to do, even if it is work, that paycheck won't be so dire. It will be the task, or having a purpose, that drives the person, not money in their pocket. That's the thing, our society needs to change from being obsessed with money and power, and needs to look into the more fulfilling aspects of life.....FULFILLING YOUR PURPOSE. You can have all the money and gold and power in the world,

but you still wont be TRUELY fulfilled until you find what it is that you were put on this Earth to do.

The problem is...our society is "programmed". We are programmed to want "to get rich", want "the big car", want "the big house", want "those cool Nike's", want all this crap that won't do a damn thing for us.

What's the difference between a man who has everything and a man who has nothing? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are still men.

You want to know why rich people buy tons of expensive crap? It's because they feel empty inside, like they are missing a part of their soul and the only way to get it back is to fill it with material possessions. And in time, those material things begin to own them. They become slaves to their own possessions.

anyway.

--------------------- End Ideals-------------------

Well, after reading this, you may think that I'm an anarchist, or a communist, or something (ironic isn't it :-) )....but I'm not. I don't believe in " ism's". Like the words of the great philosopher Bruce Lee:

"Have no way, as way..."

I don't believe in destroying the government, or insighting a revolution in the world order. I simply believe that for our society to truely "prosper" to it's full potential, yes, a change is needed. In my opinion it is much better to enlighten someone, than to force feed it down their throat.

A man is not measured by his bank account. He is measured by his character. When the shit hits the fan, what is that guy going to do? That's the true test of any man.

not his damn khakis.

To each his own...

Oct 07, 2004 18:23 # 27539

Bunk *** posts about...

Re: Anarchy... Not Really

?% | 1

Very interesting. I think you very nicely point out part of the downside of capitalism, and society in general. There are a few things I'd like to pick out for discussion.

If you think about it, the closest thing to Communism in a society that was actually successful, was the heirarchy of the Tribes of the Native Americans. Too bad us white man had to destroy that, as with everything else we find.

I think this is a huge point you're hitting on. Why did we destroy them? Why did we destroy whatever else we found?

I don't believe in destroying the government, or insighting a revolution in the world order. I simply believe that for our society to truely "prosper" to it's full potential, yes, a change is needed. In my opinion it is much better to enlighten someone, than to force feed it down their throat.

Depending on what you mean by "prosper", I agree with you in theory. The world won't be fixed by re-writing the programming. People have to be 'enlightened' as you say. Put differently, people cannot be changed by anyone but themselves: they can be shown the door but only they can walk through it.

The problem is time.

In the cosmic sense, all of that which we refer to as human history (about 8,000 years) has occured in the blink of an eye. (the actual history of the human race is much longer, closer to 3,000,000 years. But for whatever reason, that part of our history is 100% ignored by all historians). In that relatively short time, a certain way of thinking and living has spread across the earth. It began in the fertile crescent and has expanded to cover the globe. This new way of thinking and living is what we refer to as civilization.

This new way is what I refer to with my story about the man with the shotgun. Now, there has obviously been more than one civilization in history. But when you think about it, lots of people have shotguns, and it was inevitable that one or two of them would decide that they too would try living that way, going around killing whoever they ran into, using the resources they found and moving on.

Obviously this method presented problems as well. Guilt, fatigue, people fighting back, blood stains, and the general feeling that you were doing something seriously wrong.

The message they recieved from this? "Build a better gun. Become a more efficient killer. Then it'll all work out."

All the vast problems we are experiencing as a race send to me this message: This story is about to end. This way of thinking/living has created more problems than it has solved. It DOES NOT WORK.

I said before there were two ways that the story could end

1. Someone will pick up a shovel and smash my head in when I'm looking the other way

or

2. (more likely) I will kill everyone on the planet. Should take about 10,000 years (not that long really). And then there will be no more food, no more houses, no more cars, boats, tv's, etc. And I'll die.

We are dangerously close to option 2 right now. At the rate we are going, the world will be consumed in a matter of 1-2 centuries. And then we as a species will die, and we will take the earth with us.

But there is a third way. Drop the shotgun.

The problem is...our society is "programmed". We are programmed to want "to get rich", want "the big car", want "the big house", want "those cool Nike's", want all this crap that won't do a damn thing for us

Right now, we are a civilization programmed to generate maximum harm. It's not intentional. Right now, most people will awknowledge that SOMETHING is wrong, but (a) they don't know what that something is or (b) they aren't allowed to do anything about it. People need money. People want the best life for their family, and need money to do that. People are ridiculed and even told there is something wrong with them when they can't get a job that pays enough to support themselves. And when they say they really don't want to do that work because either it doesn't give them purpose in life or it is recognisably destructive/useless, they are called "selfish". Selfish because they aren't willing to "make sacrifices for the greater good".

Selfish. When given the choice to do their part in eating another piece of the world for their own gain, they would say no. And we would call that person selfish. Amazing.

We will never go back in time to when people lived in huts and wore skins. You might think that by saying our civilization must be abandoned I would be suggesting this. Obviously that is false. But we can do two things:

We can stop living to generate maximum harm.

We can make a better life for everyone by letting them figure out what works best for themselves. No more pretending that we can logically surmise how to be gods.

But I can't find no place or nothin', where thrills are cheap, and love is divine

This post was edited by Bunk on Oct 07, 2004.


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)