Reading Politics

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.

Fond memories

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

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

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.

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.

Fond memories

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

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...

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.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

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.

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).

Fond memories

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...