Anarchism

I lived on an Anarchist commune for a while, although it wasn't named as such. It was a traveller's site where there genuinely was no law. A sort of cross between a rubbish dump and a mental home.

"A sort of cross between a rubbish dump and a mental home."

I laughed out loud, comedy gold !

: D

Oh Wingedangel, you do try don't you.

: (

I mention something about my sons forced education and you link me to a load unrelated conspiracy theory shit, everything from the Burgermeister interview (which I had the displeasure of watching last year) to Rense.

This is something common with the conspiracy theorists, linking disparate and unrelated ideas to the conversation: "want evidence that swine flu is government hoax ? take alook at these 9/11 'inside job' websites!"

"The next two years will be interesting to say the least"

I am guessing the next two years are significant to you because they end with 2012, is that right, or is there any other reason you think they will be interesting ?

And here we have another theme common amongst conspiracy theorists (and theists) some great event or epoch changing moment is imminent in their life time.

Thats great and everything...

Though regardless of what I posted you can still school you child at home, they are completely unrelated...

secondly ...don't flatter yourself...this is a thread about anarchy. I posted those threads in reponse to the OP...

Thirdly...What makes you think you are any more or less credible than those you mock? You went apeshit at me last week under the 'banner of freedom'...and as long as I agree with everyone else, then thats ok.

So...as we got round to it, we can all suck corporate cock, as long as we totally ignore anyone trying to lift the edge of the carpet?

Who do you think got women the vote? was it the crazy bitch that jumped under the race horse?

Fucking hell, you wave a flag that says I'm an independent thinker, I have tattoos...look..that one even says 'fuck'...and all the while postulate that the government would not lie? and I am crazy and misguided for even suggesting such a thing?
They can't utter a sentence about anything, without it being full of shit.
That is all these 'scary' websites tell you...they aren't all lizards in the white house, Do me a favour. Read something, they actually do carry vicarious truths, and unfortunately they stick in the throat. Not all of it is utter bullshit and any attempt to paint them in such a fashion just shows you scared to actually report on the situation with any clarity.

You're cool. Wanna hang out?

As long as it's in a safe, public, well lit place first.......;D...

"A sort of cross between a rubbish dump and a mental home."

I laughed out loud, comedy gold !

: D

I lived on site for a while and yes...I laughed out loud too...repped...x

I'd agree, there are parallels between the two, both, have at their roots, a rejection of big government / statism.

Its sometimes called the Horseshoe Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

I dont think there are many anarchists who would advocate living in a society where survival of the fittest, or carrier of the most guns is the norm. I would imagine an ideal anarchic society would revolve around communities living together sharing skills and resources together without the need of a leader or police.
Sounds beautiful. The term Anarchy, can be very misleading.
It doesn't mean chaos.

Peace.

The term Anarchy, can be very misleading.

So, to you, the definition of Anarchy from Wikipedia does not ring true?

* "No rulership or enforced authority."
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
* "Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

Anarchy = Anarchy.

I do not see a small community based model as anything resembling anarchy.

I should think that is because your definition of anarchy comes from Wikipedia, and maybe from a subconscious memory of what you may have read in the popular press or on internet forums.
What TT Tom is probably talking about is anarchy as a political philosophy.
From the same Wikipedia page, something you neglected to read:

"The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities"

So, to you, the definition of Anarchy from Wikipedia does not ring true?

* "No rulership or enforced authority."
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."
* "Act[ing] without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."

Anarchy = Anarchy.

I do not see a small community based model as anything resembling anarchy.

dicki, I suspect that the Liberal Democrats [are] certainly not the types to splash on biscuits.

Not enough Old Etonians therein?

...a photo of the difference in space taken up by peds, cycles, and cars. It was plainly quite evident that the cars caused the problem.

here ya go

1 Attachment

From the same Wikipedia page, something you neglected to read[.]

True. I did not read the whole article.

I base my view on the original meaning of the word. To me "without ruler" means just that. And the "ruler" can be a group of people, too. Hence I cannot see how anarchy would be anything else than pure chaos.

Isn't there a word for the small communities thing? Why do people need to label it as anarchistic?

From Big A Little A:
If you don't like religion you can be the antichrist
If you're tired of politics you can be an anarchist
But no one ever changed the church by pulling down a steeple
And you'll never change the system by bombing number ten
Systems just aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of people
...

Prisons are built with stones of Law. Brothels with the bricks of religion.
William Blake

Yes, thanks Dugthe slug, I meant it in terms of a political philosophy.

Anarchy = Without Rulers. That is all. Not without Rules.

ps. I am not an Anarchist.

True. I did not read the whole article.

I base my view on the original meaning of the word. To me "without ruler" means just that. And the "ruler" can be a group of people, too. Hence I cannot see how anarchy would be anything else than pure chaos.

Isn't there a word for the small communities thing? Why do people need to label it as anarchistic?

People don't really "label it" as anarchistic.
Their choice of the term is based on the historical political ideas that are central to the philosophy of anarchy, particularly popular in the 19th century.
Unfortunately the term in both it's "proper" form and it's populist form refers to chaos and disorder.
The only people who associate anarchy with "chaos and disorder" are those who do not understand it as a political concept (including the balaclava wearing fools present on almost all protest marches), and those who seek to denigrate the idea because they do not agree with it, or because they see the balaclavas and can think no further than "bloody anarchists".

If you want to talk about anarchy as a political ideal, then you have to read about it - which I have not done enough of.
If you want to talk about blokes in balaclavas throwing bricks, then you can use the same word, but you are fairly ignorantly dismissing as idiots a fairly important political movement.

Yes, thanks Dugthe slug, I meant it in terms of a political philosophy.

Anarchy = Without Rulers. That is all. Not without Rules.

Yeah, well, here we are again.

Um, who makes the rules, then? Who enforces the rules? If it is a larger group or the majority of the community, I think it is democracy. And if it is a smaller posse, isn't it oligarchy?

Yeah, well, here we are again.

Um, who makes the rules, then? Who enforces the rules? If it is a larger group or the majority of the community, I think it is democracy. And if it is a smaller posse, isn't it oligarchy?

this is just 'it', that old saying that 95% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 5% of the world. I am ashamed to say is very close to the truth. 'It' really is this bad.

I cant answer that.

Yeah, well, here we are again.

Um, who makes the rules, then? Who enforces the rules? If it is a larger group or the majority of the community, I think it is democracy. And if it is a smaller posse, isn't it oligarchy?

I think you're assuming that people who favour a particular form of politics want, like petulant children, to have that form in it's entirety, instead of taking major elements of it to form a practicable policy.
An *ideal *anarchy would be more closely related to true democracy than the bastardised form of "democracy" that our country currently has.
But it's not going to happen so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Human is a pack animal. I do not think there has ever been a time during which the pack has been able to live w/o Alphas, Betas and, well, the Omegas. And the Alphas are the rulers. They might not carry titles, but men will know they are the ones that lead.

Ancient Greek democracy still had its Alphas even though it was the people -- citizens -- who could claim they were the ones making the decisions. The orators and demagogues were the Alphas, there.

Could well be I truly am missing the point of Anarchy and fail to see how everybody could be equal. In fact I think I might've gotten derailled.

Still, what I am trying to say is that there are always rulers. And in that sense anarchy (the lack of rulers) cannot exist in a society of any size nor cannot a society of any size be based on anarchy (or the lack of rulers).

I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

Still, what I am trying to say is that there are always rulers. And in that sense anarchy (the lack of rulers) cannot exist in a society of any size nor cannot a society of any size be based on anarchy (or the lack of rulers).

I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

I see your point completely and agree with you. And so would any intelligent exponent of an anarchistic political movement, and they would probably agree with you.
But that excludes the brick throwing brew-heads that most people (including themselves) incorrectly think to be anarchists. I think the people on both sides of that argument are as ignorant as each other.

Human is a pack animal. I do not think there has ever been a time during which the pack has been able to live w/o Alphas, Betas and, well, the Omegas. And the Alphas are the rulers. They might not carry titles, but men will know they are the ones that lead.

Ancient Greek democracy still had its Alphas even though it was the people -- citizens -- who could claim they were the ones making the decisions. The orators and demagogues were the Alphas, there.

Could well be I truly am missing the point of Anarchy and fail to see how everybody could be equal. In fact I think I might've gotten derailled.

Still, what I am trying to say is that there are always rulers. And in that sense anarchy (the lack of rulers) cannot exist in a society of any size nor cannot a society of any size be based on anarchy (or the lack of rulers).

I hope you can understand the point I was trying to make.

Presently...those Alpha are wondering what there role is, as after 6000 years of alpha rule, we are still fighting over land and gold. Fail.
And the Omegas, are just waiting for you to realise this...

Oh, and the penny drops.

I honestly believe we should never have given up the Empire.

Days of long lost glory.

Thats great and everything...

Though regardless of what I posted you can still school you child at home, they are completely unrelated...

Agreed, unrelated.

secondly ...don't flatter yourself...this is a thread about anarchy. I posted those threads in reponse to the OP...

My mistake, I took it as you attaching some relationship.

Thirdly...What makes you think you are any more or less credible than those you mock?

I am reasonably free (through effort) from confirmation bias, I am prepared to support any claims I might make with evidence, to have my ideas challenged and changed in light of better or further evidence. Any ideas I hold are up for debate, are only there in light of the supporting evidence, I am prepared to be wrong and have been many times on many issues.

You went apeshit at me last week under the 'banner of freedom'...and as long as I agree with everyone else, then thats ok.

Silly straw man argument.

No one went 'apeshit' at you - you made some claims, then when asked to back them up refused to do so - using silly excuses as to why you could not support your ideas - you instead spent your energies attempting to establish the idea that people who do not subscribe to these ideas are mindless, brainwashed corporate drones.

Don't be surprised if you make extraordinary claims to have people question them, especially if you cannot supply support for your arguments.

So...as we got round to it, we can all suck corporate cock, as long as we totally ignore anyone trying to lift the edge of the carpet?

• see my point above regarding the idea that anyone who does not share this position is a mindless, brainwashed corporate drone.
  
  
  

Who do you think got women the vote? was it the crazy bitch that jumped under the race horse?

• see my point earlier about conflating disparate ideas:
  
  

("This is something common with the conspiracy theorists, linking disparate and unrelated ideas to the conversation: "want evidence that swine flu is government hoax ? take alook at these 9/11 'inside job' websites!")

Fucking hell, you wave a flag that says I'm an independent thinker, I have tattoos...look..that one even says 'fuck'...and all the while postulate that the government would not lie? and I am crazy and misguided for even suggesting such a thing?

Another straw man argument.

This is what I wrote last week:

"No one here has claimed the government (any government) is infallible or completely honest, I doubt one has ever existed. You are simply avoiding the question of proof by diffusing the argument and posting straw man arguments."

That is all these 'scary' websites tell you...they aren't all lizards in the white house, Do me a favour. Read something, they actually do carry vicarious truths, and unfortunately they stick in the throat. Not all of it is utter bullshit and any attempt to paint them in such a fashion just shows you scared to actually report on the situation with any clarity.

: )

I love it when an argument has such little in the way of credible support that the only tool left is to accuse someone who disagrees with your position of being scared.

I actually laughed out loud.

:D

My mistake.

For posterity.