Spoken like a true anarchist and a true comrade.
Daniel"fatal" - 25 02 08 - 09:50

Strange how you dont see many anarchists in countries outside the so called ‘developed world’. Anarchy will never have
a broad appeal, whether that matters or not is an interesting question. I am all for social and political reform but the
specific alternative of Anarchy seems rather pie in the sky.
Andy - 25 02 08 - 13:52

i thought tge purpose of anarchy was more to rebel against the government and otger things, but not to get important things accomplished like you soeak about. You sound alot more like a disapproving parent than an anarchist
John () - 25 02 08 - 18:40

The purpose of anarchy is freedom. Rebelling against government is only one facet of that, freedom from oppression. Freedom of choice is the goal. Choose to do things that are important to you, not what’s important to everyone else.
Mr Good Cat - 25 02 08 - 19:01

oh okay i understand it now. I always thought an anarchist was more like a rioter but now i see that they are just people that do whatever they want. Sounds like a pretty good idea.
John - 25 02 08 - 19:31

Not necessarily. An Anarchist is someone that wants freedom for everyone. If you interpret that to mean "do whatever you want", well yes, but only as long as it isn’t persecuting anyone else. Or… well, read the manifesto, that says it pretty well.
And to Andy, it might be that you mainly hear of Anarchists in the developed world because the developing world is still developing. It’s not "strange" at all, really, if you think about the criteria of the observation.
BulimicMind - 25 02 08 - 21:31

Yes, Anarchism is for the well fed and well provided for. People in the 3rd world are too busy surviving to be
interested in such decadent ideas. Not that I am hostile to anarchism – fair play to people who want to live their
lives ‘outside’ the norms of western materialistic society. However, it is quite clear that there are a number of
hypocrits who claim to be anarchists – the ones that take government welfare for instance.
Question – would we have made the advances in western living standards if everyone adopted Anarchism?
Andy - 26 02 08 - 05:40

It depends. I think that in anarchy you would rely on your friends and family if times got out of control, not the government. I mean, who better to help you out than the people who know you best? And if things got out of hand for them, you return the favor. Government has been making people into believers of the, “One way street” idea. Life is a two way street, and its about time people figure it out. As humans, we have compassion for others, and that would replace the “perks” of American living. There may be people who leech off this compassion, but once the people they rely on figure it out, they will have nothing. There. Done.
And….
John, I’m happy for you now that you’ve realized that we aren’t rioters, but that doesn’t mean we do whatever we want. We respect the human rights of others, not because we are forced to, but because it is our nature.
And….
There is no real developed world. No disrespect, but there isn’t.
“I can’t tell you what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”
-A. Einstien
Kaleb () - 26 02 08 - 06:54

I am not an anarchist but I am interested in learning. I therefore have some questions. my questions are genuine and
I am not trying to set semantic traps…

1) Do anarchists oppose all forms of authority pre se? If not, what types of authority are acceptable?
NB – by ‘Authority’ i mean authorised to make a decision that not ALL people effected will be in agreement with.

2) Is Anarchism a movement (i.e it has goals) or just a philosophy/lifestyle choice? If it is movement it raises the
question of organisation to achieve its goals.

3) What happens when two Anarchists disagree on an issue which effects them both.?
Andy - 26 02 08 - 13:01

If I were you, I’d ask the admin, he’s probably more educated on the subect, but my personal beliefs say
1. No. Personal Authority. In anarchy, I would imagine that you only make decisions for yourself, not others. Unless the other person is like MR or something. Making decsions for other people ISN’T anarchy. So no governments. Don’t worry. Mankind can do quite well without them.
2. It’s both. It’s a movement about free lifestyle choice. And anarchy doesn’t disapprove of organization. We are allies. There is no chief anarchist. Do we really need a 1 leader and a million followers, or 1 milllion and 1 united promoters? Organization isn’t government, or a controlling force over our lives, or anything that can do harm to our beliefs. Soooo. It’s cool. We’ll be organized. It’d be hard not to be. We’re equal allies in this struggle.
3. Hmmm. Really, there’s too many ways to interpret this question, but I’ll give it a shot. The anarchists should go try their own ways to solve the problem. Look at it like this. It doubles the odds of them finding a solution. Or, like real civilized people, they could look at it from each others perspective. And people have a knack for uniting against a common foe, so if it’s really that large of a problem, then they might even find a completely new way to deal with it. I mean, look, as a single person, I’ve found two answers to your question, so imagine what we could all do.
Advice – Ask the admin and devague (yeah, I don’t think it’s a word either) questions two and three. Really, there is no right answer to all the situations that question #3 could involve. But kudos for asking, and damn good questions if you really want to find out about the inner workings of anarchy. I’m a noob myself, but the admin is a pretty cool guy, so I’d ask him.
“I can’t tell you what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”
-A. Einstien
Kaleb () - 26 02 08 - 18:49

Thanks for the response. I have given this quite a of thought. It would seem to me that a society based on anarchism could work if everyone had the same attitude – by this I mean everybody was intelligent, reasonable and capable of
compromise. However, all the evidence shows that mankind is not like this. Mankind is by nature (i mean all the evidence
shows) egotistical, greedy, tribal and self obsessed. This may not be a desirable situation but it is the reality.
Therefore the goals of anarchism must be based on changing the fundimental values of mankind and changing the
socio-economic arrangements is a secondary concern. Clearly Anarchism isnt going to catch on in a big way until a critical
mass of people decide to change their values.

As for disputes. Disputes between people will allways happen. You can’t please all of the people all of the time. It also
raises questions on progress – if 99 people want a course of action but 1 person doesnt does that mean they effectively
have a Veto? Isnt this the tyranny of the minority?

I just cant see it working in the wider context. I am sure if a group of anarchists live together they can make it work. But
as for catching on in the wider world – i await an explaination how thats gonna happen?
Andy - 27 02 08 - 04:31

Andy,

Declaration:Mankind is by nature (i mean all the evidence shows) egotistical, greedy, tribal and self obsessed.

Answer: This is a gross pessimistic view of humanity. I would like to see the ‘evidence’. We have become greedy, egoistical as a result of the society around us. If we are so egoistical as you have mentioned, we would not have come this far. There is this softer part in all of us, that is conveniently erased by the society around us. We have a society where if one is not selfish he/she will not advance ahead.

Declaration:if 99 people want a course of action but 1 person doesnt does that mean they effectively have a Veto

Answer: First of all in an Anarchist society there is nothing called ‘private’ property.So there is no question of losing any sort of material wealth. Even if there is a case where 99 people root for a change which puts an individual at disadvantage, the beneficiary group would surely offer a acceptable compensation to the victim. It is not as our present democracies, where there is always a dictatorship of the majority.

Declaration:Yes, Anarchism is for the well fed and well provided for. People in the 3rd world are too busy surviving to be
interested in such decadent ideas

Answer:Wrong again. People from 3rd world(I am from a 3rd world country) are either steeped in tradition or lack the education to realize their exploitation. The ‘tradition’ and ‘cultural superiority’ which these people claim, is a fundamental obstacle for liberty. Many 3rd world countries, especially eastern ones, are collectivist societies, where individual liberty is frowned upon. I recommend you a short stint at a Japanese work place. Being bought up in such a group, you never acquire the capacity to appreciate great ideologies, unless you are an iconoclast. One small information there are people in India, my country, who beleive in the ideologies of anarchism. We are coming together and we would soon a sizeable group in few years.

You seem to consider the current capitalist society as a touch stone for comparing anarchy, which is a huge blunder.
Bhanu Prasad () (URL) - 27 02 08 - 08:37

Yes, I accept that my characterisation of mankind in the negative terms I used is too absolutist. Mankind has both flaws
and virtues. I am not suggesting man is only bad. However, the flaws and the virtues are BOTH inate within the human
condition. Humans will naturally do good AND do bad things. Humanity isnt going to start abandoning the bad
characteristics and become wholly virtuous. That was my point. I think I am being realistic in acknowledging that we have to work with the situation as is rather than an acedemic utopian model of humanity.

Private property? What is wrong with that concept? I can understand that the vast differences in property and wealth are
not desirable but whats wrong with people owning enough property to live on? I am all for as many people as possible
owning property. However, i do object to people like Prince Charles owning half of Cornwall. Thats wrong.
Andy - 27 02 08 - 12:36

Strange how you dont see many anarchists in countries outside the so called ‘developed world’. Anarchy will never have
a broad appeal, whether that matters or not is an interesting question. I am all for social and political reform but the
specific alternative of Anarchy seems rather pie in the sky-andy

I think tahts because they have already achieved it but the media doesnt recognise them as so. Think of all the tribes in africa and australia even asia the live amongst themselves outside of government rule. And in addition u mentioned that u cant see it working as a acceptable practice in the world unless everyone had the same views and ideas. well look at the world we live in today its alot the same and would be the same afterwards, after they started recognising people as anarchists. cus being anarchist doenst make u any smarter or dumber. so with that said the only thing that would change would be the government. and waht does the government bring taxes jails wars. So I see that as being the only differernce with of course the acception of those who would want to take advantage of their situation for evil but there would be just as many or more countering it with good. Those are my thoughts. and for the record. I think if u barter for something it should be urs. but i also think society should share certain things and thats for each community to decide.
Box () - 27 02 08 - 15:31

Lets not get hung up on words and labels. ‘Government’ is just a form of authority. It isn’t government alone that
anarchists don’t like, it’s authority! Governments can be local, national or supranational.
Even people in tribal communities in the so called 3rd world have also had mechanisms of authority, they may call them
elders rather than government ministers but they are still invested with authority and power.

Most humans see the necessity of authority in some form. Provided that authority is accountable, fair, unbiased and
open minded I think most people understand that it assists humans in many areas. After all, we are no longer hunter
gatherers, we live in a sophisicated and complex world. BTW – I am NOT suggesting everything is perfect. I am merely
saying that I can’t see how anything will work without authority. I could list literally thousands of scenarios where the absence of any authority would lead to chaos and a poorer quality of life for everyone.
Andy - 27 02 08 - 17:10

Authority is only justified in the short term, and as a means to an end. Example: Adult sees child trying to cross busy freeway without looking where they are going, adult stops them to warn them not to. That is authority, but not for it’s own sake, for saving a child’s life, and educating that child by informing them they will probably die if they cross the street alone. We can’t even say that "accountable, fair, unbiased, and open minded" authority is justifiable, because that implies that other people shouldn’t be accountable, fair, unbiased, and open minded. They should. Education is what makes liberty possible, and that should be free for all people. And this ubiquitous "chaos" keeps coming up. Please, provide specifics. What is it, and why is it so bad? Do you use chaos to mean individual freedom? Violence? Destruction?
You must realize true authority is not appointed, it is earned. In that sense, it is inseparable from respect. The indigenous, illiterate laity respect the elder who holds wisdom. The child respects the parent that guides and teaches him. He does not respect the teacher that tells him to sit in his seat, draw a certain thing, wear certain clothes, speak a certain amount, and arrive and leave at certain times, because these rules are USELESS. They teach you nothing but to tolerate further authority, which is circular logic. The authority justifies the authority. To enforce this is madness, to enforce this is government. That is what is meant by saying that all government is unjustified authority. These concepts bear no relation to quality of life, which is dependent upon level of cooperation and production of needed goods and services.
Also, private property is a warped notion in both it’s noun and adjective. See my small essay on political and economic structures in the Forums if you want my opinion on terms like that, which you probably don’t, but regardless.
BulimicMind - 27 02 08 - 17:58

I dis agree with Andy but agree with him as well. I dont like authority that forces me to comply with their rules. I ve got a job and their are authorities there. I respect them. because they dont force anything on me there are no reprecutions for my actions other than I jst leave. If i dont like it i can leave. The government says if u dont like it u cant leave we are going to keep u here and control u even more so. ya see. I cannot leave the country for any reason unless i join the army which is just absurd what sense does it make to keep someone from leaving if they want to. If i go to ur house and i want to leave ur not going to lock me in or at least id hope not and if u want me to leave im not gonna stay. I will literally have to sneak across the border to leave america. They only want me here because the government as a seperate entity from the civilians will benefit from it. Because they have made the laws to do that. I dont know about u but me being in hte position im in I dont see that as fair in fact I thought so before even being put in the position so u could only imagine how violated i feel now. It literally makes me sick. If u disagree good for u I respect our differences of opinion but dont agree with u. now flip flop that around could the government or has the government ever said or done anything like that ever?
Box () - 27 02 08 - 18:08

Well now we are getting somewhere. Anarchist don’t object to authority per se is the message i am picking up.
Because without ANY authority you have a free for all. With no authority what is there to stop anyone being a parasite
and exploiting other people? Without authority what is there to stop anyone dumping toxic waste in the local river and
messing things up for everyone? With no authority what is there to stop any greedy person deciding that they are going
to take more than their fair share? Its no use pretending these things would not happen. As i have said previously man
it both good and bad by instinct and nature. The capacity for mankind to rationalise his self centered actions knows no
limits. Man has natural bonds to family and community which mean he is bound to discriminate in favour of his own.

Is government wrong/bad? I speak of national government. Personally speaking I am willing to compromise and allow
a national government a certain amount of authority over me providing that that government is as democratic and
representative as it can possibly be. I would actually argue that we are more free with government than without it.
Proper representative government actually safeguards and guarentees liberty and safety. The essences of human
existance are food, shelter, safety and health. I think the absence of government makes these essentials harder to
achieve.

I also accept that it has its downsides. But you will never have perfection on earth. Life allways has, and allway will be, about compromise. It will allways be a series of judgements. Man is a social animal and has to give and take – or even be compelled to give and take if he is fundimentally unreasonable.
Andy - 28 02 08 - 05:00

Andy, I’m not expecting everyone to be all nice to each other. But I am expecting them not to interact if they know said interaction will cause harm to one or both of them. If they can’t do something nice, they shouldn’t do anything at all. As far as a majority veto, anarchy has no majority. If that 1 percent doesn’t like they way things are going, they can go do as they believe is right. We (Well, I don’t) don’t believe in perfection because perfection is an idea that is in no way similar to anything real. There was a short story I read a while back, about tolerance, not love. What mankind needs to end war is tolerance, not love. You know what, I’m going to go ask my English Prof. who the author was. I’ll post the story. Well, not story but…..manifesto.
You make a fine point. It was my fault for not clarifying myself. But again, I didn’t mean that people should all turn into zombie hippies and all make happy days. I just mean that people should leave each other the hell alone if they can’t get along. And I honestly think people can do that.
Kaleb () - 28 02 08 - 07:09

Andy, anarchists do reject all authority, unless it can be PROVEN that authority is absolutely necessary. As no governments are necessary, anarchists reject all of them. Without any authority, you do have a free for all. But that’s not a bad thing, because in any free for ALL, no one is allowed to rule another, completely eliminating all coercion and, well, authority.
Being a parasite and exploiting other people is practically the definition of hierarchal government, btw.
And WHY would any free person randomly dump toxic waste in a river. It’s unsupported projections like these that really annoy me. No free, sane person would do this "just to mess things up", period. That’s not how toxic pollution happens. Pollution happens when governments demand the manufacture of weapons that produce toxic waste and then they’re forced to get rid of it by dumping it into rivers. You really think some random anarchist living in anarchy is just going to wake up and decide, "I think I’ll make some toxic waste today just to piss everyone off." It doesn’t happen like that. There’s always a motive.
Anarchists are not willing to compromise and allow government to remain, because as has been proven time and again throughout history, governments are the LARGEST threats to food, shelter, safety, and health. The United State’s response to hurricane Katrina is the most recent example that leaps to mind. The government was the leading figure in preventing people from getting help into and out of the area. They actually grounded helicopters with food and medical supplies during the two-hour span that the president flew into the area to make his obligatory "we’re doing everything we can" appeal. That is hypocrisy and inefficiency, and just one more example of government’s active assault on the well-being of all people.
BulimicMind - 28 02 08 - 12:11

Wow, so Andy, guess what. My English teacher now has the flu. So I’ll get back to you on the tolerance thing. Really Andy, it’s all up to you. Believe in our cause or not, you’re welcome to post here. You should join a debate team if you’re not on one. You make damn good counterpoints. But I’m still standing by what I think. That is, unless people are given a motive to do something destructive (Thanks to BulimicMind) I really do have faith that they will do one of two things. Help people or leave them the hell alone. It’s what most people tend to do.
Okay. Lets say the world goes Anarchy. Somebody wants to make a society where people can rob each other and go unpunished. Even if people do join this guy, how long would it be until they themselves are getting robbed? Say they go out to free happy societies to rob them. The free happy societies would exile these people to oblivion. No one wants a thief, not even another thief. The same applies to liars, cons, murderers ect. They don’t trust each other. Besides, what would thieves go after in a anarchist world? Money that doesn’t exist? I just went on a class trip to Votech a few days ago so I’m going to quote them. “No one can steal your trade.” Well, my dads about to shit a chicken over the late hour so…see ya tomorrow. Andy, I look forward to your post. Night.
Kaleb () - 28 02 08 - 18:40

Note: I am NOT saying everything is good now. I am NOT supporting the status Quo!!

It is clear that the Anarchy model for living (for the sake of arguement I assume that we are talking about Anarchy being
accepted widely rather than in small pockets) is premised on people seeing sense and casting off any ‘negative’ behaviors.
This strikes me as a huge leap of faith. It reminds me a little of Communist Ideals. These ideals make very good logical
sense in theory but are dependent on people being faithful and supportive of the lifestyle/system.

I therefore have some questions…...
Do you accept that Anarchy can only work if people believe in it, ‘buy into’ it and embrace it? I assume that imposing
anarchy is against the very ideas of Anarchy.
Do you accept that very large attitudinal changes would be needed by the vast majority of people if they were to embrace
Anarchy?
Is it realistic to think that enough people someday embrace Anarchy?
How will society move to that situation?
What, in practical (not theoretical) terms is happening to pursuade people to change?
Is there any evidence that anarchism is gaining ground rather than being a fringe lifestyle?

I am genuinely interested in understand the mindsets and ideas of anarchists. I realise I am challenging your views but
please accept this is out of a genuine desire to understand rather than an attempt to dismiss or put down.
Andy - 29 02 08 - 01:27

1. Yes, anarchy can only work if people work if people believe in it.
2. Of course, but vast attitudinal changes were needed to embrace all governments as well.
3. Everything is possible. I’m a realist and I still believe in that saying.
4. Well, society will eventually realize how oppressed they are. Really, I’m expecting govt. to destroy itself. Look, the US govt. went from private land ownership and popular voting to eminent domain and electoral college in less than 200 years. We used to be able to send e-mail and talk on the phone without the CIA listening. We used to be safe in our homes until the courts give a warrant for search, but how did they get past that? Pass a NATIOANAL warrant, which basically says, “Trust none of our citizens, they are all out to destroy the kingdom we’ve established.” Now they can torture us. ECT ECT...
5. Look at four. The govt. will eventually get too greedy (Well, they always have been). Listen, I’m expecting the govt. to suspend habeaus corpus in the near future. I really think that is when the general population will believe that they’ve crossed the line. And in the past couple years, the govt. HASN’T been willing to revoke laws that the public finds unjust. They’ve got us by the balls in a sense.
6. Anarchy is gaining ground with every right the government takes from us. And look at how many rights we’ve lost recently….
Yeah Andy, we know. You’re here to understand, not discourage. We’ve figured it out. Don’t worry. We’re just happy you at least took the time to ask rather than just say, “Wow, they’re stupid.”
And, questioning our views isn’t challenging us. THAT is an idea authority has put in your head, that questioning is challenging. We welcome questions, any time.
Kaleb () - 29 02 08 - 06:58

Thanks for the response Kaleb.

I suppose my next question is…..

Where is the hard evidence that anarchist ideas are being accepted on a broader level?
If anarchism is never imposed then what do you do about the people who refuse to accept the anarchist attitudes?
Lets say 50% of the population ‘buy into’ anarchism but 50% dont – then what happens? Do you tolerate the 50% who
wish to stay non anarchist? Do you allow them to pursue the lifestyles they choose even though they affect you directly?
If you act against them dont you thereby undermine the essence of anarchism?

These are realistic questions I think…
Andy - 29 02 08 - 08:16

Okay, a few comments. You made a point that people would have to "buy into" anarchy in order to believe it. This is true, but very misleading. You can’t "buy into" anarchy, rather "buy out of" authority, because suggesting otherwise shifts the burden of proof.
People will have to want anarchy, nobody can or should make them. If 50% of the population wants things to be a certain way, they can have their way. Including instating their OWN government, if they think it’s necessary. But this is where we must make clear the differences between liberalism and libertarianism. The very second that that government starts applying rules and regulations to a non consenting individual – it is unjust and all anarchists would rebel against it. For example, as an anarchist, I demand that I not be governed. However, in this society, 98% of people love the government and consent to it. The government claims a right to that remaining 2%, and that 2% is who we fight for.
The 2% that is mature enough to lead themselves and know to lead only themselves.
The appeal you are making here, btw, is a bit of an argumentum ad populum (I think that’s what it’s called). It’s where you judge the correctness of something based on how popular it is or is becoming. I hope that answers your questions.
BulimicMind - 29 02 08 - 12:08

I reject your claim that I am argueing that judgements are made based on how popular they are.

All i am doing is asking pertinant questions about the real world and how Anarchism relates/deals with it.

2% of people don’t consent to government? Thats 1.2 million in the UK and 6 million in the USA (i know i am being anglo-centric). I dont think there is evidence that the number of people who don’t consent to being governed is that high.
However, if you have information to back this up please let me know as I would be interested.

What is it exactly that the government do to you, or do that impacts your life, that you most resent?

I would be interested in what you have the most issues with – there may be things that im not properly considering.
Andy - 29 02 08 - 14:28

Andy said:
“I am all for as many people as possible
owning property. However, i do object to people like Prince Charles owning half of Cornwall. Thats wrong.”

How do you justify owning a peice of… Nature? In anarchy, if I’m not mistaken, the world isn’t a peice of property… it’s a planet. This runs back to that “greedy” society you were talking about. Is it not greedy to claim a part of the world yours? I don’t see how it’s wrong for Prince Charles to own half of Cornwall, if you can justify owning a single acre.

And, because I am only seventeen and new to the ideas of Anarchy, I have a question:
Isn’t all this talk about what a group of anarchists would do useless?
If a group of anarchist were to form, and they were making decisions AS A COMMUNITY, isn’t that considered a government? I thought anarchy was about making decisions for yourself. With NO authority over you life, but your own. We’re entitled to a born right to be an individual that society took away from us when they first slapped us on the ass, gave us a number, and took our fingerprints.
Neal - 29 02 08 - 15:40

Well we need to define what we mean by ‘ownership’ of land and property.

‘Owning’ land only gives you certain rights over that land. Nobody has absolute right to do anything with the land they own. Lets not pretend it does.

I own the house i live in. Whats wrong with that? It means I have a special and deeper interest in it than if i didnt own it.
It gives me and my family security. It means in law that I have special rights over the plot of land and house which i
call my home. Ownership gives me protection under the law = and in my case for the amount of land I own i think that is
a reasonable thing.

Now, you assert there is no difference between me (one house) and Prince Charles (thousands or houses, hundreds of
farms). I say the difference is self evident. Clearly my ownership is about independance and basic living whereas
Prince Charles’ is about huge wealth and investment. Prince Charles could just as easily survive living in my modest house, there is no arguement that there is an essential need for him to have 1000ss of acres.

So individuals owning (with the associated limited rights of ownership) a modest plot for them and their family seems to be
pretty harmless to me. The important thing is that everybody can have the opportunity (if they desire) to own a modest
space to live in. As long as nobody monopolises the land and see now problem with people being given ownership rights.
Andy - 29 02 08 - 16:25

Andy, first, I was not citing specific statistics. 2%, 1.3%, even one person would be too much. And I didn’t mean to say you were arguing like that (popularity based reasoning) too much, just that that’s what you implied when you asked to see proof that anarchism was catching on. The government has made me do many things. It’s made me attend public schools, for one. It’s made me agree to use small green parallelograms to provide for myself. But I look beyond myself. The government has killed people, it has lied, it pits the populace against itself through the mechanism of war, which it holds the power to start. What exactly do you think of when you hear "government"? Friendly bureaucrats filing papers and informing the people of international events? That’s it’s face, it’s soul is steeped in self-perpetuation and the drive for absolute power.

And to answer Neal’s question, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Anarchy is organization, organization, and more organization. What it lacks is arbitrary hierarchy and unjustified authority. That’s what I was saying to Andy about the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Liberalism is what you allow to happen in your jurisdiction of power. Libertarianism is what you think should BE your jurisdiction of power. That’s the difference between the left-right, (liberal-conservative) and up-down (libertarian-authoritarian) political scales. Anarchists, being extreme libertarians, prefer consent to coercion. Example: a group of Anarchists get together to decide how to best organize their economy. They divide duties up on the basis of the type of produce that each work makes. Then they do it, but what they don’t do is legislate it, saying to the person who never even agreed they wanted an economy that they have to participate. In that particular sense, anarchists believe in the sovereignty of the individual. Nobody has a right to make a decision for anyone else.
So you must make clear the difference between community and government. Community can mean anything, lions and zebras are part of the African savanna community. It’s really just a fancy word for "group". What we have to eliminate is this idea that GROUPS of people have rights. People have rights because a person has rights, but a GROUP of anything has nothing.
BulimicMind - 29 02 08 - 16:39

Okay, thanks, that made it more clear to me. So basically it’s people working together. So everyone is equal, right? Or is there an economy still… or would the beliefs work with the modern world? I find it really upsetting that they don’t teach me this in school. =|
Neal - 29 02 08 - 17:16

Everyone is equivalent, yes. In terms of pure metaphysical integrity, the absolutes of the word "equal" scare me, but anyway…
There would definitely be economy. When you look at most of the "legit" problems of the world, (the ones not directly attributable to despotism) it all comes back to economics, because it’s impossible to have real freedom without economic freedom. People need things to love and live, so economics would be organized by free association. No employer vs. employee, merely cooperation. This could be done by syndicates, by communes, by unions, by bartering, there are a number of theories. I myself prefer Voltairine de Cley’re’s take on it: They should all exist side by side, live and let live.
And I’m not surprised you get told nothing of this in school. School is really just (in most cases) a government-run propaganda system, I could not be more against school in all it’s concepts. There’s nothing a school can teach you that two friends and a public library can’t.
BulimicMind - 29 02 08 - 18:01

Like Andy, I’m not trying to put your opinions down or anything, but…

BulimicMind: You stated in your last post that “There’s nothing a school can teach you that two friends and a public library can’t.” Well, I’m wondering, would a thing like the public library be possible without authority?

Furthermore, I think a previous post has asked this question, but it has gone unanswered: many of the advances in our standard of living (namely, health care) would in all probability not be possible under anarchy. Wouldn’t moving to anarchy be akin to moving to the dark / middle ages? If you take a look at what society was like before and after the European Renaissance, you will understand where I am coming from…
Ben - 29 02 08 - 18:29

Of course a public library is possible without authority.
Anarchism is not Primitivism. The Dark/Middle ages were the age of religious authoritarian domination. The European Renaissance was the birth of classical liberalism, the fundamental precursor to anarchist ideas. Look at history a bit less one dimensionally. Health care is wonderful, who doesn’t love life, right? It’s absurd to suggest that this simply could not exist in Anarchy. Anarchy is pro-prosperity, in case there were any doubts.
BulimicMind - 29 02 08 - 19:53

Its more a question of what we expect out of education.

I certainly don’t have the skills and knowledge to teach my child. I want it to be done by people who have studied
each and every subject that is taught. I think schools are a good thing and generally a positive influence. I think the
bad influences for children are in popular culture and that is not directly controlled by the government.

Lets consider what the governments does….

Defence – I can understand people having issues about this. A matter for great and lengthy debate.
Healthcare – whats the problem with this?
Education – No problem?
Law & Order – Provided the system isnt used to supress dissent.
Infrastructure (Roads etc) – again whats the problem.

If we lived in small self contained communities with none of the modern gadgets, inventions or discoveries – then yes I could see no need for authority. However, not many people want to live like that in the 21st Century and therefore
in this complex world you either have authority or chaos. We could use almost anything as an example and look at how
it would operate with any authority. Take transport – do we want to have no means of regulating who drives, how they drive, where they drive, the safety of their vehicle etc etc etc – i think not
Andy - 01 03 08 - 10:09

And you were raised to think that that is the only way to live.

The Government has done lots of neat, fancy things like that… but look at the negatives.
Pollution- We ive on a dying planet because our Goverment laughed at the ideas of Global Warming in the 1980s.
War- Killing, killing, and more killing. Is there anything more barbaric then telling another country we’re going to kill all of their innocent men and women because THEIR Government is just as barbaric.
Disease/ Drugs- All the fun of CRACK and AIDs brought to you by… Government!
Poverty- There is a massive number of homeless people in our country.

And that’s just a few examples.

As for DEFENSE... what are they defending me from…. Terrorists, right? The terrorists want to kill us because we are supposed to be Christian Americans. Ahah! They are protecting me… because they have to. As well an Anarchist country would surely protect it’s people if there was an attack… but there wouldn’t be.

EDUCATION... in my own opinion… is a great thing. I love to learn, and my teachers are well-rounded people. Our History courses highlight as many faults in the government as they do good things. Although, there are many important things that I feel should be covered that are not. For example, other forms of government/ idealogies and why they aren’t evil.

LAW & ORDER was great in cowboy days…. but things have gotten out of hand. Fuck pigs.

You brought up INFRASTRUCTURE... who said anything against that?

The bottom line is that government has had it’s positives, but it’s nothing to brag about. Every “civilized” nation has buildings. Every “civilized” country will defend it’s people.
BURN - 01 03 08 - 19:10

About the education of children, they have interests like anyone else. Don’t designate a middleman to "teach", let them learn paleontology from the paleontologist and baking from the baker.
I’m not anti-education, I’m anti-school. Big difference.
Especially with the technology we have at our fingertips. Look at Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, but it’s ten times more educational than any school. If you were to take all the unnecessarily authoritarian and segregated things out of a school, you would be left with a public library.
And about the driving, government doesn’t do much to fix the natural inefficiencies in the current system anyway. BURN is exactly right in that government is a curse, not a gift. Deaths involving pedestrians and other drivers are rampant and that has more to do with the transportation system itself. If, for example, people commuted primarily by bike or segway, or metro, there would be far less cause for concern. In that sense, you can apply all the meaningless regulations you want: people are still getting killed.
And has the government solved the problem? Heck no. Alcohol is still legal even though it’s more dangerous (by any standard) than marijuana, people still talk on cell phones while they drive. We should focus not on what would happen if we let people drive free, but why they drive to begin with. Most times, it has to do with appointments that center on threat of authority revolving around the man-made Gregorian calendar. There are MANY alternatives to the current cult of automobile, if people were at liberty to test them, we might get somewhere.
BulimicMind - 01 03 08 - 20:36

I’m for school, but not government mandated education. If a society wants a school, let them have a school. But don’t force the students to take classes they don’t want. School should be more like life. I’ve gone to school for about 12 years, but I’ve learned more at my first job than I did at those 12 years. But I wouldn’t have that job if not for school. School and life are so intertwined that the bond is quite nessescary. However, school is breaking that bond and life is becoming more dependent on school. Besides, wikipedia is only edited correctly by those who know how do the thing they are revising. Humanity is the clutz when it comes to losing things. Hell, we probably had the knowledge of math thousands of years ago, lost it, and had to learn it all over again.
And, someone said something about reveting back to the dark ages in an earlier post. I understand the comparison to an extent, but the middle ages were the time of ABSOLUTE authority and domination. When Kings and Queens ruled the people with a golden plated iron scepter.
And Andy, I m.i.g.h.t. have that story l8r. My English teacher showed up just so I could show her the Linkin Park concert on my phone, lol.
Kaleb - 03 03 08 - 07:25

Andy, go to hell
joe () - 03 03 08 - 11:46

Andy, go to hell, you suck
joe () - 03 03 08 - 11:48

WTF is your problem Joe? Andy didn’t do anything.
Kaleb () - 03 03 08 - 12:24

OMFG! GO TO YAHOO AND WATCH THE RAY GUN (IT Hurts!!!) VIDEO, OR SEE IF IT“S ON YOUTUBE!!! IT’S AN ACTUAL WEAPON THAT TORTURES YOUR BODY INTO THINKING THAT IT’S ON FIRE AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS JUST ALLOWED IT’S USE IN THE MILITARY!!! WTF!!! IT’S SICK!!!! Now the govt. is probably going to use it to disperse protesters and then say, “Well, we caused them no harm so we didn’t do anything against the law. Go watch it Andy. Like I said, our rights are decaying as we speak. Govt. will destroy itself.
If this is a hoax, someone tell me ‘cause I’m gonna start looking for some ray guns to sabotage. It’s sick!!!
Kaleb () - 03 03 08 - 12:33

ALL ANARCHISTS, WELL FUCK THAT, ALL PEOPLE WHO ENJOY FREEDOM MUST READ!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Deni..
Kaleb () - 03 03 08 - 12:37

i just wanted to note that, in a ddition to the subset and standards set by those who have already spoken on the subject, there was one slightly annoying thing in the article itself, that being, religion is a personal choice, so to say that people are hiding behind their gods or praying forgiveness rather than trying to fix their problems is a form of verbal oppression, i am not only an anarchist, i’m also a christian and ibelieve in a world where anyone and everyone can take control of their lives through freedom in egalitarianism and also through practice of whatever beilefs they so choose, basically, i wanted to say, anarchy is wonderful but if you claim personal freedom then you must give the same freedom, of expression, life liberty and belief to everyone, which means that slandering religion is hypocritical in the context of the movement. I’m not really trying to disrespect, or to bash you, just pointing out an indescrepancy.
ellectorallydysfunktional - 03 03 08 - 20:01

Religion is silly. Please, sir, point me in the direction of God. I’d like to shake his almighty bullshit hand. =|
BURN - 03 03 08 - 21:04

Burn, I don’t believe in God, but that doens’t mean you should go and shoot down people who do. Religion/Beliefs work for some people, but it didn’t work for me. Some people are better with religion. So I accept it, but don’t practice it. You should try to do the same.
Kaleb () - 04 03 08 - 06:36

Yeah… that was pretty… Christian of me. Pushing my beliefs and what not. Heh.

It was a bad day.
Burn - 05 03 08 - 03:08

Understandable. Uuggghhh, when are those Blackstar Coalition people going to get around to e-mailing us?
Kaleb () - 05 03 08 - 06:34

would someone contact me i’m in school and the people wont shut up
and not to say nothing rude but i think that some people shuold just keep ther belifes to them selfs DAMNE!!
william greene - 05 03 08 - 06:55

This whole article well,,,, sucks. Useless advice, and the author has a superiority complex. Just becuase the author dosent like video games, now everyone who plays one is wasting time? Have you ever heard of EVE Online, a VERY complex game played with REAL people played through the medium of a computer. What? Anarchists can’t play games and have fun with other real people? You are doing what the world at large is doing, judging everyone so they are conformist to YOUR way of supposed non-fantasy living.

And whats wrong with fantasy and make believe? The worst part is you claim to know what reality is, when none of us even the quantum physicist’s dont know.
Scott () - 05 03 08 - 12:49

I just played like 3 hours of “Hitman: Blood Money”... I shot the Vice President in the head. =|
BURN - 05 03 08 - 16:53

Staff Note:

Listen, this article is merely a suggestion from an anarchist point of view based on the life experiences if its author. It’s not telling you how to live your life, it’s just giving advice that you’re free to use and not use at your will.
Site Admin - 05 03 08 - 18:29

Wow Scott, I guess I missed the part where it says that this is the ONLY way to live. If you read some previous posts, you’ll find that a lot of us play video games, we just don’t think people should spend their lives upon them. Really, we’re not even promtoing Anarchy as much as we are promtoing people to socialize. You should really look into this before you go about flaming everyone you douchebag.
Kaleb () - 06 03 08 - 07:39

Yeah, for example, I just fucked a kids head up real bad with a chainsaw in Gears of War. I loved it. I’m still an Anarchist though, and still fairly intelligent (In my oppinion anyway) in regards to the world. Really, if anarchy were to work, we who may disagree with some aspects of this article would have to say “ Ah well, they can live life how they please, I’ll live it how I please.”

Bitching about the article doesnt change it, or the person who wrote it, so get over it and play some fucking gears of war with me allready.

360 GamerTag: Commander Havoc
ApolloVictor - 06 03 08 - 13:17

Be independent: Be independent from “...education…” & Be smart: “as an ignorant population is much easier to control than an educated one (knowledge is power).”

How does one become educated while being independent from education? Your contradictory insight is very useful for promoting education. Thank you for confirming the need for schooling. After all, “knowledge is power”...
Observer - 06 03 08 - 20:44

http://www.autodidactic.com/
http://froggiepopple.tripod.com/id1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

His contradictory insight is only contradiction because your whole backward fucking ethic is.
Thank you for confirming absolutely nothing we didn’t already know.
BulimicMind - 06 03 08 - 21:05

“Look at Wikipedia. It’s not perfect, but it’s ten times more educational than any school” – BulimicMind

Wikipedia is information submitted by ANYONE! To be specific, ANYONE can write, true OR false, information. So if I change the definition of “candle” to say something to the like of it being a transportation tool – you would believe? Question your sources…
Observer - 06 03 08 - 21:23

I do. That’s why Wikipedia provides them at THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

That’s called projection, by the way, when you assume an opponent has a weakness that you yourself possess.
BulimicMind - 06 03 08 - 21:34

Hmm…“projection,” let me guess – learned that psychology-based term from wikipedia, or worse, formal education?! To be sure, sources from academic foundations, posted on wikipedia, are different then knowledge taught in school?

For the record, I do not have any preconcieved notions about you..
Observer - 06 03 08 - 21:50

I learned of projection through context-based popular usage in my actual life.
Sources from Academic Foundations are only as reputable as they prove themselves. The only thing taught in school beyond basic math is submission. For example, trigonometry students are trained to remember SOH CAH TOA in order to perform angle calculations. There’s just one small problem. That’s exactly half of a complete understanding of the six basic trig operations. SOH CAH TOA CAO SHA CHO would be the more comprehensive meme to drill into their minds, but somehow a 18 letter acronym just doesn’t quite cut it into the curriculum. That’s just a specific example I pulled from the top of my head, but that’s the jist of school policy everywhere.
And for the record, we have many preconceived notions of each other. You preconceive I exist, for example.
BulimicMind - 06 03 08 - 22:12

Interesting. So one day you thought “hmm..this person thinks this way about me, he must have such insecurities in himself.” And thus, coincidently, this thought aligned with the THEORY of projection. School is a basis for you to learn what others have already discovered – if you disagree with the curriculum, change it! Find a better method and convince everyone your theory is the most beneficial. However, without supporting facts, or erroneous principles, such an endeavour will fail.

I acknowledge your existance by the fact that you are responding…
Observer - 06 03 08 - 22:31

True… how do we expect to spread the knowledge of Anarchy if there is no one to teach it? Sure, word of mouth could work, but it isn’t quite as effective. Education IS effective. As long as the content is meaningful. Unlike Trigonometry.
BURN - 06 03 08 - 23:08

As for wikipedia, the Admins are some strict dudes. False information is not tolerated and true information requires a source. It is a VERY efficient place for information.
BURN - 06 03 08 - 23:13

"So one day you thought “hmm..this person thinks this way about me, he must have such insecurities in himself.” And thus, coincidently, this thought aligned with the THEORY of projection."
-You use the word theory here as if there is or should be a copyright/ban on the unqualified diagnosis of projection. There isn’t, as far as I know.

"School is a basis for you to learn what others have already discovered"
-Written word is, more precisely.

"if you disagree with the curriculum, change it!"
-Welcome to Anarchy.net

"I acknowledge your existence by the fact that you are responding…"
-Other way around, actually. Your perception of my responses and my existence in no way correlate to one another, yet we both presume we both exist because failing to do so would render communication, sympathy itself, null and void.
BulimicMind - 07 03 08 - 18:01

School is written word. I suppose I agree, there are textbooks.

Anarchy seems to imply a lack of curriculum.

Your responses are not simply my perception, they are a fact. If it requires a person to intelligently respond, and a response is made, it is inferred that there is a person with every response. Does it not take a person to communicate? I suppose you could talk to a wall, but its not going to talk back…
Observer - 07 03 08 - 19:01

Robot, man.

Robots.
BURN - 07 03 08 - 22:07

"Thus the true Anarchist believes that they don’t need to be told how to live",this is from the article about tv.but then right here is says that true Anarchists cant play video games or watch tv ,WTF.fuck this
colin - 08 03 08 - 05:49

COLIN!!!! It doesn’t say you can’t play video games. Idiot. I’m getting pissed with you people who can’t read anything but what you disagree with. It says, don’t waste your time playing video games. If I come home after work and want to play Bioshock or COD4 for a while, does it mean I’m wasting my time? No, it means I’m enjoying myself without having to do physical labor that might exhaust me more than I already am. But if I spend my day off sitting in front of a TV for 12 fucking hours, I am wasting time. I’m wasting life. But, the specfuckingtacular thing is that it’s my life to waste. But people who waste their lives aren’t Anarchists. They’re lifeless losers. You play games. Awesome. Same here. You waste your time? Not so much with me. Best of luck. I would say “read the fine print” next time, but the only way Jake’s message could have gotten more clear is if it jumped off the screen and slapped your bitchass in the face.
AND FOR OBSERVER!!! IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO CONTRADICTIONS, LOOK AT YOUR NAME. AN OBSERVER IS SYNONOMOUS TO A ONLOOKER, YOUR NAME IMPLIES THAT YOU OBSERVE, NOT INTERLOPE.
Kaleb () - 09 03 08 - 19:45

BULIMIC MIND AND OBSERVER!!!!!
Answer these questions with a yes or no answer please!!! You both are getting carried away with this and like the civilized beings, both of you and I act to be, we will sort this out.
Please, we will find some common ground here. ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITH A YES OR NO ANSWER PLEASE!!! I don’t agree with either of you so I make a good referee.
1. Is everything taught in school encountered in real life?
2. Aren’t there lessons we can only learn through expirence?
3. Is restricing children to apprenticeships just as bad as restricting them to school?
4. Is restricting children to school just as bad as restricting them to apprenticeship (Yes, I know it’s an invert of 3. but you should both have different answers anyway.LOL.
5. Do you think there could be a system where school is more of a choice than a forced hand? If someone wants to skip school and not learn a trade, well, they’ll get fucked in life so you both win against them. Unless they’re like super HOBO or soemthing…
From one of my previous posts….
I’m for school, but not government mandated education. If a society wants a school, let them have a school. But don’t force the students to take classes they don’t want. School should be more like life. I’ve gone to school for about 12 years, but I’ve learned more at my first job than I did at those 12 years. But I wouldn’t have that job if not for school. School and life are so intertwined that the bond is quite nessescary. However, school is breaking that bond and life is becoming more dependent on school. Besides, wikipedia is only edited correctly by those who know how do the thing they are revising. Humanity is the clutz when it comes to losing things. Hell, we probably had the knowledge of math thousands of years ago, lost it, and had to learn it all over again.
Kaleb () - 09 03 08 - 20:04

1. Is everything taught in school encountered in real life?

Short answer, no. This is a very vague, almost circular question. School exists within "real life", so you question amounts to "is everything encountered in one part of life encountered in another"? I don’t encounter geology or algebra like I might encounter, say, a cougar whilst strolling through the mountainside.

2. Yes. In fact, you might even make the argument that all things must be learned through "experience", as the only alternative to experiencing is not experiencing.

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes. But again, what would this look like? It would be little more than what we today know as a library, or possibly a technical, niche library of some sort, with experts on the subjects available.

Damn, I love quizzes. I give myself a 5/5.
BulimicMind - 09 03 08 - 20:59

So by answering yes to #3, you acknowledge that there should be public schools, but attendance should be a choice. You should add that into your argument against Observer, because I think that he thinks that you’re just against all schooling whether people want to go or not. It’s a step. Now I just need Observer to answer….
And, it wasn’t really a quiz. Just some questions not to be given a “right” answer, but your opinion.
And to your answer on #5. Why would it be that way? Even though students may take the apprenticeship choice, there are basic math, language, reading, writing, ect.ect. that they would need to learn not from their mentor-in-trade, but from a teacher…. I know lawyers that can barely do math and doctors who can’t resist using double negatives in their writing. People are only professional in what they design themselves to be professional in.
Kaleb () - 10 03 08 - 07:13

Yes. But again, with all the mandates and authority removed, would it resemble anything close to what we today know as a school? I don’t think so, but you can call it want.
The basic math, language, and reading you can more than learn from your parents. That is the least everyone will have to know to "function" in society, but, again, why make anyone "function"? Any basic knowledge like reading, writing, arithmetic can be learned from friends and family. Not to say it needs to be, but it can very easily be.
BulimicMind - 10 03 08 - 12:15

HAHAHAHAHAHA, Well I love your enthusiasm, but….my parents are idiots. Not ‘cause I just don’t like ‘em, but really, they talk like retarded asian babies trying to speak English. And for math….. Lets say, thank God (just an expression) for the calculator. As far as reading goes, they could only teach me how to read, not comprehend, or anything of that nature. And I’ll have to disagree with you. Reading, writing, and basic math are essential. And I think a school could look similar to its present day state without mandates and authorities. Well, I can’t really argue with you about this and you can’t argue with me either because both of our arguments are based on fine pure speculation. We will just wait and see. Call me if I’m wrong after the revolution. Agreed?
Kaleb () - 12 03 08 - 06:45

Agreed.
Though claiming something is essential is vague. Essential to what?
Regardless, we’ll wait and see.
BulimicMind - 12 03 08 - 11:53

Essential to people NOT screwing them over every chance they get. But if they want to get screwed…Listen to Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson. It’ll explain my reasoning.
Kaleb () - 13 03 08 - 07:11

If two Anarchists are lost at sea in a boat and they disagree on which direction to go to survive, how do they solve it?
Steve - 14 03 08 - 11:21

They communicate. If neither has any better information than the other, then it won’t matter to either what direction they go.
BulimicMind - 14 03 08 - 11:54

From reading these comments it appears that the definition of anarchist is someone wanting the world to do thigs my way. How can you argue that you “owning a small house” is different than someone owning thousands or millions of acres? Who is to decide the correct size property to own? Who is to say that my driving a car is part of some goverment problem. Why is the goverment blamed for poluttion, when pollution has been reduced by “forcable” goverment regulation. Why is all the talk of school aimed at basic elementary education? I don’t want a doctor doing surgery on my broken bone who learned his trade on a web site. And by the way, without major time and money investments would there be an internet to search. With Anarchy, people lived in caves, ate what they could find, and died very young. Even the first primitave tribes knew it took order and authority for people to progress. And I mean live safe and eat regular by “progress”.
Steve - 14 03 08 - 12:02

http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwh..
So many straw men, so little time.
First, you show a profound nescience of anarchist thought and theory.
We don’t necessarily argue that someone owning thousands of acres is wrong, it depends upon firstly, what type of ownership it is and what it entails, and secondly, the amount of space available in ratio to the amount of people in the world. Nobody is to say you driving your car is a government problem. Your driving your gass-guzzler, polluting the environment (to whatever degree), and lining the pockets of the government’s funders is the problem. Pollution hasn’t really been reduced, as far as I know, actually. And you are right that the talk about education so far has been mainly on elementary education. NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT DOCTORS BE TRAINED BY A WEBSITE.
Yes, without money there would still be an internet. There just wouldn’t be money, and Bill Gates wouldn’t be worth 14,000,000 people. In PRIMITIVISM, people live in caves, eat what they find, and die young. Are you really suggesting they don’t have the right?
People need proper order to progress, because without it authority is seized and misused.
BulimicMind - 14 03 08 - 13:48

i get the impression that some people are posting what they think are rhetorical questions that are supposed to bust the idea of living as an anarchist. from what ive gathered in reading all these posts, its that anarchists dont care if other people arent anarchists. they might think that theyre missing out, like their imaginations are enslaved, and that anarchists have found the key to living life with freedom or whatever, but no matter what, other people may still think that the key to living life is a life under government.

and these people will come into this forum, and be like, "hey we wouldnt have any progress with anarchy," because anarchists think that people who arent anarchists have been brainwashed into a form of thinking (given to them by what my global teacher calls a repressive regime) to think that some things are impossible, because theyre told "a world that isnt like the world we live in now will never happen." it seems to me like anarchists could also be surrealists, right? theyre trying to imagine a world in which man is inherently more good than evil, and can live on his own next to his fellow man without having a set of black and white rules imposed on anyone.

also, the idea that anarchy is chaos seems to give people the wrong impression, like they think chaos is bad, that people will be running around killing stealing with no authority to keep them in line, some one should clarify that its more like…..laissez faire economics, right? like if someone "steals" something, hoards it all up for no good reason, and just leeches off of people who are just trying to help, that persons reputation as a parasite will spread and people will know not to deal with them, and eventually, theyll have no friends to support them and theyll die alone. and for institutions like…a school. a group of individuals can all agree on building a school and offering to teach whatever they want if it would make all of them happy. this same logic could apply to a hospital or a fire station or a movie theater. am i getting all this right?? i just feel like some things havent been expressed properly, like some people read it and take it to mean something else, and i just want to try to clarify these things, for my understanding too.

i feel frustrated that some posters view anarchy as something that anarchists are trying to impose on the world, or that they feel is best suited for everyone, when that cant be true. some people just like being told what to do because its easier for them or for whatever reason, so let them be ruled by government, as someone has already said. anarchists will be living with their own lifestyle whether or not it fits into whatever anyone else thinks is anarchy; like anarchists might live in a spectrum of different lifestyles, all different, depending on to what degree they want to be free, to what degree they dont want their minds to be limited by the media, or to whatever degree they want to play video games, etc.

my point is i think that anarchy shouldnt have a black and white definition, because their lives arent black and white. i think its just "live and let live."

why would anyone just come onto a forum and bash anarchy if they werent even interested in it? i think deep down observer wants to be an anarchist. do catholics go onto jehovah’s witness forums and type out in bold letters "IT WAS A MISTRANSLATION!!" ? maybe they would, but that wouldnt do anything except make all those jehovahs witnesses think "that catholic sucks."
Fahey - 15 03 08 - 14:00

If man was more evil than he was good, then we would have all died out a LONG time ago. We have gotten this far. Everyone is so paranoid about another human being raping them of everything they own. Solution? EDUCATE YOURSELF. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE JUST IN A SCHOOL, OR A LIBRARY, OR FROM A MENTOR. EDUCATE YOURSELF EVERYWHERE YOU CAN. DON’T LET SOMEONE TELL YOU WHAT TO LEARN. JUST LEARN WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. THROUGH EDUCATION WILL COME EDUCATION!!!
Nope Fahey, they use italics…JK. Funny.
Kaleb () - 15 03 08 - 14:25

Be Independent? How do anarchists make a living without having a job? The world requires order for humanity to be sustained. Who grows the food that anarchists eat? Where are the anarchist hospitals that help sick anarchists? Who made the supplies to create posters for anarchy protests? Who wiped your ass before you could do it on your own? What government is stopping you from creating your pro-anarchist websites? Why not learn something about established law and participate in government to change what you don’t agree with? The answer is because you lack discipline to accomplish such a task. You’re frustrated that your house of cards keeps tumbling down while your neighbor’s is standing tall, so you seek to shake his table in attempts to level the playing field. Not everyone is born with the same luxuries, but in our evolving democracy, we all have the necessary tools and freedom to create the luxuries that we want for ourselves. Of course one shouldn’t be dependent on government, as it is not advantageous to their progress in life; however, that is much different from believing that government should not exist. People should manipulate law and define the rules of the government that enforces and carries out that law. Otherwise, if I’m an anarchist, who is anyone to tell me I am wrong to shoot you and take your money so I can eat? If you tell me I’m wrong, then you’re just as bad as the government that you are so against. If you support my freedom to shoot you for your money, then you support the type of chaotic society that will lead to the end of humanity. Nothing in the world is perfect. Government has many flaws and many people corrupt government, but that shouldn’t be supporting evidence for why the system of government should not exist. When we quote history to prove a point or speak the languages that we’re taught, we are examples of that which governs us, and none of us are without it. Peace and love to you, the reader.

anarchy-
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

(I find #3 to be contradicting. A cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society is the framework for establishing working laws and an ideal government)

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
peter joseph vescio () - 02 04 08 - 23:15

i play loads of video games whilst being an extremely active activist. so im not an anarchist? :S
Ken - 04 04 08 - 03:10

a true anarchist society is essential. i think we should even have an anarchists party in the presidentiqal elections and in congress and etc. even though it might be a bit contradictory it would help us get our word in to the government that is in control for now
brady tyo(tainted747) (URL) - 08 04 08 - 10:35

All Anarchists should read “Tolerance” by E.M. Forster.
This goes back to the whole, humanity needs to leave each other alone if they don’t want to be bothered argument. I’m pretty late on posting this.
Kaleb () - 09 04 08 - 06:35

Uhhh, did we say you weren’t Ken? At the same time, an activist isn’t the same thing as an anarchist. And what the admin is really saying is that we don’t all need to be so isolated all the time. Our socializing with people will promote the anarchist movement. He’s not condemning anything but anarchists who don’t proagate their beliefs.
Kaleb () - 09 04 08 - 13:41

Anarchism sounds great but it would never work. it may work for a while but eventually,an anarchist country would become a dictatorship.
=D - 10 04 08 - 10:09

so.. religion and anarchism cannot coexist?? or is that just the denial of all religion period (outside of anarchy)
equalfights - 14 04 08 - 11:15

making a living is not the same as having a job and money. the society we live in is designed to make it hard to survive without performing some kind of labor for someone else. its not like we would all starve to death without some form of centralized gov. . also lots of governments would and do stop people from making websites like this. our just hasnt figured out a way to get around what little restraints it has to do it.

but in our evolving democracy, we all have the necessary tools and freedom to create the luxuries that we want for ourselves.

are you serious?!!

also it very advantageous for some people to subsist off the government. lots of people do that dont need it. leeches like that would be shunned by their peers and would eventually self destruct. also few people are born with the instinct to try to be a parasite, alot of that is societal as well. there is much to be said about the psycological and physical benefits of working with others on a non forced project (like a community garden).

lack of a centralized gov and "laws" doesnt have to mean absolut chaos with no cooperation. ther can still be leaders and decision making. but leaders will emerge as leaders in a particular situation at a particular time. no one will desire to lead for power and greed because those are taken out of the equation. instead they will simply be followed when it bests siuts a certain need based on thier knowledge or skillset. if people are trying to build a house and a carpenter tells me how to do it, im not going to say f* you and your fascist authority. im going to respect the fact that he is more skilled than i and listen. it was phrased better earlier by someone as instead of laws, it is a matter of respect. anarchy is not absence of respect for others.

You’re frustrated that your house of cards keeps tumbling down while your neighbor’s is standing tall, so you seek to shake his table in attempts to level the playing field.

my house may fall but then others can help me rebuild it. my neighbor is a jerk and when is house falls he will die alone. or maybe ill take some dirct action against him!!j/k
[scurvyjonathan] - 15 04 08 - 12:20

making a living is not the same as having a job and money.
(What’s the difference? Maybe if you feel that way, it means you need a better job.)

the society we live in is designed to make it hard to survive without performing some kind of labor for someone else. (Life itself is hard, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice in the matter. And working for someone else is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be seen as a means to the next step, if you plan properly.)

its not like we would all starve to death without some form of centralized gov.
(Is that your reason for why we shouldn’t have one? I’ve commented that less dependence on gov’t is better; however, a system that the people of a society can use to maintain order within that society seems necessary to me. Granted the system & those running it are not without their flaws, but maybe instead of using so much energy to do without that system, we could apply some focus on participating in it and making it better.) .

also lots of governments would and do stop people from making websites like this. our just hasnt figured out a way to get around what little restraints it has to do it.
(I’m not supporting lots of governments. I’m supporting the one that does allow this site. Make your argument when the site is taken down, rather than just imagine that some force called “gov’t” is conspiring to figure out how to take it down. As long as the site abides by the established law, there’s no reason it would be taken down. If by any chance the gov’t uses the law to take the site down, then it’s up to the site’s supporters to use the law, lobby congress, and other appropriate channels, to change the law and get the site back.)

but in our evolving democracy, we all have the necessary tools and freedom to create the luxuries that we want for ourselves.

are you serious?!! (I was born into a poor and messed up family, but I read books, used my job to pay for school, worked hard, and as a result have been able to create a comfortable environment for myself. No gov’t stopped me from doing it and I’ll continue to do it more and more. If you think my comment about the freedom to obtain nearly any luxury is ridiculous, it probably means that you’re too busy blaming everything but yourself for why you’re not working hard enough to get what you want in life. Tell me what you want for yourself and I’ll try to lead you in the right direction for how to achieve it. I hardly believe that whatever you desire that you don’t currently have is unattainable due to a lack of freedom imposed by our gov’t)

also it very advantageous for some people to subsist off the government. lots of people do that dont need it. (While I’m thankful that services exist to allow those in need to better themselves, I agree that those systems are widely abused. It seems there should be better programs and stricter laws that work to change those types of people and keep them from continuing to rely on our tax dollars. I also think that more of the remedies to this problem should come from the private sector. Some people who care enough are doing it by establishing non profit organizations that work to get needy people to learn how to take care of themselves. WIth the right plan and application, one could receive grants from multiple endowments and other organizations. Don’t forget that there are people who utilize these services for their intended purpose. I am one of them. When I was 18, I was addicted to drugs and I had no money and was practically homeless. I went to the General Relief office (a government agency) and they signed me up to enter a rehab (that would have normally cost about $4,000/mo.). They also gave me bus tokens and food stamps for the 2 weeks that I had to wait to enter the rehab. The rehab allowed me to stay there for up to a year. I could work through programs while staying off drugs and eventually go out and find a job while continuing to live at the rehab. Once I had a job and some money, I could move into a sober living house (where you pay cheap rent and get drug tested every month to ensure that you stay clean) and eventually onto my own apartment. I’m very grateful to have had that opportunity which changed my life for the better. I’m also very grateful that society didn’t shun me, which causes me to look at others in my situation with compassion.

leeches like that would be shunned by their peers and would eventually self destruct. (I could be mistaken, but I believe you’re describing how the aformentioned class of people would be dealt with in an anarchist society…correct me if I’m wrong. I guess I need more details on this statement to accurately respond to it. I’m not sure what you mean by “self destruct”. Somehow I have a feeling that if there was absolutely nothing out there to support these “leeches” in some way or another, they’d become violent criminals. God knows we don’t need more of those. I’d rather have the “leeches” and just continue to figure out how to improve them. We as a society, as well as our government, is not doing enough. We need to improve our schools, jails, and all other institutions meant to help people function.

also few people are born with the instinct to try to be a parasite, alot of that is societal as well. there is much to be said about the psycological and physical benefits of working with others on a non forced project (like a community garden). (I’m not completely clear at your focus behind this comment. I agree with you that just about anyone’s mind can change for the better and I agree that problems with society contribute to keeping certain “parasites” from bettering themselves. I think a community garden is a wonderful idea. If a private land owner didn’t want to coordinate such an activity, I’m sure a community could lobby their local city officials (Mayor’s office, chamber of commerce, etc.) to coordinate such an activity. I wish I could understand your thoughts behind your use of the words “non forced project” a little better.

lack of a centralized gov and “laws” doesnt have to mean absolut chaos with no cooperation. ther can still be leaders and decision making. but leaders will emerge as leaders in a particular situation at a particular time. no one will desire to lead for power and greed because those are taken out of the equation. instead they will simply be followed when it bests siuts a certain need based on thier knowledge or skillset. if people are trying to build a house and a carpenter tells me how to do it, im not going to say f* you and your fascist authority. im going to respect the fact that he is more skilled than i and listen. it was phrased better earlier by someone as instead of laws, it is a matter of respect. anarchy is not absence of respect for others. –
(Based on what you’ve said here, I just don’t understand your issue with government. Our current leaders have the responsibility of using professionals that best suit a certain need based on their knowledge or skillset. There is a system in place that lets the people vote those leaders in or out of office (including impeachment) if they’re not getting the job done. I guess I need more specifics on how the current system is not suitable to society’s needs. I mean real life examples. And maybe you could include how an anarchist system would be better in each case. I’m not arguing there are no corrupt, greedy officials in government, but if there are, we as citizens are not doing enough to bring attention to those specific cases, in order to rectify the issue by means of our already established system. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of people in government are actually led by their desire to make a positive change in society. Any one of us can have those positions (assuming we’re within the legal criteria to have them…age, citizenship, resident status, etc.)

You’re frustrated that your house of cards keeps tumbling down while your neighbor’s is standing tall, so you seek to shake his table in attempts to level the playing field.

my house may fall but then others can help me rebuild it. my neighbor is a jerk and when is house falls he will die alone. or maybe ill take some dirct action against him!!j/k –
(Maybe you should kill your neighbor with kindness, or at least adopt a frame of mind that will cause you to help him rebuild his house when it falls, as you expect others to help you. We’re all in this together whether we want to be or not. I understand that you’re okay with shunning people who don’t fit your ideal mold, but you said it yourself, few people are born that way and society plays a large part in it. I know we’re not discussing our spiritual differences, but I’m compelled to share my spiritual understanding, which is that we are all of the same spirit and whether it’s apparent or not, anyone’s actions impacts the rest of us. Sometimes it’s the hardest thing to do in life (I even have trouble doing it with my own brother who is young and careless) but the best way to make positive change in the world is to love unconditionally. I’m not talking bible or religion, but just what I believe is deep inside our hearts & souls.

When I typed my original post I was angry and I didn’t practice enough compassion. I watched a video of some anarchist demonstration in san francisco, where they had taken over the streets and kicked mailboxes and trash cans into the middle of the street, etc. etc. and I just felt angered by those individuals’ lack of respect for order in society. We have the freedom to protest. It seemed like at the beginning of the tape, the protest was organized and permits were probably obtained for demonstrating on public streets, but everything clearly got out of hand and many protestors overstepped their boundaires. In my opinion, those actions were a detriment to the anarchist cause. If that’s what lack of gov’t will create, I hope the anarchist purpose is never achieved. Peace to the world.
peter joseph vescio () - 17 04 08 - 08:10

I really think that this article’s comments turned into a forum of some sort. Doesn’t this site have one of those? If it doesnt then someone should definetly make one, because their are a lot of great arguments here, its kind of sad that someone looking for info on the topics all of you discussed probably will not find them as easily as they should be able to. By the way, I have an idea that I am sure many of you will disagree with, isn’t anarchy a form of government. Some gov’ts have lagislatures, some have councils, some have dictators, some have the exact same thing as dictators(presidents), and others have patriarchs, and all of them working class citizens. Is anarchism not just another form of gov’t, a gov’t where everyone is in the council and at the same time everyone is a working class citizen? ( by the way, i am not asking this question just to waste my breath, I actually want responses. Specificly, I want responses from BURN, bulimicmind, andy, and peter joseph vescio)
Garret - 18 04 08 - 23:51

you bastards you are just like every one i’ve ever met trying to keep me quit fuck you you dirty assholes you are just like the mayor of red deer laughig in my face when i told him to write a letter sorry to the people in the tent city that got burned fuck you

our policy’s necessary for the good of humanity
we are spreading new ideas like snow, that purfiy the air
to fight the plague of you
exterminate you all
without excetion
brendan schmitz - 21 04 08 - 18:53

garret anarchy is a system against all system which is a hypacritcl stament because everything in nature has a system (order to disorder to chaos) what to believe most defintly noting but the higher being
brendan schmitz - 21 04 08 - 20:05

I dont know why, but i cant understand a single fucking word that you typed. Maybe its because you’re spelling like a 5 year old, no offense
Garret - 24 04 08 - 15:19

thank you so much for posting this. i really, seriously needed a site like this to get reliable information on a speech i’m doing for school. THANK U SO MUCH!
i fully belive in everything u said.

young anarchist
Chad.
Chandra - 24 04 08 - 15:20

You are going to say a speech about anarchy at your school? Your principle will let you? Whatever school your going to, i want to go
Garret - 24 04 08 - 21:20

garret don’t get me wrong my speling sucks but you really believe what you are saying your a joke anarchy is a joke anarchy can not be defined at your a joke anarchy = pie
brendan schmitz - 25 04 08 - 23:44

spoken from my perspective, I believe that you should be a
little less hard on the religion
Trevor () - 02 05 08 - 20:47

Actually, religion is good for you. People who practice a religion and pray are less likely to get sick and more likely to recover more quickly. Whether or not there actually is a god is yet to be determined, but what is proven is that those who do believe and practice their religion are physically healthier. From my experience though, those who practice christianity are extremely close-minded and boring. The idea of christianity alone is anti-anarchist. I believe religion should’nt be a factual idea that should be followed fanatically, but a system of ideas that help us develope a concsience and a good sense of philosophy. Most religious books are actually pretty good reads, even though they can get a little dull. The christian bible, the muslim qur’an, the pagan book of witchcraft by buckland, and the budhist book of the dead are all very interesting and good for the developement of the mind. However, i do approve of organized religion, because it is hypocritical. Many people go to church just so they can feel good about themselves and so that everyone thinks they are a good person. Also, many religions (mostly islam and christianity) are just used to mind control the populace and help support ideas that the government want us to believe.
Garret - 04 05 08 - 19:40

Sorry, i made a typograghical error. I meant to say that i do not approve of organized religion.
Garret - 04 05 08 - 19:45

Christianity is not anti-anarchist. God is not a ruler. Rather, God is a father. He doesn’t force us to believe in Him. And could you guys in general not be so hard on Christianity. I m a freaking Catholic Anarchist!
kevin - 05 05 08 - 17:40

I am also a christian, kevin, and i completely agree with you. Its just that, even though god is not meant to be a ruler, the church usually presents him as one. I read somewhere that the catholic church added another couple sins to there list of deadly sins. The first list was oppressing enough, but now even more? I think using illegal drugs was in the list of sins. GOD CREATED POT! Im going to create my own church, and ill be the pope, magisterium, clergy, and the only follower. i think it would be better if we all followed our own beliefs instead of some sort of government like church. (excuse me if my sources are wrong, i am not completely sure about the adding new sins thing)
Garret - 05 05 08 - 20:31

anarchist way of life should rise over all governments!!!!!!!!!! especially the american
Casey - 13 05 08 - 07:57

okay, im sure some of you are going to take offense to this and call me a hyocrite. i will save you the breathe right now and tell you myself that i am. being intelligent enough to understand that we have to embrace hypocrisy in a world such as this is one of the first steps to making sure we don’t have to later. but anyway, my point is this: i used to frequent forums such as this, arguing, debating, agreeing, plotting, etc. but the day came when i began to feel as if i wasn’t helping myself or anyone else, in fact, i believe it was only causing harm. it’s like the overweight american child who plays football games on his video console… knows all the players and teams, all the stats, and even gets quite rowdy when describing his latest victory… yet sadly, has never gotten off his fat ass and even stepped foot on a playing field. when are we going to stop playing ‘video game revolution’, get off our computers, put down our zines and books, and start loading guns? the world definately isn’t getting any better, thats for sure. and yes, i am typing this on my computer as i stare blankly out the window, wishing life would come smashing through and drag me away….. but fuck, its never gonna happen doing this, now is it? the fight to rid this planet of the fucking cancer that is capitalism and government has to begin at some point, i have a strong suspicion that if we turned off our computers and turned on our minds, the battle would already be half won.
josh () - 13 05 08 - 14:23

Well josh, the greatest propaganda apart from TV ads are the internet. Everything on the internet is read and observed by billions of people. These forums are a form of speech. As example of Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Huey Long, etc., speech is the best offense, because it doesn’t require you to have a whole lot of guns and shit in your closet. Besides i’m 14, and if I tried to go on anarchist movements, my rents would flip a shit, so this is the best I have.

What you describe is the difference between astronomers and astronauts. They both study space, but Astronomers are to scared to go into space, while the astronauts are adventurous. However, though the astronauts are more famous, the astronomers are “behind the scenes”, in the way that they are the one’s that deeply study and discover and release the new studies of space to the media.
kevin () - 18 05 08 - 11:15

I dont know if u guyz remem but but i was a visitor onec the asked how 2 become and anarchist.i know now and have known for a while that ive always been an anarchist.But i have a question. how r we suspossed 2 get anarchy into affect?
Kaleb (