Farmers actually get paid *not* to grow crops here in the states. Sounds a bit strange don't you think.
There are a few different factors that come into play here.
1) Supply and Demand: Reducing the supply of crops affects how much we pay at the grocery store
in turn putting extra coin in active farmers pockets.
2) Easy Money: Non active farmers or land owners are currently being paid 1.8 BILLION dollars a year
nation wide to sit on their ass because they own the deed to some land. Mind you that this comes
out of your pocket.
3) Conservation Programs: Environmentalists and Eco Soldiers lobby to further this endeavor because the
farm land has been classified under the "conservation label".
Currently there is 34 MILLION acres of unused farm land that is being given a rent of 1.8 BILLION a year
not to grow crops and food, when 10 MILLION people died this year of *starvation*, 85% of wich were
*children*.
Johann Kaspar Schmidt (Max Stirner) was born Oct, 25, 1806 and died June, 26, 1856. One of the founding fathers
of nihilism and individualist anarchism. Stirner studied philosophy and theology at the University of Berlin.
Stirner was also a part of the discussion group (the free) to which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles were associated.
Max Stirner was one of the first anarchists I personally read upon. After reading the Ego and its Own, I understood
his views but I was turned off a bit by the selfishness of his nihilistic nature.
There are many different types of anarchism with many different views on how the end result of a revolution or revolt
would be concluded and how society would function. Personally I can empathize with anarcho-syndicalism but would
have to define myself as an anarchist without adjectives. I feel that our division and petty squabbles amongst
one another will ultimately be our downfall. the unification of all anarchists, regardless of faction, is necessary
for success. Theoretically if all of the different sects of anarchism broke off from one another to form their
own communities, they would attract only like minded individuals. Like the old saying goes "birds of a feather,
flock together."
In some cases this would be a bad thing. Take Anarcho-capitalism for example, everyone
would be trying to capitalize off another. All striving for the same goal of exploiting another for financial gain.
For all they really have is land and capital, both of which produce nothing without labor. There would be no one in
the community who would be willing to contractually exploit themselves unless it would further their own agenda of
exploitation of another later on down the road. In turn this would eventually lead to the capitalist pyramid scheme
that governments have utilized to gain power. Instead of the state we would have corporational slavery due to the
mergers of financial institutions and the allowance of monopolization within a free market. When people leave the
community for this reason, the roots of the capitalist tree will dry up and the community will cease to exist.
My own speculation is that Anarcho-communism would have the best chance for survival on its own as a like minded
community. Although I feel that tensions of unbalanced workloads would be inevitable and some sort of rotation would
have to be put into effect to equalize the responsibility's of the community. The volunteer basis of the community
would be its greatest asset and shows the future generations the virtue of selflessness. Through this state of being,
the eradication of greed is a great possibility.
Anarcho primitivism I feel would be the most stagnant. A community based on the eradication of technology and the
re-institution of hunter gatherer way of living, the proverbial reset button. While I have met few anarcho-primitivists,
I have to say that I see a flaw in their views. To revert back into a state of primitive life would be actually be
going against human nature and would actually be a devolution of sorts. Was it not through human evolution
and an increase in intellect that technology was born? Regardless of their success, once there, the motivation for
advancement would be non-existent for fear of recreating what they had abolished to begin with.
My apologies to anarcho-capitalists if I came off harsh, I had a few drinks while writing this. You all know
how that goes. Much love to all my comrades.
Subject: josh
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:16:08 +0100
I have often wondered about different types of government, and often ways of life that are either contemporary, or existed prior to either of the industrial revolutions that took place in europe and in america. After reading great books such as "Ishmael" i found myself thinking back like a psuedo memory of the simplicity and intelligence behind such
societies like hunter gatherers and small communities.I find myself constantly defending marx and his theories and trying to help others understand his position in reality v.s. his position in themedia, and at times i find myself coming to conclusions that involve micro-societies all over the nation that enact socialist ideals.
but one thing that i always come back to is population, and technology.
The first is i think the most pressing thought. Our population is huge. Something bigger than Jefferson or any of the founding fathers probably imagined, and this population plays an enormous role when it comes to the workings and success of a government, or lack there of. The 2nd is technology. Our lives are almost irreversibly dependent on
it. And although some of it is trash, such as television, other parts are tremendous. Alot of our medicine and especially our abilities to communicate are inseperable from our improved quality of life. So my question is this. With this population, which includes an enormous amount of dynamic needs, (etc. healthcare, education just to name two of
the largest)how do we reach everyone? how do we provide? Can small communities provide the materials and capital at the levels in which a society such as ours can continue to thrive? i would love to see more dependant communities and no government even, but not at the expense that millions of people would suffer and have it fall down to an idea of
natural selection or something like that. Now i dont mean to include so called needs that people express and would include in the idea of thriving. but i do recognize that all people need some things, and for the amount of people that we have it might be difficult to produce.
is it possible that this type of movement should be an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary one?
REPLY:
Josh,
This is by far one of the best questions I have come across. To answer your question, I would have to agree that our most pressing issues would be technology and population. I would assume that we as a community would have to look at the ratio between production and consumption. The production of the community and its available resources would have to mathematically outweigh our consumption as a whole. This being said, i do not claim to have all the answers but this would seem to be the most logical equation for survival as a thriving community.
As far as our technology is concerned, I doubt that we would regress back into the dark ages. Technology is born through innovation, inspiration and necessity. As long as we have problems in a society there will be those that will try to come up with solutions.
As far as your last question is concerned, revolution is a part of evolution and evolution shines when a species is pushed to the brink.
Some anarchists have emailed me with concerns of tresspassing charges. (No comment)
For anarchits wanting to dodge possible tresspassing charges, I have done a little bit of homework for you.
There are some links that I have included to keep the pigs off your backs. These only apply to California
so if you live elsewhere you may have to do a bit of research. Regardless of how you handle the wake up call,
they cannot nail you for solicitation due to the fact that you are not selling anything, there is a link for
that as well.
My alias is Agent of Chaos. I am one of the writers for the site. I have a proposal for you all. I offer you a
chance to do somthing for your cause. I offer you chance to help others wake up.
On 01/25/09 other anarchists and myself will be storming Political Science, American History and Philosophy
classes throughout Southern California college campuses. Simply put, we will be in black bloc attire (please no
masks, we are not there to scare them) entering uninvited. We will be handing out copies of Zeitgeist (chapter 3 only)
and Zeitgeist Addendum along with flyers that will raise awareness about the situation in Greece. Both movies are free to download off of http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/.
We will be spending no more than 3 minutes in the classrooms. Just long enough to announce ourselves and pass out the
information. We will be hitting the classroomsin a group of 2-3 people, and moving quickly to cover more ground.
As you enter, explain to the class that they can do what they please with the information that you are handing out.
These movies were chosen due to the strong anarchistic ties of the Venus Project, and the and exposure of the capitalist scam.
Regardless of where you live your participation would be great. If you've got 10 bucks for some burnable discs,
a little free computer time, and the guts to get off your ass, I urge you to do the same. It is important that I stress
to you that this is a NO vandalism mission. The actions being taken are only to awaken the public, not to push them away.
This will last about a week. You can contact me through the site for organization with other anarchists in your area.
Include the city you are from and I will do my best to connect you with others, or utilize the comment section of
this post to organize. Hopefully this will help wake the masses and change the poor lighting the mass media has shed us anarchists in.
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZnJpZW5kbHlmaXJlY29sbGVjdGl2ZS5pbmZvL2ZpbGVzL0dyZWVjZS9ncmVlY2UuanBn
Also copy and paste this for flyers about Alexandros.
Moving in on a week of hostilities between anarchists and the police in Greece. A major attack was made by the Greek anarchists on a police station.
Many demonstrations are being held throughout Europe in protest to the killing of Alexandros. I will keep everyone updated on the status of the situation as it unfolds
President Bush moves into an all white neighborhood. When the community was formed, contracts were made to bar the sale of homes to blacks and other non-whites.
His actions, accompanied with his grandfather Prescott Bush's ties with the Nazi party, and his father George Bush Sr.'s push for a One World Order, have shown the true intentions of the Bush family.
Alexandros Grigoropoulos was shot and killed by 2 greek police officers at 15 years of age on Saturday,
December 6th. This event sparked rage throughout the anarchists of Greece, re-igniting the fury of 1985.
Brady Kiesling, a former U.S. Diplomat, who is writing a book about the marxist group N17 stated
"The police stay out of certain areas, unless there's a major emergency, and the anarchists don't trash things
badly unless there's a good reason," Mr. Kiesling says. But "once someone gets killed, the doctrine is massive
retaliation."
And massive retaliation there was. The rioting began shortly after the shooting. Emails and text messages
spread through the anarchist community like wild fire to gather in Exarchia. Chanting "murderers in Uniform"
they took to the streets.
I will admit that it is a very nice idea, and it would surely be the most
advantageous if there were no idiots in the world. Perhaps you will regard
my worldview as pessimistic.
My question concerns specifically an example provided in your manifesto,
under the Morality section. It states that like-minded individuals will
form communities and therefore drug addicts and criminals will form drug
addict and criminal societies, while non-criminal societies will form and
defend against these values. Herein, it is claimed, that the problem of
crime is solved.
Drug addicts aside, I would posit that this does not solve the problem of
crime but rather solves the problem of stupid crime and therefore makes
remaining crime considerably more difficult to combat
My argument is as follows: If criminals congregate in a community separate
from non-criminals, criminals are left to make their living stealing from
other criminals. This presents the problem of initial wealth. Who is this
first criminal that procured this wealth to be distributed amongst the
criminals?
Aside from that, and more to my point, if criminals in criminal society
are left with only criminals to steal from, surely theft from
non-criminals would be more lucrative. Would it not then be more
productive for those criminals who are able (since, in any group, there
are some strong-minded individuals) to pose as non-criminals in a
non-criminal society and steal from the non-criminals secretly? Agreed, in
this model, the problem of stupid crime such as smash-and-grab thefts is
solved. But doesn't it make the intelligent crime present and hiding in
non-criminal society much more difficult to eradicate?
I do not think anarchy would work because of the large ratio of idiocy to
intelligence. Idiots will always follow, intelligents will always lead,
and both criminal and non-criminal groups contain idiots and intelligents.
Please tell me if you see a flaw in my argument somewhere. I can't find
anything to believe in.
Sincerely,
Thom
Response:
I do not mean to answer your question with a question but it seems as though it is the best solution.
Does government stop Intelligent crime? Do governments stop drug abuse? Seriously ask yourself these questions.
The answer is no. These problems still exist with or without a government. No form of government
has ever been able to solve these problems. Anarchism does not claim to solve these problems.
Crime against personal liberties will always be a flaw in human beings, regardless if they are governed or not.
Another question for you is this, do governments not commit intelligent crime? (False flag operations)
Do governments not contribute to drug abuse? (Vietnam drug running)
Governments are the solution to many because they know of nothing else. This is how we are programed.
When humans are allowed to live in an uncontrolled environment and our minds free of mental bondage, only then
will we be able to evolve at natures pace.
Yes Thomas Jefferson. One of the founders of the U.S. was sometimes viewed as a philosophical anarchist.
Jefferson believed that "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn
around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but
the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president of the U.S. and the principal author of the Declaration of Independance.
Jefferson also felt that if the moral sense of the people was reliable enough, an anarchist society could
function well, provided that it was reasonably small. He also admired the tribal societies of the Native Americans.
“I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass
an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former,
public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep.
I do not exaggerate.”
Thomas Jefferson was also very aware of the need for rebellion, as he wrote "What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." in a letter regarding Shays rebellion.
Jefferson expressed extreme mistrust toward the banking systems. He wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you,
that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to
be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
You would be amazed how many times modern anarchists quote this man, and rightfully so.
I have to admit, I have quoted him myself.
On Thursday a pannel of legal experts will discuss different methods available for dealing with the Bush
administration for their assault on human rights over the past 2 terms. This event will be held on December, 4
at 108 west 3rd street NY 10012. This event is open to the public so feel free to attend.
To RSVP, please email CLS@juris.law.nyu.edu or call 212-992-8854.
Participants:
Elizabeth Holtzman, Author of “The Impeachment of George W. Bush”
Scott Horton, Contributing Editor, Harper’s Magazine
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Burt Neuborne, Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University
Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights
Antonio Taguba, Major General (U.S. Army Ret.)
Moderated by Luke Mitchell, Senior Editor, Harper’s Magazine
