What happened?Originally Posted by Martyr
What happened?
Cubans.
And it isn't exactly their fault, but the way they came in and dominated Miami has caused more racial tension, between everybody, than I ever care to know.
I won't go into details. Maybe I'll write a novel someday. First, I want to see who wins.
I'd press reset.
And in the new world, I'd just abolish private property from the start. And the State. Love and anarchy
Woooooooo!!! Freedom and justice for all!!!All immigrants would get shot on site.
lol i have tons of friends who were once illegal aliens man it really dosnt bother them that the majority population hates them.I know ilegal aleins and immigrants who come from Turkey to immigrants from asia.Yeah they should make it harder for them to become a citizen but Martryr you just sound like a biggot if nto then you probaly are one and proud of it i bet.
I don't think he was making the point that Immigrants are bad people. how can i put this...
You and a few friends start a commune, okay? You work like dogs to provide for yourself and the others, and pretty soon you start making enough to export from your commune. you get a little bit of cash flow, word gets out, you get more cash flow and more word of mouht adverstising. all of a sudden, you guys are living clean and free and making a flippin fortune. You're living of yourselves, your customers are happy, and you have enough cash to build yourself a nice palatial estate on your land (lets just say you have a fairly good chunk of land, with plenty of unused space between you are and your communal brethren) all of a sudden, your customers families start hearing about how sweet you've got it. Their thinking "well damn, i could go live with them, and since they've got it going good already, i could pretty much coast. everything will be cherry if i can just set up a tent next to joe johnsons house there in the commune and collect some extra product and cashola! he coasts in, maybe even works as hard as you do. but that doesn't mean the next guy will. or the next. or the next. cuz once other people see taht they can cruise in without your permission, and give you a puppy face and a sob story about what life was like otuside your commune, you'll cave and they'll be in the clear. Now, you keep allowing this because you don't want to look greedy and offend your needed customers (you've been trading for long enough that you NEED things from them now. gas, fertilizer, new seeds, technology, etc.) pretty soon, the ratio of sweetness to slackers camped out on your lawn mooching off the estate is pretty hefty, and your little commune isn't looking so sweet anymore. it's in debt because you're trying to be nice and PC and support all those poor helpless folks.
doesn't sound so nice for you anymore, does it? thats the point i believe he was trying to get across, albight quite drastically.
and, um.... yeah. Anarchy? *cracks up* Unfettered capitalism is one thing. Anarchy is quite another. with anarchy, if i decided not to work, i could get together a nice little gang and cap you in your hippy loven buttocks. and their would be no police to say Nay unto me, and the only challenge would be keeping me gang of roving profit killers large enough to stomp down any smarmy town folk. Basically, you're looking at Waterworld. Anarchy is bad homes, very bad.
You know that anarchy is a very complex idea you can not possibly attempt to summarise in such a ridiculous paragraph, don't you?
yup, and yet i did!
Yeah i get that it's a fairly broad idea, and that "Anarchy" as the idea rests today doesn't mean lack of government altogether. But unfortunately, i don't have the time, drive, or energy to type out all the different variations and agendas involved with real world anarchy, so i stripped it to it's roots and wrote out that "ridiculous paragraph" to summarize my beliefs on the subject. Have a nice day!
In a simple paragraph: Anarchy is the lack of any system. Lacking any type of system is a system in itself. Therefore, anarchy can never be achieved.
YAY, SLC Punk!
...
No, anarchy is a system, but without the concept of state, goverment of private property. Similar to communism in it's end, but with some different contrasts on some issues.
I don't know if it's possible or not, but it does get annoying when people attempt to make suppositions about it out of complete ignorance. I dunno, it's like fascism, suppose I start defining it like...well, it's a state with a powerful guy on top and it's about killing Jews. No, it's not. Fascism is a system constructed on a series of theories and ideas. I may not agree with it, in fact it's totally opposed to my believes, but I don't think speaking silly popular generalizations about it, and about how evil it is because they have told me so, is going to make me have any serious point.
from the World Book Encyclopedia dictionary:
An-ar-chy (anerki) 1. The absence of a system of government or law. 2. Disorder, confusion, lawlessness. 3. Anarchism syn: Chaos
From Dictionary.com
an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
The root of the word, anarchy:
From the Latin, which was taken from the greek anarkhos. An; Without. Arkhos; Ruler. An-Arkhos; Without ruler.
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
anarchy
n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]
A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." Other dictionaries describe anarchism with similar definitions. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such as the New Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished."
------------------------------------------------------------------
now obviously you've decided to refuse to respect a short blurb on the system, so i'm gonna go a bit more indepth here and see if that will satiate your opinion of me as a person "attempt(ing) to make suppositions about it out of complete ignorance."
Anarchic theory, as political idea rather than a reality, which existed throughout a good portion of ancient history, was first set forth in Political Justice, a book by William Godwin in 1793. He was recognized for a bit, but overshadowed when Proudhon came along with "what is Property?" Which set the idea that property shoudl not be owned by the individual, but rather used peacefully by the collective masses. It also figured Key into the introduction of communist and socialist theory later on, obviously.
You're now going to end up with contemporary theorists; Bakunin, then Kropotkin, the tolstoy. Now everyone likes to scream Tolstoy and Chomsky on the subject of anarchy, but you need to go back to your roots to get to the essence of it.
Tolstoy was helpful in addressing a number of ideas, one of which was that idea of violence in an anarchic system. according to Tolstoy, Any Violence that occured in an anarchic system could not be greater than that which would be caused BY the current system. That's obviously debateable. I take the example of Charles Manson. Let say Charles Manson lived in an anarchic society. He goes around with his followers killing all these folk and people start to realize, Hey! theres a WHOLE lot of nasty looking murders about. Now explain to me, how they would catch and stop him? because he, while in an anarchic state, is not quite getting the "no infringment on my personal rights" thing. now, you can't institute a volunteer police force, because without authority to push past some peoples rights they can't investigate. obviously if they show up at someones house while manson's followers are killing them, they aren't going to be too keen on letting you in the house. what are the police to do? they are anarchist police, they can't infringe on their rights, that would make them *gasp* AUTHORITY! so, the police angle doesn't work. you're stuck with a bunch of scared citizens with no way to stop the madman. he can go around all he wants doing exactly what he wants because there's no authority to stop him, and the only way he COULD be stopped is if someone else decides to violate the treatise of Anarchy, and form some form of order imposed on the masses, thus elminating anarchy in that time and place.
Now, you've got that famous "Haymarket eight" murders in Chicago. This got word out alot in america, and spawned a whole number of different american anrachist philosophers and supporters. You've got Cleyre, Parson's, and Goldman following after that, Goldman in particular getting some new blood by way of Anarchist Feminism that she helped found. Paris Commune and Zappata in the Spanish Revolution in 1936.....
and together with a number of other major movements in recent history (the largest as far as teh media is concerned being the huge Punk movement in the 70's and 80's, though a number of Punk groupings favored either socialims or Communism as well) have brought anarchy to be one fo the biggest "rebel teen" philosophy's on earth.
Now then. I will repeat my argument and hopefully it will nto be cast aside due to my "ignorance" of the subject. In an anarchist system, consisting of NO ASSIGNED GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, there would be no way to keep defectors in check. through use of violence of intimidation, Anarchy would be quickly eliminated as a state of existence, because roving gangs or terrorist groupings would be established as a new, and more devious government. They would be so, because within the citizens groupings, assuming anarchist philosophy is maintained, and collective group to combat them could never be formed becasue it would require the use of authority to function. Anarchist philosophy, in order to succeed, would require complete and total one-ness opf mind by the entire population of an area, a fact that will never come to be in large4 groupings. THUS, outside of a hippy commune growing carrots in west virginia, you will never see anarchy in action.
Man, it should not have taken that much effort to get a point across withoutbeing called "ignorant."
See, now that makes sense. I take back the past statement.
*applause*
Anyway, you point makes sense, except in the fact you mentioned anarchist police, and as far as I know, the anarchist society does not take the idea of police, but of organizations to develop a counter-measure to any problem such as...well, Charles Manson. See, it's not the same as the police, it would not fall into the jerarquized (whatever the word in English is) organization held today, and it would be faced to problems in particular, but without the need to make it as general because, in theory, such problems would not be as generalized under anarchism.
This happens because, well, it is held that violence in a society depends directly of the violence in the system. Basically, anarchism is meant to be the maximmum peak of social evolution, and as such, most acts of violence- if not all- are not bound to happen. Not like I agree with that, it may be possible to get rid of the state, the goverment and so on, but not of idiocy. However, I do not believe anarchy would be the people-burning-cars-and-robbing-shops often imagined in bad Hollywood movies, and yet, I frankly don't think it would be about puppies and flowers either, at least not on a large scale.
First off, let that be a bit of a lesson to you about prejudging people, ESPECIALLY in forums about their knowledge on a subject. you don't know ignorance from intelligence summed up in a brief statement, you shouldn't throw around "ignorant" or "Ridiculous" just because something is short and in lamens terms.
onto the actual point, anarchic society. You say that violence would not be rampant. I sort of agree with you on that, on some level. Assuming you had very decent people, that you SOMEHOW had managed to evolve past the type of personality that would be inclined to run such a gang as I mentioned, you would still have emotional people. Now, lets say you had some bad dealings with a particular person. This person has managed to offend you to a deep and violent place through whatever means this may take (I don't know you well enough to assume, but he could hav gone after your family, signifigant other, anything.) without a governmental system in place to punish you for an offense, if you found yourself near him at the peak of your rage, what is going to keep you in check, keep you from pounding this guys face into the cement? and I you hold "ethics" or the "good of society" accountable for keeping this from happening, then i dare you to make the statement that it will keep the majority of others from such a thing. yaeh, anarchy would give people freedom to operate how they want, live how they want, earn money how they want. Ultimate and total freedom. It also give people the ability to operate how they want (with Malice), Live how they want (by oppressing anyone they can to get their way), and earn money how they want (by beating and robbing old ladies on the street). Are you telling me that there will be so active and friendly a community, and so few of these incidents to form little "organizations to develop a counter-measure to any problem" (when, unless I've misinterpreted, just sounds like "volunteer police with no real authority") I don't buy that. put a bunch of pissed off people in a room, and get the guard to turn around for a second? one or two people might be brave enough to take a swing. put a bunch of pissed of people in a room, and lock the door with no guard in sight? whew.
Posting Permissions
