Discussion on Anarchy

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

Quote from: _MarquisDeSade on April 27, 2007, 06:56:41 AM

If aN anarchist is able to get money from the government and use it in anarchic ways, that is still anarchist.

No, that is a leech with mental illness. An anarchist wouldn't need currency from a government he or she does not recognize. That makes no literal sense. Thus, they would be not an anarchist, but an opportunist.

what is wrong with using free money from the government to open a coffee shop, is how an anarchist would think.

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

Parody sites amuse me.

what is wrong with using free money from the government to open a coffee shop, is how an anarchist would think.

What is free money?  If one accepts money from a government in the form of assistance, one has entered into a social contract with that government and, by extension and assuming we're speaking of a republic, the citizens of that government.  The citizens, through their representatives, are providing that assistance.  That assistance in the form of money is never "free."

Thumbs up to Mrs. Gore!

TRUE Anarchy cannot exist.

It is in our primitive nature as humans to interact and form organizations of some sort.

Maybe light anarchy, where there's a few people scattered on a remote, uninhabited island perhaps. But TRUE mass anarchy: No.

Sorry, this is way late and probably has nothing to do with the actual conversation right now, but I just saw it because I don't frequently come to the General Spam section.

Quote from: DiegoDraw on April 26, 2007, 02:44:32 PM

In anarchy, a government will be formed. It's just what happens. It may not be sooner or later, but it will happen. Key point in history for proof: The Dark Ages. Government was formed out of complete anarchy. It's called a power vacuum and has happened many times in history. But eventually, a government is created.

~D-Draw

1. i thought that the dark ages had a monarchy, i may be wrong
2. centralist governemtns could form. not denying that. but say the people decide to go along with that centralist government and get oppressed and all this shit that happens to people. are they gonna wunna stay there probaly not.
3. i am talking about anarchy in a sense of how the communities and world is organized. you are thinking anarchy=chaos. so technically you are correct in "Government was formed out of complete anarchy. It's called a power vacuum and has happened many times in history. But eventually, a government is created." but not if anarchy was how the communities were organized.
4. AK press is an anarchist book distributor. fuck of a lot of shit gets done there. there are not daily shootings there. no hierarchal  control has come about. what up wit dat?

1. A central government was not present for a while after the Dark Ages fell in areas like Britain, France, and Italy. There were GOVERNMENTS, but not in that area. The power vacuum left anarchy. Eventually, however, government formed. It's what happens.
2. Central governments WILL form. It's inherent in anarchy.
3. I'm WELL aware of true anarchy. Trust me, I would give anything to have it in our society, but it's impractical. It's just not going to happen. Anarchy turns into chaos and then a government is created. It's in our veins.
4. One company =/= society.

~D-Draw

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

Yeah! Looks credible to me! I think everyone you've been arguing with knows exactly what you're talking about. It's just implausible in society. It fucking sucks, sure, that we are not able to live freely without people ordering us around, but it's just how things work. People are assholes. The world spins.

~D-Draw

Quote from: _MarquisDeSade on April 27, 2007, 07:06:06 AM

what is wrong with using free money from the government to open a coffee shop, is how an anarchist would think.

What is free money?  If one accepts money from a government in the form of assistance, one has entered into a social contract with that government and, by extension and assuming we're speaking of a republic, the citizens of that government.  The citizens, through their representatives, are providing that assistance.  That assistance in the form of money is never "free."

 

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

One of the reasons true anarchy wouldn't work (not a jab at you, just an observation).

~D-Draw

And because most man made systems of government fail anyway.

Quote from: Engy Baby on April 28, 2007, 01:34:14 AM

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

One of the reasons true anarchy wouldn't work (not a jab at you, just an observation).

~D-Draw

Yeah it wouldn't work because it's in human nature to be confortable with an ordered life

(I know it's not a jab at me and I wouldn't care if it was dearie)

Quote from: DiegoDraw on April 28, 2007, 03:10:00 AM

Quote from: Engy Baby on April 28, 2007, 01:34:14 AM

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

One of the reasons true anarchy wouldn't work (not a jab at you, just an observation).

~D-Draw

Yeah it wouldn't work because it's in human nature to be confortable with an ordered life

(I know it's not a jab at me and I wouldn't care if it was dearie)

Cozy cons?

Bugger

Quote from: DiegoDraw on April 28, 2007, 03:10:00 AM

Quote from: Engy Baby on April 28, 2007, 01:34:14 AM

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

One of the reasons true anarchy wouldn't work (not a jab at you, just an observation).

~D-Draw

Yeah it wouldn't work because it's in human nature to be confortable with an ordered life

(I know it's not a jab at me and I wouldn't care if it was dearie)

It sounded a bit mean to me, and I felt bad after the British teeth joke.

~D-Draw

Hehe it's ok, I know enough to know when you actually are having a jab at me and don't worry, I don't mind you having a jab at me, it's amusing to say the least. Don't you go feeling bad about the British teeth joke thing either, though it is pretty old...

Anaracy would mean more work for Bat Dog! Woof woof! More trask to take out! Arooo!

You mean Fat Dog (Mendoza) doo-doo-do-do-doooo

TRUE Anarchy cannot exist.

It is in our primitive nature as humans to interact and form organizations of some sort.
Maybe light anarchy, where there's a few people scattered on a remote, uninhabited island perhaps. But TRUE mass anarchy: No.

Who said anarchists don't believe in organization?

Quote from: _MarquisDeSade on April 27, 2007, 07:04:53 AM

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

Yeah! Looks credible to me! I think everyone you've been arguing with knows exactly what you're talking about. It's just implausible in society. It fucking sucks, sure, that we are not able to live freely without people ordering us around, but it's just how things work. People are assholes. The world spins.

~D-Draw

Yes, the site fucken sucks in appearance.
But its has links to sites that discuss anarchy.
Which is what I hope what people would look too.

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

-- Edward Abbey

"If people eat their ballots, then that nut-case Stockwell Day will get in. Right-wingers aren't angst-ridden about voting. Don't we have to vote strategically, even if that means voting for the Liberals?"

"Having to decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that's not a choice -- that's a threat. Our electoral system favors a two-party race, and we should reject it. We have to start working towards a democratic system that doesn't force people to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). We can't keep jumping from election to election, voting for one moron because we're terrified that there's something worse. Now's the time to stop legitimizing this process and take a stand for fundamental, long-term change. It's more important to call attention to the farce of electoral politics than to split-hairs by choosing between Tweedledumb andTweedledee (or The Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and the Doormouse for that matter)."

- The Edible Ballot Society

Quote from: Engy Baby on April 28, 2007, 01:34:14 AM

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

Quote from: Vauxhall the Vampire on April 30, 2007, 07:00:28 AM

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

There is no proof of this.

Mirrors.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 30, 2007, 07:24:30 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall the Vampire on April 30, 2007, 07:00:28 AM

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

There is no proof of this.

Human socialology. Organization will end up forming, thus anarchy goes bye bye. Aka, chaos to order.

Quote from: Vauxhall the Vampire on April 30, 2007, 07:26:03 AM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 30, 2007, 07:24:30 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall the Vampire on April 30, 2007, 07:00:28 AM

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

There is no proof of this.

Human socialology. Organization will end up forming, thus anarchy goes bye bye. Aka, chaos to order.

Funny, I was thinking that when I made my last post.