..."a fractious society of individuals cannot stand against a more
organized, united force of similar numbers."
Care to tell me how the American Revolutionaries beat the British? Put aside
the fact that they were not anarchist - they were still much more "fractious"
than the British army. What you stated there is an excellent example of the
type of propaganda the British government would have had you believe. "The
American colonists are weak - I mean - we are much more organized,
civilized. We will surely win." Of course, they lost their asses.
And on the assumption that an anarchist society would be "fractious" -
bullshit. That is just wrong. It's pro-authoritarian propaganda,
with no rational basis whatsoever. Spain did it. And maybe they did fall to
outside forces - but the Spanish revolution was in no way "fractious." They
were just as good and in some cases better than their authoritarian
counterparts. Spain in the end did not succeed because an overwhelming amount
of force by several different governments moved in and stifled it - eventually
stopping it dead in it's tracks. If the US, UK, and France decided to move into
1 country - even if that country is authoritarian, with a strong military and
"good values" etc. it would still lose. The Spanish revolution was a wonderful
example of anarchy working, not failing. It was stopped only because
massive forces brought it down. Had the movement been bigger, it would have
been much more difficult to squash.
"Anarchy means no laws...find a way to kill you...perfectly alright
to do so...rape your wife and get away with it. I face no penalty if you cannot
bring force to bear on me."
This is the most common comment. Just about everyone asks it, including
yours truly. First of all, in an anarchist society - the motivation to do such
things would be far less. It is in anarchists opinion (this is all in the Anarchist FAQ, btw),
that these problems, like killing and raping and stealing, are problems
caused by authority and authority structures. Since these structures and
mindsets would not exist - the breeding ground for anti-social behavior (read:
crime) would not exist, and so these occurences would be much less prevalent.
Now, when things like killing or raping do happen - what would an
anarchist society do? Well for one thing, we wouldn't just execute you. Revenge
solves nothing, and it usually just makes the problem worse. We would try to
help you, and we would desire to know why you did what you did.
Anarchists wish to attack the problems of society at the roots and not after
the fact. Killing a killer does nothing - it does not prevent further killers
from killing, all it does it satisfy peoples fears. People are shaped by the
society they live in, the types of relationships they have, and many other
interactions. This means that is it a problem with society and how things work
when killers kill and rapers rape (again, all of what I am telling you is in
the FAQ, I strongly request that you read it). Instead of killing you - we
would help you. Now, I expect you to disagree with me here. Most people do. Oh
well, then you are of differing opinion. The only other case is if I am a
complete psycho and I kill people over and over, raping as I do it. I kill the
people that attempt to help me, and so on. Then the city or commune as a whole
(keep in mind, anarchist "cities" would be much smaller than the cities you
are used to) would come together and make a decision on whether or not the
person should be executed or banished or what. Direct democracy, remember. To
suggest that in anarchy we would allow killing to take place shows that you do
not understand what I "preach" - for some direct information on this subject, I
suggest section A.2.4 of the FAQ, Are
anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?. Several other sections cover
the topic of crime and such, exercise for the reader (The FAQ is rather
lengthly, but reading it in whole helps alot, as much of it assumes that you
have read other parts as well).
In short, me killing you to stop you from raping my wife is not wrong.
Self-defense as well. La dee da, it is all in the FAQ if you do not
understand.
Anyways, I must be getting back to studying now - I would love to continue
this through email if
you would like.
..."no 'noble' goal in mind other than to preach anarchy."
..."endows the Seattle protestors with honor they don't deserve."
I am an anarchist. That means I believe that authority and hierarchy are bad, and that the best way to secure or liberties and freedoms are to instill an anti-authoritarian mindset in people - so that such authority can not take their freedom away. Anarchy is a very noble goal, indeed. If you actually research what it means, and what anarchists stand for. I suggest you read the Anarchist FAQ. Protests and revolution bring about violence. It takes violence to take down violence.
Remember the Boston Tea Party? Those guys were just destroying things, right? They had no noble goal at all, right? Other than free themselves of terrible government and escape from a terrible economic system (run a google for the revolutionaries' opposition to the British's economic system, about their opposition towards big business - you may be suprised).
The people at Seattle were in no way less honorable than those at Tiannamen Square. Sure - there were some, perhaps even many, at S/WTO that looted and destroyed - but that does not void the protest's purpose. That's like hating all Christians because of past persecutions by large Christian groups or hating them for several radical Christians who have done some very Bad Things.
Seattle had a purpose, and it was not just pointless vandalism. It was an act against authority - no matter if vandals were present - the primary purpose of the protest was not vandalism. Please, do not paint an entire movement with one brush.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
A segment of the population decided to protest in their own interests. The government did not like this, and after failed attempts to break up the protests they decided that violence was the only way to stop it. "It" being the active display of the group's desires.
The WTO incident was just as fucked up. Who cares if it was a movement for anarchy anyways? I am an anarchist. Killing people does not become any less brutal just because those you have killed are in radical disagreement with your views. Killing an anarchist is no less horrific than killing anyone else.
Protests, by their very nature, are intended to disrupt. Otherwise, they are just governmentally sanctioned propaganda in order to try and "show" the people that they are free. That's bullshit, and it undermines the whole idea of protest.
Like in many areas of the united states you have to acquire a permit for a demonstration - or you are breaking the law. Hmmm, I seem to remember a very famous document that guaranteed citizens the right to assembly. Not permission to assemble only if it is authorized by certain governmental bodies. Oh, but I forgot, the United States of America is a Dictatorship.
Back on topic anyway, if the protests disrupted the cities that much, then there is a problem anyways. A problem that killing will not solve.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
I suggest that you go read the Anarchist FAQ. It's amazing
how little people know about anarchy, even those who think they know.
You're logic is precisely what anarchists actively protest. Anarchists would
not come to the same conditioned authoritarian hierarchal solutions that you
and your kind would. You've been conditioned to rely upon authority to keep
your world in order - so when you attempt to contemplate a world without
authority and police, without Big Brother and the Thought Police, you don't
know what to think. You are, in the simplest sense, confused. I was too. At
first.
The person who would "kill the guy across the street for his schweet new gaming
rig" is a product of our society. Within anarchy, his motivations would not
exist. Ask yourself why Mr. Killer would kill the guy across the street.
What are some of the things that could spark that behavior? Maybe he is stuck
in a dead-end job and makes next to nothing, while the guy with his nifty
gaming rig posseses it only because he is living off the blood, sweat, and
tears of hard working wage slaves. That would never exist in an anarchist
society. But do not get me wrong - I am not saying that anarchy would be a
Utopia. I'm just saying that your assumptions about behavior within an
anarchist society are wrong. You can't expect people in a radically different
societal structure to have the same moral/ethical attitudes as those within the
current system.
So lets assume that Mr. Killer was just a psycopath -
and that no matter how different of a society, would still kill someone for his
posessions. How would the anarchist society "deal with that"? First of all, the
first thing society would do is ask themselves what motivated this person to do
such a thing in the first place. If it was because he was a psychopath, than
that case is no different than if it were within a hierarchal society. Most
crimes are crimes of passion, and thus un-preventable. The most important thing
to understand is that the society will try their very hardest to find the
cause of the problem and then attempt to remove, or minimize, that cause.
The formation of a Shaman is not necessary, and this idea only shows how
conditioned you and most others are. you are dependent on the authoritarian
ideal - it directs every decision you make, believe it or not.
You assume that "people in general will want/need at least a little structure".
Wrong. People in an anarchistic society will be there of their own free will,
and nobody needsauthoritarian structure. Alow me to quote the
Anarchist FAQ:
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organisation may seem strange at
first, but this is because we live in a society in which virtually all
forms of organisation are authoritarian, making them appear to be the
only kind possible. What is usually not recognised is that this mode of
organisation is historically conditioned, arising within a specific
kind of society -- one whose motive principles are domination and
exploitation. According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with
the first primitive states based on conquest and slavery, in which the
labour of slaves created a surplus which supported a ruling class.
[ The Anarchist FAQ, Section A.2.3 ]
The anarchist society will have structure, it will just be very
different from the structure you are familiar with. Read the FAQ, it's all
there...
I sincerely hope that you realize the inhumanity your.sig represents. And unless I am missing some subtle irony here that makes it inoffensive, which I doubt, you make me fucking sick.
I'm going to assume your.sig is referring to the Middle East, or more precisely, Afghanistan. Did you know that most Afghan's hate the Taliban? Why should they suffer because of what the Taliban or bin Laden did? The answer is, of course, they shouldn't. You see - racist/ignorant fucks like you are the reason anti-American activity is rising over there - when people support the killing and torturing of innocent civilians - the tendency to hate those people rises. It's people like you that make me hate this country.
So why don't you think your fucking.sig over and contemplate that maybe, just maybe, not every brown-skinned person living in the Middle East is a terrorist. Although attitudes like your's may spawn more.
Slashdot Mirror
That is because the United States is not a democracy. It is supposed to be a democratic republic - of course, the educated know otherwise.
Care to tell me how the American Revolutionaries beat the British? Put aside the fact that they were not anarchist - they were still much more "fractious" than the British army. What you stated there is an excellent example of the type of propaganda the British government would have had you believe. "The American colonists are weak - I mean - we are much more organized, civilized. We will surely win." Of course, they lost their asses.
And on the assumption that an anarchist society would be "fractious" - bullshit. That is just wrong. It's pro-authoritarian propaganda, with no rational basis whatsoever. Spain did it. And maybe they did fall to outside forces - but the Spanish revolution was in no way "fractious." They were just as good and in some cases better than their authoritarian counterparts. Spain in the end did not succeed because an overwhelming amount of force by several different governments moved in and stifled it - eventually stopping it dead in it's tracks. If the US, UK, and France decided to move into 1 country - even if that country is authoritarian, with a strong military and "good values" etc. it would still lose. The Spanish revolution was a wonderful example of anarchy working, not failing. It was stopped only because massive forces brought it down. Had the movement been bigger, it would have been much more difficult to squash.
This is the most common comment. Just about everyone asks it, including yours truly. First of all, in an anarchist society - the motivation to do such things would be far less. It is in anarchists opinion (this is all in the Anarchist FAQ, btw), that these problems, like killing and raping and stealing, are problems caused by authority and authority structures. Since these structures and mindsets would not exist - the breeding ground for anti-social behavior (read: crime) would not exist, and so these occurences would be much less prevalent.
Now, when things like killing or raping do happen - what would an anarchist society do? Well for one thing, we wouldn't just execute you. Revenge solves nothing, and it usually just makes the problem worse. We would try to help you, and we would desire to know why you did what you did. Anarchists wish to attack the problems of society at the roots and not after the fact. Killing a killer does nothing - it does not prevent further killers from killing, all it does it satisfy peoples fears. People are shaped by the society they live in, the types of relationships they have, and many other interactions. This means that is it a problem with society and how things work when killers kill and rapers rape (again, all of what I am telling you is in the FAQ, I strongly request that you read it). Instead of killing you - we would help you. Now, I expect you to disagree with me here. Most people do. Oh well, then you are of differing opinion. The only other case is if I am a complete psycho and I kill people over and over, raping as I do it. I kill the people that attempt to help me, and so on. Then the city or commune as a whole (keep in mind, anarchist "cities" would be much smaller than the cities you are used to) would come together and make a decision on whether or not the person should be executed or banished or what. Direct democracy, remember. To suggest that in anarchy we would allow killing to take place shows that you do not understand what I "preach" - for some direct information on this subject, I suggest section A.2.4 of the FAQ, Are anarchists in favour of "absolute" liberty?. Several other sections cover the topic of crime and such, exercise for the reader (The FAQ is rather lengthly, but reading it in whole helps alot, as much of it assumes that you have read other parts as well).
In short, me killing you to stop you from raping my wife is not wrong. Self-defense as well. La dee da, it is all in the FAQ if you do not understand.
Anyways, I must be getting back to studying now - I would love to continue this through email if you would like...."no 'noble' goal in mind other than to preach anarchy."
..."endows the Seattle protestors with honor they don't deserve."
I am an anarchist. That means I believe that authority and hierarchy are bad, and that the best way to secure or liberties and freedoms are to instill an anti-authoritarian mindset in people - so that such authority can not take their freedom away. Anarchy is a very noble goal, indeed. If you actually research what it means, and what anarchists stand for. I suggest you read the Anarchist FAQ. Protests and revolution bring about violence. It takes violence to take down violence.
Remember the Boston Tea Party? Those guys were just destroying things, right? They had no noble goal at all, right? Other than free themselves of terrible government and escape from a terrible economic system (run a google for the revolutionaries' opposition to the British's economic system, about their opposition towards big business - you may be suprised).
The people at Seattle were in no way less honorable than those at Tiannamen Square. Sure - there were some, perhaps even many, at S/WTO that looted and destroyed - but that does not void the protest's purpose. That's like hating all Christians because of past persecutions by large Christian groups or hating them for several radical Christians who have done some very Bad Things.
Seattle had a purpose, and it was not just pointless vandalism. It was an act against authority - no matter if vandals were present - the primary purpose of the protest was not vandalism. Please, do not paint an entire movement with one brush.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
A segment of the population decided to protest in their own interests. The government did not like this, and after failed attempts to break up the protests they decided that violence was the only way to stop it. "It" being the active display of the group's desires.
The WTO incident was just as fucked up. Who cares if it was a movement for anarchy anyways? I am an anarchist. Killing people does not become any less brutal just because those you have killed are in radical disagreement with your views. Killing an anarchist is no less horrific than killing anyone else.
Protests, by their very nature, are intended to disrupt. Otherwise, they are just governmentally sanctioned propaganda in order to try and "show" the people that they are free. That's bullshit, and it undermines the whole idea of protest.
Like in many areas of the united states you have to acquire a permit for a demonstration - or you are breaking the law. Hmmm, I seem to remember a very famous document that guaranteed citizens the right to assembly. Not permission to assemble only if it is authorized by certain governmental bodies. Oh, but I forgot, the United States of America is a Dictatorship.
Back on topic anyway, if the protests disrupted the cities that much, then there is a problem anyways. A problem that killing will not solve.
We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
You're logic is precisely what anarchists actively protest. Anarchists would not come to the same conditioned authoritarian hierarchal solutions that you and your kind would. You've been conditioned to rely upon authority to keep your world in order - so when you attempt to contemplate a world without authority and police, without Big Brother and the Thought Police, you don't know what to think. You are, in the simplest sense, confused. I was too. At first.
The person who would "kill the guy across the street for his schweet new gaming rig" is a product of our society. Within anarchy, his motivations would not exist. Ask yourself why Mr. Killer would kill the guy across the street. What are some of the things that could spark that behavior? Maybe he is stuck in a dead-end job and makes next to nothing, while the guy with his nifty gaming rig posseses it only because he is living off the blood, sweat, and tears of hard working wage slaves. That would never exist in an anarchist society. But do not get me wrong - I am not saying that anarchy would be a Utopia. I'm just saying that your assumptions about behavior within an anarchist society are wrong. You can't expect people in a radically different societal structure to have the same moral/ethical attitudes as those within the current system.
So lets assume that Mr. Killer was just a psycopath - and that no matter how different of a society, would still kill someone for his posessions. How would the anarchist society "deal with that"? First of all, the first thing society would do is ask themselves what motivated this person to do such a thing in the first place. If it was because he was a psychopath, than that case is no different than if it were within a hierarchal society. Most crimes are crimes of passion, and thus un-preventable. The most important thing to understand is that the society will try their very hardest to find the cause of the problem and then attempt to remove, or minimize, that cause. The formation of a Shaman is not necessary, and this idea only shows how conditioned you and most others are. you are dependent on the authoritarian ideal - it directs every decision you make, believe it or not.
You assume that "people in general will want/need at least a little structure". Wrong. People in an anarchistic society will be there of their own free will, and nobody needs authoritarian structure. Alow me to quote the Anarchist FAQ:
The anarchist society will have structure, it will just be very different from the structure you are familiar with. Read the FAQ, it's all there...
I sincerely hope that you realize the inhumanity your .sig represents. And unless I am missing some subtle irony here that makes it inoffensive, which I doubt, you make me fucking sick.
.sig is referring to the Middle East, or more precisely, Afghanistan. Did you know that most Afghan's hate the Taliban? Why should they suffer because of what the Taliban or bin Laden did? The answer is, of course, they shouldn't. You see - racist/ignorant fucks like you are the reason anti-American activity is rising over there - when people support the killing and torturing of innocent civilians - the tendency to hate those people rises. It's people like you that make me hate this country.
.sig over and contemplate that maybe, just maybe, not every brown-skinned person living in the Middle East is a terrorist. Although attitudes like your's may spawn more.
I'm going to assume your
So why don't you think your fucking
Heh - well, my name is derived from Moloch, The Corruptor from the first season. Most people just assume my name is Corry or something.
I know this is offtopic, but my head is beginning to hurt from everything going on lately.
.sig kicks ass. That's my favorite quote from him (Spike).
Anyways, that