Thread: Anarchy

Anarchy is an interesting concept. It doesn't have to be a complete lack of federal power, as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush. I don't know much about the subject myself, but ideas presented in these videos intrigue me.





As for the state of the world, I tend to agree with you. Our commercial culture in general is really starting to make me sick and the fact that I'm a 100% manufactured product of it doesn't help at all. I often question why we need all this. I guess on one hand its just a natural evolution of our human tendency to overpopulate. I've heard that without all this federal/commercial culture we can't sustain nearly this many people on Earth.

And what are we even moving towards? The only difference I see between us and cavemen is the fact that we live longer, get less exercise, and have inhibitions. And that we want to try to 'figure out' the universe (as though there's some magic linguistic dogma out there that can explain every intricacy of it). I'd rather just live half a life without the inhibitions. Fearing death is just absurd.

Still, I'm optimistic though. My friends and I often joke about starting an anarchist commune here in Vermont somewhere, maybe if we're lucky one day it'll actually happen . Try not to let the negativity get to you. Ever since the human ego came into its own things have been like this to some degree. Part of overcoming it is learning to accept the good and the bad for the facts they are, Taoist style. Any negative reactions is just that cultured ego talking .

Originally Posted by Speesh

Anarchy is an interesting concept. It doesn't have to be a complete lack of federal power, as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush. I don't know much about the subject myself, but ideas presented in these videos intrigue me.

UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy.

Yeah, so does the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

an⋅ar⋅chy  /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kee] Show IPA

–noun 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.4.confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

edit, nevermind.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

–noun 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.4.confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Then WTF? We agree on the definition.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then WTF? We agree on the definition.

Not exactly:

as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush.

That is the opposite of the definition.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not exactly:

That is the opposite of the definition.

I think the theory is wrong, but we agree on what the theory is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Actually this is a good definition. This is what most people are advocating when they talk about anarchy in a political debate.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy.

and yet you have a very strange understanding of anarchy when compared to the works of a number of anarchist thinkers. I remember you as the anarcho-capitalist. Its not as simple as anarchy is this or anarchy is that. There are numerous different understandings of the term as is the case with all political distinctions. If i remember rightly you support the replacement of the state protection in the form of police with private militias that are hired with currency. To me that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard attempt to be rationalized. and yet you call yourself an anarchists, when most anarchists would call you a capitalist pig. So there you see is the problem, anarchism is huge with many specific "denominations". Threads like this one, and the communism one should be more specific.

Originally Posted by imran_p

and yet you have a very strange understanding of anarchy when compared to the works of a number of anarchist thinkers. I remember you as the anarcho-capitalist. Its not as simple as anarchy is this or anarchy is that. There are numerous different understandings of the term as is the case with all political distinctions. If i remember rightly you support the replacement of the state protection in the form of police with private militias that are hired with currency. To me that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard attempt to be rationalized. and yet you call yourself an anarchists, when most anarchists would call you a capitalist pig. So there you see is the problem, anarchism is huge with many specific "denominations". Threads like this one, and the communism one should be more specific.

For one, my statement was aimed at UM's belief that, in anarchy, peace, law, and order would be thrown out the window and society would become a clusterfuck of killings and immoral behavior -- a common belief whenever any sort of anarchist argument is put forth.

Second, I claim that the only way any sort of sustainable anarchy to occur is through the market process. That includes private security and the like. You call that absurd, I call it historically proven fact (in that people do use private security agencies when the monopolistic State security is cut back).

Also, I don't claim that there is only one type of "anarchy." I recognize that there are other schools of thought, ranging from anarcho-environmentalists to anarcho-feminists. I just think they are crazy and would never come to fruition.

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.





?

Originally Posted by guerilla

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.

?

What if someone doesn't want to live under that government?

Originally Posted by guerilla

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.





?

If that could work, it would be awesome. They could be programmed to take all of the public information humanity has to offer and decide on how to have the best economy and the best ways to defend against terrorists and so forth. It might be where we are headed. The only problem is getting those already in power to ever agree to it.

Too many new age morons on this forum, it's a shame because lucid dreaming is a very real practice.

This threat is a testament to the inability for the majority of the forum's members to employ rationale. It also pisses me off when all discussions descend in to spiritualist delusions. Terrance McKenna is a stoned retard, who appeals to those who see escapism as a full time hobby. The fact that he was mentioned highlights the unfortunate appeal of this forum to the deluded.

No wonder lucid dreaming is a subject seldom touched on by science, despite its enticing potential. Hopefully, it will one day be reclaimed by the mentally stable.

Oh and, so that this post is on-topic, Anarchism is utterly futile. The arguments you have posed against me have been weak and anecdotal. It is most unfortunate that, despite losing the argument, you won't even consider repositioning your political ideas.

Originally Posted by guerilla

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.





?

I realize that this is just a reaction to a poorly run government, but it is this very mentality that lead to the government we have now. All you are proposing is that we pass off responsibility for our own lives to yet another set of governors. Essentially what you are describing is a modern day version of every government ever created by people to control themselves. "We'll elect people so they have to represent us and their will be laws so they can't do anything that we don't agree with". I assume your idea comes from the belief that robots can't be corrupted, but all you are doing is putting the power in the hands of those that program them.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I realize that this is just a reaction to a poorly run government, but it is this very mentality that lead to the government we have now. All you are proposing is that we pass off responsibility for our own lives to yet another set of governors. Essentially what you are describing is a modern day version of every government ever created by people to control themselves. "We'll elect people so they have to represent us and their will be laws so they can't do anything that we don't agree with". I assume your idea comes from the belief that robots can't be corrupted, but all you are doing is putting the power in the hands of those that program them.

That's true, but im no societal designer so obviously my society would have been filled with flaws lol.

I just wish that misery, suffering, pain, anger, conflict and war would be under control and minimal at best.

Why can't we put aside greed and class and race and just unite, unite as a human race NOT as a one world government/one world nation

As you can see, we will probably not unite in the 21'st or 22nd century, look at us

look at what were doing in this very thread, arguing over 'ideas' and politics, we cannot even get along on a forum thread, how can we all get along in physical form, in reality?

How can the human race stop dividing and unite if we can't even peacefully disagree and agree with each other?