Anarchy

[Amokster]

Since me and AITUK are having so much fun...here's one for him:

Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology?

On 1st May 2000, the London May Day Carnival against Capitalism, a peaceful demonstration against capitalism, turned into a riot that led to the defacing of the Cenotaph and millions of pounds worth of damage to City buildings. Similar violence has been seen at other large-scale anti-capitalism protests, such as at the World Trade Organisation

 

[anarchyintheuk]

Since me and AITUK are having so much fun...here's one for him:

Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology?

On 1st May 2000, the London May Day Carnival against Capitalism, a peaceful demonstration against capitalism, turned into a riot that led to the defacing of the Cenotaph and millions of pounds worth of damage to City buildings. Similar violence has been seen at other large-scale anti-capitalism protests, such as at the World Trade Organisation

 

[phreakwars]

Absolutely. And it is implemented everywhere around you.

Its called controlled chaos.

What is Anarchy but an absence of any common standard or practice.

Break away from the "USUAL" rules until the new "ANARCHIST" rule is deemed a law, and therefore no longer anarchy.
.
.

 

[Amokster]

You guys know I have to argue the other side of it now right?

Anarchism is marked by exactly this sort of utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing people, anarchy allows them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. What is more, a state allows industries to be organised and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and unrealistic approach to serious political matters.

 

[Amokster]

Take your time with this one guys...I'm out! See ya tomorrow!

 

[anarchyintheuk]

You guys know I have to argue the other side of it now right?

Anarchism is marked by exactly this sort of utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing people, anarchy allows them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. What is more, a state allows industries to be organised and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and unrealistic approach to serious political matters.

And of course, I have to disagree, Anarchism isn't at all political, that is the entire point in it, it says "**** the system lets be real people of an unreal nation". As far as the phisical force part of anarchism, I have never agreed that taking lives of officials and cops can solve something. On the other hand when I hear the word "anarchism" I think freedom from the restraints of rediculous laws, and bullshit that the government throws down your throut like pills.


AITUK

 

[Amokster]

Regardless of whether Anarchism itself is political or not there are certain issues that need to be dealt with. One I already mentioned, the strong preying on the weak. How about basic sanity needs? Power, water...protection from other countries that may want to take advantage?

Anarchism solves none of these issues, simply (like I said before) portrays the image of blissful ignorance where these problems solve themselves.

As far as the phisical force part of anarchism, I have never agreed that taking lives of officials and cops can solve something. On the other hand when I hear the word "anarchism" I think freedom from the restraints of rediculous laws, and bullshit that the government throws down your throut like pills.

I agree with the fact that there are many problems with democracy, or with any other form of government. But these can all be solved within the state structure, by delegating power downwards into regional government, and by proposing more frequent changes to the system. Every government has been changing since it was concieved. It is naive to think that doing away with it all will solve anything. There is no need to do away with the state altogether.

 

[mattthebuddha]

Hey AITUK. If you took all government away, there would be killing and murder abound. And if humans have nothing controling them, there is nothing stoping them from doing anything bad i.e. rape, beat. But when someone is raped and/or beaten, you want to make rules against it. The someone has to enforce those laws. Governer?? No. The people. But since the people don't want government in which they are like a big police force, they will not conform. Then you have plain chaos.

 

[Ruse]

Anarchy is an idealistic disease. And people will say "In a perfect world..."
No, we're not in the perfect world, let's not analyze that.
Anarchy is the idea of the absolute lack of law. That, in itself is a law. It is a principle that could not ever be followed by natural humans.
How does anarchy address any of the issues that holds society up, such as Economics, Homeland security, etc.? UWould economics work just as it does it, anyways? Do you actually think that could work, a capatalistic economic system in anarchy? Who is going to organize and pay for civil services, when there's anarchy? Unless, of course, you like being trampled by other countries who are militarily much stronger than your self? No? I didn't think so.
For anarchy to have a chance at working politically, the whole world would have to literally go crazy so that no country becomes a political power. Anarchy is for shroom-smoking hippies who's only credit to them politically is that they want peace. Then their supporters are less than that, even, because a world of that caliber of chaos looks inviting. So, now you have deadbeat good-for-nothing extremist liberals supporting these peace-loving hippies. Etc., etc. Then, when you get that chaos, what happens?
As a rule of human nature, absolute lack of law should work exactly opposite than everyone cynically thinks. If everyone can do their own thing, this is good, no?
But, to ruin it for the others, the ones who 'do their very own thing' go and do exactly that. Do you know how many normal appearing people are actually mentally unstable? TONS. So, then you have a ton of mentally unstable people (pyromaniacs, manic depressive, masochists, etc) Setting forest fires, killing people on whims, othes abuducting for slaves, etc.
Another thing: SLAVES. In anarchy, taking someone as a slave would be perfectly legal.
How'd ya like them apples?