Why would anyone want to be an Anarchist? What would be different in an anarchic society?
If you're dreaming about living as a highwayman and wasting your time with pillaging and raping, I got bad news for you: there'd still be the law and people who enforce it. NOTHING that's illegal now would be any more legal under anarchy.
If you choose anarcho-communism, the first thing to do is to kill and loot rich people. After that, in theory, you'd be so happy you wouldn't want to commit any crimes. However, in case you're not: you gonna get raped by the Invisible Dictatorship. Those are people who make sure everything works as intended by killing citizens whom they see as not anarchistic enough - without giving an official statement because they don't want to be the government of course.
And then there's anarcho-capitalism. Those who want laws would pay the others to obey them and pay a private police agency to enforce it. You'd walk into a police office and go "I want to sign up for the following laws: 1.Don't take heroin. 2.Drive on the right side of the road. 3.Don't rape kids." At some point the citizen would be so pissed of by free rides, they'd either go back and start paying taxes or do the same shit the anarcho-commies do.
Either way you haven't gained any more freedums BUT since there's no government you lost something EXTREMELY FUCKING IMPORTANT: your country couldn't participate in international politics.
Second, NO ONE WANTS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. Anarchists don't want wars, "free trade" agreements, United Nations observers, peacekeepers or inspectors, or any other bullshit that limits their freedoms.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 13:25
>>6
ISOLATING ONESELF SURE IS A SMART THING TO DO
Dumbass Anarchists.
>>9
Isolationism can only exist under a government. How's that you fucking retard? Couldn't figure that one out on your own?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 18:31
>>10
Oh god, you're such a dumbass.
Since you like equasions I'll put it like this for you:
not participating in international politics = isolation
→ other countries are invited to fuck you over
So much for "l2Anarchism", you fucknig furfag. With so little political education your version of Anarchism only exists in the vacuum that you call head.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-06 18:33
>>11
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).
But, Palin is an anarchist. Just because she's McCain's VP pick, doesn't mean that went away.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 0:52
ITT: McCain is making the republicans look bad! BAWWWWWW! It's all part of the anarchist-liberal conspiracy! BAWWWWWWWWWW!
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 6:25
>>23 >>24 >>25
samefag
you lost the battle you little cunt
better luck next time
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 7:31
No, 24 and 25 were the same guy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 8:20
split personality or not
same body = samefag
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 10:45
I don't belong to any subculture or group yet I'm more unique than any of them.
I see so many ungrateful and ignorant people many belonging to the emo and scene subcultures talk about how "Anarchy is cool" when at the same time they're wearing mass-produced clothing imported from China, Pakistan, and Malaysia, cosmetics, hair coloring, jewelry, piercings, and of course they're using iPods with hundreds of iTunes, mobile cellular phones, and computers with Internet access which are all a result of global trade and the existence of governments. They wouldn't last a day in the wilderness with no access to running water or electricity.
As for the ones wearing Che Guevara T-shirts who talk about how "Communism is cool", none of them have ever held a shovel or done a day of manual labor in their lives. They don't know anything about the struggle of workers and peasants.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 11:21
>>29
Thank you for sharing your pathinc life story with us. Would you kindly GTFO now?
The fucking retarded leftist teenage fashion phase some people go through makes me sick to my stomach. How so much retardation can be put in such a small thing (i.e. their brain) begers belief.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 14:33
>>26
2, 6, 8, etc were me, fuck face, but 23 was someone else. You come into an anarchy thread with horrible arguments and offer nothing to support your position. Of course someone is going to tell you that you lost. You got fucking owned, now go cry somewhere else, faggot.
>>29
Government isn't responsible for anything of the things that you listed, dumbass. Government just gets in the way of these things. Government doesn't provide you with running water or electricity either. l2anarchy. None of you fucking govfags have any idea what you're talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 14:37
>>32
5, 7, 9, etc were me, fuck face, but 23 was YOU. You come into an anarchy thread with NO arguments and offer nothing to support your position. Of course someone is going to tell you that you lost. You got fucking owned, now go cry somewhere else, faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 14:43
>>32
By the way, why did you bother to come back again? Spent the last night reading Wikipedia and now you feel like you're ready get your ass handed to you a second time, or what?
>>34
Maybe I had shit to do yesterday and didn't want to waste my time with someone that can't put together a logically consistent argument.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 14:59
>>35
Well then, here's your chance to make up for your miserable performance last evening.
Go, champ!
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:02
>>36
Actually, we left off with you requiring justification for your claim that anarchist communities are "isolated."
Go, champ!
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:12
>>37
No, we already established that you fail at semantics.
What's left is you have to explain how your personal version of anarchism would be different for Bakunin's or Rothbard's in which your anarchist country had a seat in the UN and was able to negotiate treaties with its neighbors.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:14
>>38
No, sorry. I'm guessing you can't justify your claim. Your point is defeated. In other words, YOU LOSE.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:19
>>39
Hoho, and here he runs again!
You sure are luck that only like 3 people visit this board. Losing your face like that - your parents would probably disown you if they'd seen that.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:23
>>40
I haven't made any claims in the affirmative. I have nothing to prove. It suffices to say that I am skeptical of government in any form because history is filled with its abuses.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:38
>>41
LETS NOT CHANGE THE TOPIC
You claimed I was wrong. You know how negation works?
That's right, you say ¬isolated = true.
AND
>Second, NO ONE WANTS INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. Anarchists don't want wars, "free trade" agreements, United Nations observers, peacekeepers or inspectors, or any other bullshit that limits their freedoms
Now you better start writing your thesis. (How about with the title: "I might contradict myself but I'm not, I swear!")
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 15:47
>>42
The better question is, do you know how debate works?
And I stand by my statement that anarchists are disinterested in international politics simply because they have nothing to gain. Anarchist communities would have volunteer militias with all modern military weapons (there's no laws prohibiting arms) and high economic output for deterrence, so there's no need for entangling alliances. But that's not to say they wouldn't fight on the same side as another state against a common enemy. However, enemy states would only be designated as such after an aggressive provocation on behalf of the state.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 16:02
>>43 First, l2anarchy. Anarchy != Isolationism. l2anarchy Also, l2politics. lulz l2anarchy <-- I'm just going to leave that there. Have a nice day.
SO, THAT'S HOW DEBATES WORK, MAH BOI
And the second part shows how much you fail at international politics.
Behaving like that would make them mercenaries which means execution of captured soldiers and sanctions from the UN.
Breaking sanctions → LOL NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST
But they won't even get that far because unrestricted arms trade would already get them really high on the United States' "Countries to liberate"-list.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 16:29
>>44
>However, enemy states would only be designated as such after an aggressive provocation on behalf of the state.
Try again.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-07 16:49
>>45
Haha, and you wanted to tell me something about the high art of debate.
Quit grasping for straws and suck it up: You don't know shit about political philosophy.
I even let it slide that you claimed there wouldn't be laws against gun ownership.
No brand of Anarchism is, as of now, not mature enough to be applied to a sovereign country.
The pinkos were at least were smart enough to see that in order to survive for more than a year it has to happen world wide.
>>66
Worked pretty damn good considering we're the envy of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-08 15:59
>>68
Except it's no longer a limited government by any means and we're seeing huge stagnation because of it. We'll see how much longer we are the "envy" of the world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-08 18:49
>>69
But I thought gigantic gov't like socialist Europe has was the model to follow, according to the democrats...
I used to want anarchy. But that requires changing an entire country and somehow making it work with the rest of the world.
Now I've just settled on becoming a criminal.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-29 20:20
You are all a bunch of retards. . .
Someone made an argument, and then for 30+ responses it's just dumbasses trying to get around arguing. It doesn't matter who started it, fucking put some content into your posts goddamn.
Using leftist retard highschoolers as a strawman against anarchists. Not cool.
The majority of those scene/punk/emo kids,as previously mentioned, just think their wrong idea about Anarchy is cool. That has nothing to do with Anarchy, or real anarchists.
As for anarchy on a national level, it would have to be a non-hierarchical alliance for trade and defence purposes.
For international trade, you would have to work out something more, likely individual communes would have to initiate contact based on it's own communal needs. International politics would be harder, as the concept of a nation doesn't really fit with a collection of sovereign communes. You can't really give thousands of communes their own seat at the table, but there is no controlling structure overseeing all the communes, because with that hierarchy, you'd be something besides anarchist.
But it's definitely retarded to say managing anarchy on a national level is impossible.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-29 20:23
>>82
Not necessarily. The alternative is well, still criminal I guess, but you could just gather a group of likeminded anarchists, and do your own thing. You don't have to change an entire nation. You just have to change your own situation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-29 20:32
>>83
Ok, so what stops communes banding together and forming a nation with laws, police and an army if they want to? Why do they prefer living in 1000s of medieval villages?
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-29 20:54
Why does a commune need to be "medival"?
You think that forming huge cities is the key to technology? "If we all band together, it'll be like magic *poof* technology"
You can have comfortable lifestyles in small communities. The one hurdle is taking our advances in manufacturing, and small scaling them down to fit community needs.
What stops communities from making laws? Nothing. If that's what they want, then it would be oppressive to not allow it. So long as they don't try to impose those laws by force on others. The essence of anarchy is lack of oppression, thats why it's technically about freedom, but you aren't "free" to horde things, attack others without reason etc. Thats the difference between mad max lord of the flies bullshit propaganda and real anarchy. As its not a national model, but a nation sized grouping of communities, you can't tell another commune what they can and can't do, and likewise, they can't tell you. Of course thats all theory, and no practice. Of course, this assumes everyone participating is volunteering to do so, at least for the first generation or two, otherwise they wouldn't have started a commune/joined a commune, but eventually, people may feel they'd rather have a hierarchy, for whatever reason, and as it's not national, they'd be able to do that, given the community doing so agrees. The alliance for defence and trade would be in place to stop them from trying to force others.
If suddenly 80% of the communes decide to pull a 180 and want to be a dictatorship, and force the other 20%, yeah, they are fucked, but that would happen in any system where 80% of the people want one thing, and 20% want the other.
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 16:48
>>83 >>86
Seeing how you don't refer to an anarchist theorist and pull some ridiculous shit out of your ass instead, I'd say you're a leftist retard highschooler
Name:
Anonymous2008-09-30 20:02
so wtf is anarchy?
What would radicaly change if i was to become an anarchist?
aside from the personal hygene ramifications and bad hair.
Name:
I YAM AN ANARCHIST2008-09-30 23:00
I yam an Antichrist
I don't know what I want but I know how to get it
I want to DEEESTROY the passerby
Name:
Anonymous2008-10-03 11:45
>>86
An Anarchy however has no power structure, you have to use autonomy all the time even if it is completely impractical, people will never want that and even the most devout anarchists when faced with poverty will very quickly form arrangements resembling government.
>You think that forming huge cities is the key to technology?
No, but it is a prerequisite if you want to use that technology. An industrial economy needed to satiate the demands of even the most poorest countries would consist of 100s of different sectors, all interconnected and vital, each consisting of a large, educated, skilled and organised workforce.