Welcome to the THE WRITERS FORUM brought to you by 12ozPROPHET...
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access to view our discussions, photos and other forum features. By joining THE WRITERS FORUM community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access other member only features. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join THE WRITERS FORUM today and be a part of the largest and longest running graffiti, street arts and popular culture forum online!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Villain---Welcome to the "Sixties." Oh, wait. That was thirty-five years ago. Never mind. This is all totally different and the young people of today are going to change the world. Good luck.
\"I\'d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than any city on earth\" Steve McQueen
christania functions, but it's not a truly 'autonomous' society. it is pretty much completely dependent on the drug trade and the 'tourist' trade. not all anarchist co-op's would be so lucky. they also utilize the danish medical facilities i assume, since i dont remember noticing any hospitals when i was there.
when a house full of 8 like-minded people manage to co-exist, that is not an example of sucessful 'anarchism', it's 8 motherfuckers managing to get along. ever tried getting 10 people to agree on someplace for dinner, without one person just stepping up and playing dictator? it doesnt happen.
anarchy is gay.
look, we'll cross the "hesh accidentally shot himself in the ass" bridge when we come to it. no homo
*BLACK OUT POSSE*
I don't think it's so much about getting people to agree as it is to accept peoples differences.
Hakim Bey describes "normal" society as homogenous and separated from one another.
Anarchist society as different and unified.
Not the most detailed explaination but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
And well Kabar I would say grassroot movements have been making alot of change. For instance the importance of the internet for democratic campaigns and also this current voting fraud investigations going on. We cannot expect much help from up top with all three branches of government controlled by republicans.
And in the sixties there was much social change as well. So it's not like these efforts are in vain. Difficult yes, hopeless, no.
"The TSOG stalketh the land and the serfs bow and worship it. It stealeth property, it burneth neighborhoods, it foully killeth all opposition. Ye think it only doth its violence to black people, or Hispanics, or kooks with odd religions, but its hand is at your own throat even now. TSOG fthagn! What--are ye stupid, or something?"
--Abdul Alhazred, The TSOGonomicon
This is quite true, social changes in increments are possible. I wasn't interested in struggling thirty or forty years for minor changes, back in 1968. I wanted immediate and all-encompassing revolution. Fuck reform---Smash the State!
I can only plead the insanity of youth.
I also was very unhappy with the attitudes and social mores of a lot of my fellow anarchists. I was as much in love with the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish and Italian anarchists of the 1930's-WWII period as I was with anarchism itself. I especially admired the anarchist hold-outs who continued to fight well into the mid-1950's (I was about seven when Sabate was finally killed, but of course, I knew nothing about it, being a kid.) It was all so romantic and brave, sort of like a good John Ford movie.
But the reality is considerably less attractive. I grew sick of anarchists who bitched about the State, but lived on welfare. They were selfish, self-centered, lazy little bitches. I knew several who scorned marriage (this is part of the anarchist philosophy--they do not marry, pay taxes, serve as soldiers or police officers, vote, press criminal charges or lawsuits against others, own capital or businesses, or employ others in an exploitative economic relationship.) I had several male anarchist acquaintences who impregnated women, but who refused to support the child or it's mother, and who felt absolutely no obligation to serve as a father to the child. It was straight-up wrong, in my opinion. I knew numerous "communes" or "collectives" in which two or three people did 90% of the work, and the rest of them contributed virtually nothing, off busy being "free" while somebody else carried the load. The entire thing became an exercise in self-centered self indulgence.
They talked a ton of bullshit about revolution and struggle and all that crap, but not one of them could fight worth shit. They knew absolutely nothing about military tactics, strategy, organization or anything else. "Armchair revolutionaries" TO THE HILT. It was really all about getting high, having a good time and avoiding any sort of work or responsibility. As I grew older, I realized that my years as an anarchist really were a complete waste of time and effort. In fact, my years as an anti-war activist against the war in Vietnam were also a complete waste of time. I should have been in college earning a university degree, like my mother begged me to do, rather than frittering away years in self-delusion that I was making some sort of difference.
In all, I wasted about twenty years as an active revolutionary anarchist.
But some of the things I learned have come in very handy.
I became a certified arc welder. I learned to work on my own vehicles, to drive standard shift and automatic cars and trucks. I learned to operate a bulldozer and a backhoe. I learned to read blueprints and to frame houses. I learned to accurately shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns. I joined the Marine Corps and went to armory school, where I learned to repair all manner of infantry weapons. I learned about demolition and explosives. I learned to teach marksmanship, and have used that skill to instruct many people.
I went to machinist's school, and got a degree as a machinist. I went to nursing school, and became a registered nurse. I learned quite a bit about radio and electronics. I've learned a little about computers.
The skills I learned are valuable and satisfying. But the political tendency that started it all is way behind me now.
\"I\'d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than any city on earth\" Steve McQueen
Hmmm... interesting kabar. I can't say I've met any anarchists like this. Sure there is the no-work ethic but most of the anarchists i've met are very, very active. Social work, active in the community, politics, protests, some hardliners who would actually fight. It's like instead of working for some company and someone else you work for stuff that means something to you.
"The TSOG stalketh the land and the serfs bow and worship it. It stealeth property, it burneth neighborhoods, it foully killeth all opposition. Ye think it only doth its violence to black people, or Hispanics, or kooks with odd religions, but its hand is at your own throat even now. TSOG fthagn! What--are ye stupid, or something?"
--Abdul Alhazred, The TSOGonomicon
I've never been there, but there is a town in Italy, Carrera, which is populated by 95% anarchists. Ironically, the main activity in Carrera is quarrying marble, and their #1 customer is the Roman Catholic Church, the arch-enemy of the anarchists.
Carrera marble is the finest marble, the most beautiful marble in the world. Carrera is so far up in the mountains, up a winding, twisting mountain road (ever heard of the Porche "Carrera" sports car? It's named after this town) that it's sort of out of the jurisdiction of the regular Italian authorities. The anarchists are such a pain in the ass to deal with that the Italian cops generally leave them be. For one thing, they will not press criminal charges or any kind, no matter what. They will not testify in court. They will not be witnesses. So it's pretty much impossible to carry out any sort of investigation, since nobody will cooperate at all, ever. They settle problems among themselves. They hate the Mafia, and the feeling is mutual. Whenever they discover Mafia near them, they kill them. It's a small town, everybody knows everybody else. Strangers stick out. Everybody knows everybody else's business, what family they are from, etc.
The quarry is the town's largest business, and is run collectively. Men go to work there as teenagers, and immediately recieve a man's full wages, even at age 16. As they get to be older, more skilled and more mature and more productive, their wages do not increase. And as they age, and are less productive, their wages do not diminish. When they retire, and go on the Italian version of Social Security, then they are no longer paid by the quarry.
Almost all the businesses in Carrera are family-owned, and are related in some way to the quarry (welding, carpentry, automotive repair shops, trucking firms, etc.) It's a sort of compromise with capitalism. Nobody works for wages, they work for an "equal share."
Because the anarchists refuse to vote, Carrera's city government is dominated by the 5% of the population that is Communist Party (the right wing parties don't even bother). On Election Day, the anarchists go to the polls and stand outside with their arms folded, pointedly refusing to vote. Nobody votes but the Communists. The police are usually all Communists too, but since nobody reports crimes, there's not much for them to do.
Anarchists do not marry, but they do go down to the Department of Health and register their union in the genetics files, to avoid accidental unions of people who are biologically related. Since there is no marriage, there is also no divorce.
I heard that the anarchists have been in Carrera since the 1880's, and that during WWII, they had a resistance group against the fascists and the Nazis. After the war, they buried their weapons rather than surrender them to the Government.
Seems like my kind of town, actually.
\"I\'d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than any city on earth\" Steve McQueen
The whole not voting thing bothers me a tad because alot of people died for the right for blacks and minorities to vote, and to dismiss that is lame. I saw something that said "Don't just vote". That's a great point, because people's involvement in the system that controls their lives should be more than one day in November every 4 years.
I really hope that made some sense to someone.
Nobody cares about you and your stupid band.
[Insert internet crew and some rap lyric here.]
Anarchists do not vote for the same reason they refuse to report crimes, be a witness in a trial or imprison people. They consider voting to be the commission of a grave injustice against human freedom. Real anarchists will not even vote among themselves. They operate by consensus, and if they cannot agree upon some point, they just keep talking, talking, talking until finallt they reach a mutal agreement. It's extremely time consuming.
In any vote, there must be the domination of the losing side by the winner's side. To anarchists, this is akin to gangsterism.
They do not marry, because marriage (especially in the 1880's) was the ownership of one spouse (the wife) by the other (the husband.) Anarchists consider the foundation of the "family" to be the foundation of the State. You cannot have one without the other.
The same is true of The Church and The State.
There's a lot more to anarchy than that cute little "Circle-A" symbol (which was invented, by the way, in 1956, as a spin off of the symbol of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. The symbol of the ND movement was a take-off on the Civil Defense (CD) insignia, which was a yellow-and-black representation of three radioactive rays beaming off of a round radioactive "molecule." this symbol had three "rays" coming off of it (you may have seen this "CD" symbol on old stairwells leading to a basement.
In grafitti, the three-rays design became a simple circle with three radii going from the center to the periphery, abd the "CD" was changed to "ND." The anarchists borrowed this general idea and changed the three-legged peace symbol into both the peace symbol and the "Circle-A" symbol,
\"I\'d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than any city on earth\" Steve McQueen
"The TSOG stalketh the land and the serfs bow and worship it. It stealeth property, it burneth neighborhoods, it foully killeth all opposition. Ye think it only doth its violence to black people, or Hispanics, or kooks with odd religions, but its hand is at your own throat even now. TSOG fthagn! What--are ye stupid, or something?"
--Abdul Alhazred, The TSOGonomicon
I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.
Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:
"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."
And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"
"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."
"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"
Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.
I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."
If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?
I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.
I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.
\"I\'d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than any city on earth\" Steve McQueen
Originally posted by Plagiarism@Nov 28 2004, 03:30 PM hey kabar: where did you hear about carrera italy. I searched on the internet for about an hour and found absolutely nothing. do you have a source?
Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 28 2004, 08:48 PM I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.
Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:
"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."
And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"
"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."
"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"
Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.
I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."
If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?
I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.
I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.
wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.
anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.
this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.
anarchy is dumb.
look, we'll cross the "hesh accidentally shot himself in the ass" bridge when we come to it. no homo
*BLACK OUT POSSE*
Originally posted by seeking@Nov 29 2004, 08:19 PM ^^and both of them are a waste of time.
wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.
anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.
this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.
Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore. Under the vast umbrella of anarchy, something entirely new could be born. Like the primordial ooze.... the endless chaos of nonestablishment.
"The TSOG stalketh the land and the serfs bow and worship it. It stealeth property, it burneth neighborhoods, it foully killeth all opposition. Ye think it only doth its violence to black people, or Hispanics, or kooks with odd religions, but its hand is at your own throat even now. TSOG fthagn! What--are ye stupid, or something?"
--Abdul Alhazred, The TSOGonomicon
Originally posted by villain@Nov 30 2004, 10:52 AM Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore.
care to expound on this a bit? because as i see it, anarchism is just about the most far fetched, short sighted excuse for political ideology i've ever come across.
it's like communism but without a snowballs chance in hell of ever working. infact, even on paper it doesn't work.
ods,
i know, i was just ranting, it had nothing to do with you.
look, we'll cross the "hesh accidentally shot himself in the ass" bridge when we come to it. no homo
*BLACK OUT POSSE*
well seeking.... there is no definition of anarchy per se. There are SO MANY varieties of anarchy, that good ideas abound aplenty.... it is precisely this freedom, while on the surface looks to be out of control, that allows for many various manifestations of political ideology. The ideology is that there is no ideology. So it is a blank canvas. Sure there are some who would like to trademark their ideas and call it anarchy but that is against the intrinsic nature of anarchy.
"The TSOG stalketh the land and the serfs bow and worship it. It stealeth property, it burneth neighborhoods, it foully killeth all opposition. Ye think it only doth its violence to black people, or Hispanics, or kooks with odd religions, but its hand is at your own throat even now. TSOG fthagn! What--are ye stupid, or something?"
--Abdul Alhazred, The TSOGonomicon
if it is a 'blank canvas' then it is devoid of any ideology, and therefor shares equal relivance with a bucket of fried chicken (IMO). if anarchy itself has no structure and nothign cehesive to hold it together, it will never stay together. this is where the whole thing loses me and becomes so unbelievably idiotic. as far as i can tell, anarchy relies on some 'magical' ant-colony like dilligence and adherance to the community that is unquestioned, yet at the same time born of free will. never going to happen, ever.
further more, the way you describe anarchy, as having so many varieties and manifestations...you might as well just be describing politics themselves, which does nothing to answer my question, and IMO, only further proves the irrelivance of 'anarchism' as anything other than a t shirt logo.
the idea of anarchism has been around for decades (you know what i mean) yet in all that time no one has come up with a viable 'plan' or even manifesto that is generally accepted by most 'anarchists'? and i'm supposed to think this is a system that might to govern the world as it stands now? c'mon villian, you're much too smart to even be toying with this waste of time bullshit.
if there is something i'm missing, i honestly would like to understand it, because the more i think about it, the more i'm begining to think that a society structured around the ideology of the care bears is more likely than one built upon anarchism.
look, we'll cross the "hesh accidentally shot himself in the ass" bridge when we come to it. no homo
*BLACK OUT POSSE*
actually, here. let me make it easier for you to humor me.
under an 'anarchist' system, how will the following be addressed:
hospitals.
snow removal.
food inspections.
water.
banking.
landlord tenant disputes.
auto related death.
crime.
immigration.
foreign affairs.
education.
mental health services.
'social security'.
credit card fraud.
environmental protection.
child labor.
actually, since i realize thats a long list (although still less than 1% of the services the government shoulders) go ahead and pick any 3 and answer them.
look, we'll cross the "hesh accidentally shot himself in the ass" bridge when we come to it. no homo
*BLACK OUT POSSE*
11-19-2004, 04:29 AM
