Mind bending question.... paradox

[Wobbo]

Before i ask it though, can someone explain the different types of anarchy to me? Ive heard of individualist and thats pretty much it.... serious replies only, and yeah, i know anarchy is a complex thing, but could you try to simplify it?

Now for the debate... would an anarchist support slavery?

Before you instantly answer no, think about it

ill be back

[pritch]

A Fatal Exception has occured at 0EXXNAVAS

Description: The brain refused to accept the command

Abort? Retry? Ignore? Fail?

[Sharessa]

I guess I'm an anarchist since I've seen all forms of government, and have seen that they are all fataly flawed.

I suppose that anarchy would NOT support slavery since the whole concept of classes and inequality have been shot out the window, not to mention that there would be no reason to own slaves, since everyone is looking out for themselves, thus not owning any land or such.

[læmænt]

since everyone is looking out for themselves, thus not owning any land or such.

Huh? So the land is just free?

[JavaGuy]

I guess I'm an anarchist since I've seen all forms of government, and have seen that they are all fataly flawed.

Anarchy would be pretty bad too, since there'd be no production of goods, and no one to stop anyone from killing someone else. Therefor, the problem is not with what kind of ruling structure you have, but with people themselves. I guess we're fucked.

[IMJack]

The concepts of "anarchy" and "salvery" are parts of two very different topics. One does not inherently imply or deny the other.

A person living in a state of anarchy could conceivably force other people to become slaves. I presume the master would have figured out how to survive and thrive in a world without money or legal property, and the slaves would be people not quite so together.

However, when someone successfully defines and defends the roles of "master" and "slave," it creates a hierarchy and a power/threat base, the key components of a system of government. So wouldn't it cease to be an anarchy?

If you want to destroy the government and create true anarchy, it is entirely possible. The anarchy just won't last long. Somebody will seize power before long.

[Sharessa]

Huh? So the land is just free?

Well, as long as whoever claims it for the time being doesn't chase you off, yeah.

Anarchy would be pretty bad too, since there'd be no production of goods, and no one to stop anyone from killing someone else. Therefor, the problem is not with what kind of ruling structure you have, but with people themselves. I guess we're fucked.

Yep. :D

[fodders]

"Through some strange reasoning, the ideal of anarchy is inexorably linked to the notion of punk. I can make the connection, but it is only a slight one. People see punks shouting 'Anarchy in the UK!' and assume that all punks are anarchists (notice, however, that they do not assume the converse: they do not assume that all anarchists are punk). And so two ideas, which are in fact polar opposites, have become intertwined, if only by contumacious misinterpretation.

But they are different. Punk is a system of ideals: questioning conformity, questioning humanity, and questioning dogma. Anarchy, on the other hand, is a many-headed beast. There are those fools who define anarchy as total chaos. Then there are those who define it as the lack of a government.

First, let us discount the total chaos notion. Anarchy is not total chaos. How many times have we seen the anarchy symbol scrawled on a bathroom wall? How often did the people who left these symbols not grasp the significance of what they were inscribing? We can assume it is a pretty large majority of the time, since most of these people are high school (or younger) kids, and probably the only reason that they vandalized something with this symbol in the first place is it looks cool and anarchy is en vogue.

I have to laugh at the notion that high school kids think anarchy, total chaos would be cool. We must remember that human nature eventually defeats all idealistic concepts. Communism is one such concept. It never worked. Not because it was impossible, no, it didn't work because it was a system too trusting in human nature. People cannot share things equally, because power is a thing. Once a Communist leader lusts for power, nothing can stop him. The cognoscenti of government live in splendor and the proletariat, for which Communism is created, lives in squalor. People cannot be trusted.

Such is the concept of anarchy, only it is a hundred times more trusting that Communism. Anarchy places all faith in people, without the benefit of a police force. Let us take an example:

Mr. and Mrs. Farmer lead a bucolic life. They live in harmony with the land, growing and storing food in the warm months and living off their stash in the winter. One winter, their neighbors, the Sapiens family, finds out that it does not have any food. Seeing no other chance at survival, they kill the Farmers. Since there is no police force, there was no fear of punishment for the Sapiens. Someone had what they wanted, and they took it.

It would only become worse from this point. Once the entire population learned that there wold be nobody to punish them for wrongdoings, the world would go to hell. Chaos, yes.
And it is almost certainly a chaos in which those high-school vandals would not survive. It would be a Darwinian system all over again. Survival of the fittest. Or, put more bluntly, survival of the meanest. Those kids who promote anarchy would be dead within a month, with no cars, no TV, no microwaves. The power would certainly not work. What would keep people working at a power station when they could just take what they wanted?

This is a slight digression, but I suggest reading The Stand by Stephen King to get a glimpse on an anarchic society. In the story, a plague wipes out 99% of humanity. Suddenly, there are no laws. It is a fascinating glimpse into the heart of mankind.

We have seen what anarchy is. In an ideal world, it would work as Communism was supposed to. As we have seen, theory and practice are often miles distant.
Punk is an intellectual movement. It is enlightenment. How could anarchy, retrogression to the base nature of man, be linked with edification?

So what is the role of the punk in today's society? He cannot randomly shout out against the government because without the government he would almost certainly perish. Sadly, for those insurgents who hold on to their grandiloquent dreams of radical reform, it is not a romantic thing.

Foremost, every punk must vote. How are you to change the government if you do not try to do so? It is a sad thing to rail against the government, idly sit through the elections, and then complain when things are not going your way. If enough people get the initiative, then they can make a change.

Second, punks must get the word out. This is where Punk Rock comes from. What is Punk Rock if not a vehicle to distribute information? Bad Religion, Oi Polloi and Minor Threat all took this at face value and did a wonderful job of spreading the word. It is almost as if they are hiding necessary medication in their dog's food: the dog enjoys the food, the music, and maybe will get better after he ingests the pill, the message. Today, several bands are still carrying on this tradition: Propagandhi, Anti-Flag and Pennywise are three that come immediately to mind.

Finally, punks must constantly be re-evaluating themselves. After all, in the words of the Bad Religion song 'You are (the Government)': 'You are the government, you are jurisprudence, you are the volition, you are jurisdiction, and I make a difference too.' We are the decision-makers, but it starts with us. We must constantly make sure that we are doing not what is right for us but what is right for everyone. Altruism is almost out of the question, considering today's society. But being even a little selfless never hurt anybody, not even yourself.

And if you still want anarchy, there are untold millions of bathroom stalls and highway overpasses across the country, waiting for you to mark them. If you truly believe you can change the world with a can of spray paint and a crude symbol, by all means try it. If that is the way you think, it will keep you out of politics and away from doing things that will actually influence people."

[Sharessa]

Join the one true system of government:

d(A)narchy

[IMJack]

What is punk? Not anarchy. We want to change the system for the better, not destroy it.

Hey fod, who wrote that piece?

[fodders]

Dave Short

[pritch]

There are 348374806 lost clusters in 456734 chains.

[DooMBoy]

Huh? So the land is just free?

Well, actually, I don't mean to sound like a tree-hugging hippie or anything, but technically the land is free. We had no right to come over here and slice the land up like a pie and sell it.
Bah.

[ShadyXMR]

Huh? So the land is just free?

Well, actually, I don't mean to sound like a tree-hugging hippie or anything, but technically the land is free. We had no right to come over here and slice the land up like a pie and sell it.
Bah.

I agree. I'm beginning to view money (especially the government based standard that is used now) as somewhat arbitrary. Oh well, then again, basing it off of the scarcity of a rock isn't much more logical. :P

[læmænt]

Money is not based on scarcity of a rock. It was, but it no longer is.

[Doom-Child]

Who's still on the gold standard?

DC

[Sharessa]

Huh? So the land is just free?

Well, actually, I don't mean to sound like a tree-hugging hippie or anything, but technically the land is free. We had no right to come over here and slice the land up like a pie and sell it.
Bah.

And for one shining moment, stupidity was completely and utterly concealed...

[Wobbo]

from what ive read on anarchy (and thats not enough) anarchy does not mean no govvernment, it means extremeley small states within a large, weak government.

My theory would be, depending on the state, slavery may be allowed or illegal, just like in america. REmember the particularly brutal form of slavery in the US is not representative of slavery throughout history, so an anarchist culture might not find it as horrible.

ill find the link i read that made me start this topic in a minute...

[Kid Airbag]

Here's another one: If you try to fail and succeed, which one have you done.

[Doom-Child]

Nothing useful for mankind.

DC

[IMJack]

Here's another one: If you try to fail and succeed, which one have you done.

Wasted air that the rest of us could have used.

[Sharessa]

Here's another one: If you try to fail and succeed, which one have you done.

You have succeeded! I do it all the time, and my life is gret because of it.

[læmænt]

Considering God to be omnipotent, can he create a stone that he can't lift?

[IMJack]

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

[Sharessa]

God's not that irrisistable...though Jesus does look pretty damn hot in drag...

[Se7enDeadlySins]

I guess I'm an anarchist since I've seen all forms of government, and have seen that they are all fataly flawed.

Not all are, Communism if followed strictly as to how it's SUPPOSED to be, not the USSR's version, it's actually a very efficient form of government. Unless you have synthetic individuals controlling the government however, none is perfect. There is always that human factor of corruption that will ruin even the most flaw-less government doctrine.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Lament
Considering God to be omnipotent, can he create a stone that he can't lift?

The thing wrong with this question is that you're
assuming that god is a entity that is subject to
our physicals laws. god exists out side space and
time. The question therefor because incorrect.

But don't worry yourself with questions about god.
he's dead, science killed 'm.

[Phoenix]

[i]Originally posted by Scientist
But don't worry yourself with questions about god.
he's dead, science killed 'm.

How? Science has yet to understand one item of nature let alone God.

[Scientist]

I would like to say that there is a difference
between anarchy and Anarchism. Anarchy is simply
choas; disorder.
Anarchism is a filosophical movement founded by
Pierre Joseph Prouhon(1809-1865). Anarchism wants
freedom for all. This freedom cannot exist while
there is inequality.
or as Mikal Bakunin put it:
"Freedom without equality is a evil fiction created
by villains to deceive fools. Freedom without equality
is tyranny. A tyranny that can only be maintained by an
oppressing class, bureaucracy."

And when you think of it, you cannot deny that inequality
leads to loss of freedom.

Anyhow, Prouhon and Bakunin were both intellectuals and
cannot be compared to punks screaming "anarchy in the UK".
Punks don't really care about anarchy or Anarchism, they've
probably never heared of Prouhon or Bakunin, they just go
for the image.
If you want to know about Anarchism go to roots; find out
more about Prouhon and Bakunin.

[fodders]

Anarchy is simply
choas; disorder.

First, let us discount the total chaos notion. Anarchy is not total chaos. How many times have we seen the anarchy symbol scrawled on a bathroom wall? How often did the people who left these symbols not grasp the significance of what they were inscribing? We can assume it is a pretty large majority of the time, since most of these people are high school (or younger) kids, and probably the only reason that they vandalized something with this symbol in the first place is it looks cool and anarchy is en vogue.