National Service

[WarRatsG]

For the record I've got everything I need, so feel free to carry on off-topic. Thanks everyone for your opinions, much appreciated :)

[Ghogiel]

Also about RIAA> So what?

It is entirely in the interests of Anarchists. It's like saying private insurance companies or banks are somehow incompatible with anarchism.

They are, since in the current day and age, such groups are only able to function and maintain any level of superiority by means of government support and being able to pressure congress to pass favorable laws... Which is essentially against the premise of trying to encourage a free market or holding views against government influence since those groups are essentially using government influence to their own benefit and creating an unnatural advantage in their favor.

 

 

Except people like Rothbard, the anarcho-capitolist, actually support copyright, he claims it can be a contract of use. RIAA is primarily a trade organization that helps protect copyright. You can find other schools and flavors of anarchists and theorists who disagree with copyright of course.

 

The philosophy of anarchy directly conflicts with those processes that most businesses operate on, this is exactly why you cannot come up with 10 people in business who hold such a philosophy. If you cannot understand the fundamental differences between being famous for being famous with anarchist views, and being someone who actually works for a living holding similar views, then there really isn't much point continuing that discussion.

Who said I can't come up with 10 people who operate in business and who might be labelled as some form of anarchist. Because Anarchism is broad term, and we are using it as an umbrella term, we can mean Left Libertarians or Libertarian Socialists. But even IF I gave you a list or not, whether or not I was mentioning the Spanish revolution, Chomsky or famous people like Orwell. So what? It wouldn't prove your claim that anarchists lives often turn to crap.

 

What are the odds that this trade union march are not primarily people who actually work for a living>

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Manifestaci%C3%B3n_CNT_Bilbao.jpg

Edited October 9, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Vagrant0]

Libertarianism is not anarchism, atleast not as it is usually portrayed or implemented. Anarchy at it's base level is merely the default state of any group of people when there is no order or command over that group. As soon as there is any order, hierarchy, or command structure (and subsequently someone making decisions for others) you cease to have anarchy. This differs from libertarianism significantly since libertarianism in that libertarianism still acknowledges the role of the state as a body for defense, and some level of law enforcement, while anarchists generally believe that any governing body is unnecessary. But yeah, I think we're getting things mixed up with all the nuances and definitions. And we've gone off topic a fair amount.

[Nintii]

For the record I've got everything I need, so feel free to carry on off-topic. Thanks everyone for your opinions, much appreciated :)

 

Yes, WarRatsG, you have created a monster ... and now it's out of control ...

 

No seriously just a small question here ... how many poster's here have actually been in the military ?

Is not the proof in the eating ?

If there is one thing I have realised it's this, in business never hire someone fresh from "Uni" to fill an important position.

You're looking for a disaster ... theory, no matter how brilliant is still theory ... it's the person with the scars and wounds that is always going to get my vote ... and such is life.

 

I have seen companies destroyed because of some fresh-faced new kid on the block with a list of credentials longer than a giraffes neck pull out some new fangled idea and wreck what other people have worked so hard for years to build.

So, no, experience tells me to say "thanks, but no thanks".

I want actual "battlefield" experience or know-how.

 

It was one thing when I wanted to help out and teach the kids in our community but entirely different thing when I

got into the classroom and all my lofty notions and fantasies of how it was going workout went straight out of the window

because of the reality of the situation ... now, months later, I know exactly what's "cutting" (happening).

I smile real big and give such a loving warm hug to every new teacher who arrives all so eager, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.

Yes sirree they too will say, "Aint nobody knows the trouble I've seen".

It's like I've said all about actual experience ... do you have any when it comes to the military ?

 

I want something tried and tested and all these ideas that are floating out there on some new way of doing things especially in government etc are flawed because they ALL have the same weakness ... people.

It's sheer blindness to our own flaws that give birth to these utopian fantasies of a better world ... just look at Marxism, Communism etc, ... let me not even go there.

 

@ Ghoghiel ... anarchy is such a wonderful theory, now it happens and the "Leaders" in the movement now rise to power and guess what ?

What ?

They end up becoming dictators because they now have to suppress those who want a better life because anrchy told them how awesome it was all going to be ... but now months later they realise it sucks.

It's just another form of collectivist ideological cr*p.

Same devil different suit ... you know ... communistic garbage.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Nintii

[WarRatsG]

I'm not exactly well educated in sociology, but the way I see it hierarchy is an integral part of human nature. Consider Nietzche's concept of will to power.

 

With true anarchy comes anomie, and at that point what is stopping me from buying a gun, breaking into your home and taking whatever you have? So you buy a gun too. Well at that point, I make a team of people with guns. What then? You probably join another team for mutual protection. To ensure you are good for the team, rules are made. So I make my team bigger, but because I've been in the team since the start and have the most experience, I know how to make the best decisions. So I begin to coordinate our attacks against your group - in essence, I have become a leader and anarchy has expired, because there is now a hierarchy. Your team would likely form something resembling patriarchy, where the original members have the final say, and as it grew in size people would have to contribute to the team in exchange for it's protection - one might call it "tax".

 

Of course this is just for 100% anarchy, where no laws or law enforcement exist, where each person lives for themselves. Groups will always form for mutual protection (safety in numbers) and those with order will begin to dominate - think roman empire for military order, destroying the tribal Gauls who lacked a coherent social structure; Genghis khan uniting the warring tribes and leading them to create an empire that far exceeded almost any if not all other empires ever to exist; Alexander the great uniting Greece, his military genius allowing him to bring down Persia... The list goes on.

 

The problem these days is that government exists for the sake of having a government, rather than acting as a representative of the people. It can't represent the people because it is too distant from them - in a small group, where a leader knows everyone personally, decisions will be a lot more fair and tailored.

Edited October 10, 2012 by WarRatsG

[ginnyfizz]

I would also add to that, that the members of the Government, certainly here in the UK, aye and the opposition too, are members of the reality TV fifteen minutes of fame generation. They are career politicians, many of whom have never worked in any other outside job, and want the fame and the power without having any interest in the people they govern, nor any kind of vision. It started with Phoney Blair and carried on...

[Ghogiel]

Libertarianism is not anarchism, atleast not as it is usually portrayed or implemented.

 

Chomsky, The broad term of Anarchism he equates to Libertarian-socialism.

 

Anarchy at it's base level is merely the default state of any group of people when there is no order or command over that group. As soon as there is any order,

 

Rothbard: A fundamental tenet of anarchism is spontaneous order. Anarchism actually banks on order to arise. All forms of anarchy from the workers revolution in Spain to some of the kibbutz communes were ordered.

hierarchy, or command structure (and subsequently someone making decisions for others) you cease to have anarchy.

This part is true. Hierarchy from the top down is the no no.

 

This differs from libertarianism significantly since libertarianism in that libertarianism still acknowledges the role of the state as a body for defense, and some level of law enforcement, while anarchists generally believe that any governing body is unnecessary. But yeah, I think we're getting things mixed up with all the nuances and definitions. And we've gone off topic a fair amount.

Libertarianism is a broad umbrella term. It is not summed up solely by the ideals of the Libertarian party of the US. One of the many schools Libertarianism encompasses is Anarchism.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Vagrant0]

This part is true. Hierarchy from the top down is the no no.

 

That's the only way it has ever worked. Even if you empower the (usually uneducated) masses at the bottom, eventually they would find a way to change things around so that only a small portion of those masses had any real say, and you'd be right back with a pyramid and top down hierarchy. And given that in the process this group has only risen to power by climbing the bodies of the dead and defeated, such a revolution usually ends up being violent.

 

Which gets to the main problem of anarchy. It's great for the purposes of revolution, but totally sucks for the purposes of trying to maintain a stable government. The problem with most revolutions is that even in revolution, you have certain people trying to push their own agendas and using the mass of the revolution to do it. At which point, it only becomes a superficial anarchy (See modern labor unions).

 

 

But, if anything, all this offtopic stuff only proves my initial point; forcing people to fight in wars as the only option for national service is just a plain silly idea. Not only is everyone not suited for a military environment, but they may have ideological or personal conflicts with whatever fighting might be going on.

[WarRatsG]

Which gets to the main problem of anarchy. It's great for the purposes of revolution, but totally sucks for the purposes of trying to maintain a stable government.

 

I was under the impression that anarchy was the absence of a government, stable or otherwise, and emphasized absolute freedom of the individual. That may be why it's difficult to create an anarchist government ;)

 

Are there actually any anarchist territories in existence? I know attempts have been made, like in parts of Ukraine and during the Spanish revolution, but are there any truly stateless areas, without laws or government?

[Vagrant0]

Which gets to the main problem of anarchy. It's great for the purposes of revolution, but totally sucks for the purposes of trying to maintain a stable government.

I was under the impression that anarchy was the absence of a government, stable or otherwise, and emphasized absolute freedom of the individual. That may be why it's difficult to create an anarchist government ;)

That's actually one of the problems of talking about anarchy it seems. Some may be talking about an actual state of anarchy, while others are talking about philosophical beliefs which may have at one time or another been similar enough to anarchist philosophy. This problem only gets even larger based on the rather broad, and often conflicting philosophies which are present in anarchy. For example, violent verses non-violent anarchists, both are anarchists, both can share some similar philosophies but both can also differ greatly on actual practices and end motives. Hence the confusion, mixing of terms, and circular arguments over the last page or so.