Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn
Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is a popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes. Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.
Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist." The claim that amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and <not allowed> everybody else" is absurd.
Anarchism is, in its narrowest sense, simply the rejection of the state... the rejection of coercive (read: violent) government.
The primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its negative and positive aspects—that, in the negative sense, individuals be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or directly intrude upon others; and, in the positive sense, that all individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to the world's resources.
Anarchists recognize that absolute freedom is an impossibility, that amoral egotism, ignoring the rights of others would quickly devolve into a war of all against all. What we argue for is that everyone have equal freedom from restraint (limited only by respect for the rights of others) and that everyone have as nearly as possible equal access to resources, thus ensuring equal (or near-equal) freedom to act. This is anarchism in its theoretical sense.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 07, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn
sorry mom
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 07, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Hey, you're getting off the topic of guns. Someone start an Anarchy thread if you want to discuss that. Hugs, Devlyn
Oh, I wasn't going off-topic. If my point wasn't clear, it did pertain to guns. Govt. regulation has strong value and people cannot be trusted to be running amok with guns. As much as I would love for this to be false, it's not. :(
Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
you're comparing third world and developing countries to the developed United states? good try
Doesn't change the fact that people aren't filled with caramel and sprinkles on their insides. Regardless of the nation, it's proof that people need guidance. America is no different.
I've made a new thread for this discussion.
This is a gray area, by definition everybody is right, or if you're a pessimist everybody is wrong. We can never find the answer that both sides can agree on because it doesn't exist, there is no absolute truth here. The only thing separating the different stances is opposing world views, not fact. Facts in this case are fluff, mostly pointless, more like rationalizations for feeling one way or another, does that make sense?
Maybe we can try to understand where the other side is coming from well enough that we can not feel animosity toward them. That would be progress, even trying to do that would be. Going on and on about why you are right, how do you learn from that?
Quote from: DianaP on February 07, 2013, 06:48:20 PM
Oh, I wasn't going off-topic. If my point wasn't clear, it did pertain to guns. Govt. regulation has strong value and people cannot be trusted to be running amok with guns. As much as I would love for this to be false, it's not. :(
Doesn't change the fact that people aren't filled with caramel and sprinkles on their insides. Regardless of the nation, it's proof that people need guidance. America is no different.
Let me take you to task there, Diana.
The grand experiment that is America, is that people
do not need rulers. The premise is that political power springs from the people, and that governments should exist only by the consent of the people. American government is designed to secure rights, rather than infringe on liberties. That is what regulation does - it infringes on our ability to make choices in our lives. Government establishes laws, but in the American system, it does so by the peoples' representatives (in theory).
The American system presupposes that people can be trusted to conduct their lives in such a way as not to infringe on the lives, liberties, and rights of others. When those limits are violated, then the system of justice that has been established will deal with it.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence knew these truths about government - they called them "self-evident." The Framers of the Constitution, and the authors of the Bill of Rights, took special attention to protect fundamental liberties. And one of those was the right to self-defense, through the use of firearms.
That a President through executive order, or a beaurocrat through regulation, or even a Congress through legislation, could infringe on these fundamental guarantees, would have been an anathema to the Founders and Framers.
EDIT: And Diana, please take note, from Justice Scalia writing for the majority in
Heller:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people".
Quote from JamieD "And one of those was the right to self-defense, through the use of firearms.
That a President through executive order, or a beaucrat through regulation, or even a Congress through legislation, could infringe on these fundamental guarantees, would have been an anathema to the Founders and Framers."
I'm not taking issue in anyway. What you damn crazy Americans do is your business!
An argument that keeps being presented is that 'Oh if the Founders could have foreseen the weapons now available, then they would have limited/modified their opinion"
The other argument is that of the right to self defense, through the use of firearms. The argument I seem to be reading, is what level or type of firearm is required for self defence, and what is excessive for the civilian population.
Personally I'd feel pretty safe in the USA with an RPG but it may spoil the look of my hand bag. Comment?
We need to keep in mind, Cindy, that the American Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, does not establish a right to bear arms, it recognizes and protects that natural right. The 2nd Amendment of 1791 had antecedents in several of the constitutions of the individual states.
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ...." Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, 1776; and the Vermont Constitution, 1777
"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence ..." Massachusetts Constitution, 1780
In America, "the requirements for self-defense and food-gathering had put firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." D. Boorstin, The Americans--The Colonial Experience 352-53 (1958).
The basis of the natural right is that you may protect yourself, your family, or your property with such force as is needed.
James Madison believed that "the advantage of being armed" was a condition "the Americans possess over the people of almost every nation." The despotisms of Europe were charged with being "afraid to trust the people with arms." An armed citizenry serves as a deterrent to governmental oppression because the people have the latent and implicit power to "rise up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to respect the laws." Totalitarian governments of the left and right in the twentieth century consider an armed people a threat and seek to disarm them. (R. Dowlut and R. Knoop, 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241, 1982)
Even earlier, Sir Michael Foster, Judge of the Court of the Kings Bench, wrote:
The right of self-defence in these cases is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society. For before societies were formed, (one may conceive of such a state of things though it is difficult to fix the period when civil societies were formed,) I say before societies were formed for mutual defence and preservation, the right of self-defence resided in individuals; it could not reside elsewhere, and since in cases of necessity, individuals incorporated into society cannot resort for protection to the law of the society, that law with great propriety and strict justice considereth them, as still, in that instance, under the protection of the law of nature (London, 1776)
One of the great fears of the Founders was that of oppressive and tyrannical government. An armed citizenry was considered an effective deterrent. The Framers of the Constitution provided two methods to amend the Constitution. It matter not today what they may have thought. If the political will exists, the right might be extinguished - but no credible attempt has been made.
What type of firearm should a citizen be entitled to bear? My view is, whatever is needed.
But as ever is the debate in the word or the intent of the word?
Sir Michael Foster's judgement is used and is in some way pivotal, which I find strange as his decision was aimed at the poms efforts to protect protestants from James II. But of course that is opinion.
He also had a history, not only having a great judicial mind, for the time, but supporting rather contentious opinions for now a days. Including of course 'press gangs'.
Was his ruling borrowed by 'states' in the Americas to allow each militia to protect themselves from each other, rather than any concept of individual self defence?
It doesn't matter of course. There is far too much commercial interest involved to allow change no matter opinion.
The second article in the Bill of Rights states.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The founders knew that at one point the people may indeed need to rise up and take arms ageist an oppressive government. How do you think the United States was formed? That being said, the government shouldn't restrict a citizen from owning any type of firearm, in modern times you would need to then modernize and interpret the second amendment and look at it from the stand point of which it was written. Today since the government has large scale weapons, heavy artillery, jets and fully automatic weapons, it should be a right that the citizen would be able to defend against such a force if nessasary. We Americans have long forgotten that our liberties and freedoms were not given to us, blood was shed and many died in order to stand up to tyranny. Over regulation and excessive law making by it's very nature create an oppressive state. As long as you are not trampling on the liberties of another, the innate human right to live as you choose, then no law should impede that. Generally those on the "liberal" side of law making, ( remember liberal mean MORE ) would beg to differ and in general look to laws to restrict individual rights. Laws do not stop criminals, they make them. We all need to give people credit on their own humanity, there are those who will always be disruptive to the liberties of others, however less law making will not destabilize the country and turn it into barbarous heathens running rampent. That's just silly. FEAR is used to scare people into giving up thier rights, a tragedy happens and law makers use the FEAR to wave there flags and sign there bills to restrict the citizenry. It's shameful however, that's politics.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms. Everyone should be able to protect them selves, their family, and their property. But how big of a gun do you need?
Would a 0.22 do the job, or is a 0.44 better suited? And Why fully automatic? I can see semi automatic, at least with a semi the third or fourth bullet has a better chance of hitting the target than with an automatic whose recoil will have bullets flying everywhere.
Personaly I don't see the need to have military grade weapons in the home. But what do I know? We just might need them to fight off a horde of zombies.
the constitution and the bill of rights does not GIVE Americans rights... it recognizes them. people bring up the second amendment when talking about guns... I say thats a crappy argument. the right to defend yourself is built in. just like I don't need 10 commandments to tell me not to kill.
the bill of rights was great, don't get me wrong but all it does is tell us the sky is blue :-) which id great for all you color blind lefties who enjoy the idea of big gov that walks all over our rights in attempt to make us 'safe'
Quote from: Cindy James on February 08, 2013, 01:51:18 AM
Personally I'd feel pretty safe in the USA with an RPG but it may spoil the look of my hand bag. Comment?
I'm sure we could design a sexy bag to conceal it for you. ;D
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:49:10 AM
the constitution and the bill of rights does not GIVE Americans rights... it recognizes them. people bring up the second amendment when talking about guns... I say thats a crappy argument. the right to defend yourself is built in. just like I don't need 10 commandments to tell me not to kill.
the bill of rights was great, don't get me wrong but all it does is tell us the sky is blue :-) which id great for all you color blind lefties who enjoy the idea of big gov that walks all over our rights in attempt to make us 'safe'
oZma, I agree with you completely in the bill of rights is recognizing given human rights. Sadly even if some one is color blind they can argue that blue doesn't exist because the can't perceive the notion of color... Such are those who love limiting personal liberties, to them personal liberties are more of granted privileges by a ruling government then unquestionable rights.
Quote from: Penny Gurl on February 08, 2013, 05:28:20 AM
The second article in the Bill of Rights states.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The founders knew that at one point the people may indeed need to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. How do you think the United States was formed? That being said, the government shouldn't restrict a citizen from owning any type of firearm, in modern times you would need to then modernize and interpret the second amendment and look at it from the stand point of which it was written. Today since the government has large scale weapons, heavy artillery, jets and fully automatic weapons, it should be a right that the citizen would be able to defend against such a force if necessary. We Americans have long forgotten that our liberties and freedoms were not given to us, blood was shed and many died in order to stand up to tyranny. Over regulation and excessive law making by it's very nature create an oppressive state. As long as you are not trampling on the liberties of another, the innate human right to live as you choose, then no law should impede that. Generally those on the "liberal" side of law making, ( remember liberal mean MORE ) would beg to differ and in general look to laws to restrict individual rights. Laws do not stop criminals, they make them. We all need to give people credit on their own humanity, there are those who will always be disruptive to the liberties of others, however less law making will not destabilize the country and turn it into barbarous heathens running rampant. That's just silly. FEAR is used to scare people into giving up their rights, a tragedy happens and law makers use the FEAR to wave there flags and sign there bills to restrict the citizenry. It's shameful however, that's politics.
Interestingly, it is quite legal to privately own "artillery," armed piston and jet aircraft, and warships in the United States.
Cannon, Mortars, Howitzers (http://cannonsuperstore.com/)
Warbirds (http://warbirdconnection.com/forsale.html)
Warships (http://www.ships-for-sale.com/submarine_for_sale.htm)
Automatic weapons ownership, however, was severely restricted by federal legislation in the 1930s. Therefore, automatic weapons on these planes and vessels are demilitarized.
1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. ::)
2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.
3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 03:42:43 PM
1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. ::)
2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.
3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.
nevermind, I don't feel like getting into anything with you again... I get it...
you believe the gov has the best intentions for us... that the military and police are here to protect us and instill fear to make us obediant to their laws because without laws, we are all simply savages and would all go crayzy without big brother.
k, we get it... move along now :-) leave us to talk constructively and positively about anarchy :-)
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 03:42:43 PM
1. The 2nd amendment was designed for a militia. The US has a military. That amendment is obsolete. Even if it weren't I'm sure the founding father would change their minds if they were placed in modern times. ::)
2. Artillery owned by civilians are de-weaponized, meaning that tanks barrels are plugged, etc.
3. Laws do stop criminals. If there were no rules, people would go crazy. What consequences would be there to stop them? Don't give people too much credit. Heck, even I wanted to punch a kid in the face at my school, but didn't because I knew I'd get in trouble. No human is perfect, so govt. and rules are necessary.
DianaP
To your first point. During the time that the bill of rights was written, the American colonies had JUST come out of the revaluation and were in the process of forming a NEW government BY and FOR the people. They had been denied rights which by any human should not be denied. The very purpose of the constitution is to have a regulated government, not a regulated citizen population. If the founders were around today then yes, they infact would have changed the wording. However due to the facts of the situation it would be to recognize that the people themselves have a right to stand up to the military and the government, hence the right to form a militia. A militia is recognized to be separate then the military and navel forces, it's purpose is for the PEOPLE not the government. The very reason for such an assemblage is to have a force capable of standing up and defending against the military. Taking that ideal set fourth in the second amendment you would infact need to include the ability to defend against modern weaponry. So "assault rifles," artillery, ect. Any branch of the armed services are not for the people, they are the government force that can be used against the people of the country.
To your second point.. Yes much of the artillery has been deweaponized that is owened by private citizens, however in many cases it can be reactivated if a gun smith is knowledgeable. Pins replaced barrels reboared and firing systems added.
To your third point, the reason why we have a constitution is to defend against others impending on someone else's rights, when that happens that's when the judicial system would kick in. But to say that less laws would cause people to go crazy is simply invalid. If we were lawless then maybe more "crimes" would be committed, however if there were no laws, then there would be no crime as it would take a law to be broken.
I doubt that anyone living in any city in the US would be able to tell you all the laws and city ordinances for thier given city. With a system so clogged with burocrocy how can anyone be expected to truly live lawfully if it's not even possible to be informed about every law that exists? Some places it's unlawfully to swear in public, other forbid spitting on sidewalks. In Alabama (I think) it's unlawful for a woman to drive a car on Sunday. There are so many silly useless outdated laws that we're choking on the paper work and bleeding to death on endless paper cuts. The "system" can certainly stand to be thinned out a bit.
i thought this thread was about anarchy.
see, i have a lot of stuff to say about anarchy and the downfall of the state, but if people aren't talking about anarchy, i can't do that!
i teeter constantly between thinking that full communism is the way to go (or, well, socialism, technically, since the whole violent revolution does strike me as a very high-collateral method of achieving the same result, and i'm not so comfortable with that) and that anarchosyndicalism strips away the corruption and structural violence inherent in the state. as far as practical matters are concerned my vote goes to the people who push for what's closest to a socialist agenda, but i recognize that the state is deeply flawed and i'm not sure if it's the sort of thing that can be fixed or whether it all has to go.
Quote from: oZma on February 07, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Anarchism is not chaos; Anarchism is not rejection of organization. This is a popular misconception, repeated ad nauseam by the mass media and by anarchism's political foes. Even a brief look at the works of anarchism's leading theoreticians and writers confirms that this belief is in error. Over and over in the writings of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Ward, Bookchin, et al., one finds not a rejection of organization, but rather a preoccupation with it—a preoccupation with how society should be organized in accord with the anarchist principles of individual freedom and social justice. For a century and a half now, anarchists have been arguing that coercive, hierarchical organization (as embodied in government and corporations) is not equivalent to organization per se (which they regard as necessary), and that coercive organization should be replaced by decentralized, nonhierarchical organization based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. This is hardly a rejection of organization.
Anarchism is not amoral egotism. As does any avant garde social movement, anarchism attracts more than its share of flakes, parasites, and outright sociopaths, persons simply looking for a glamorous label to cover their often-pathological selfishness, their disregard for the rights and dignity of others, and their pathetic desire to be the center of attention. These individuals tend to give anarchism a bad name, because even though they have very little in common with actual anarchists—that is, persons concerned with ethical behavior, social justice, and the rights of both themselves and others—they're often quite exhibitionistic, and their disreputable actions sometimes come into the public eye. To make matters worse, these exhibitionists sometimes publish their self-glorifying views and deliberately misidentify those views as "anarchist." The claim that amoral egotism—essentially "I'll do what I damn well please and <not allowed> everybody else" is absurd.
Anarchism is, in its narrowest sense, simply the rejection of the state... the rejection of coercive (read: violent) government.
The primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its negative and positive aspects—that, in the negative sense, individuals be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or directly intrude upon others; and, in the positive sense, that all individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to the world's resources.
Anarchists recognize that absolute freedom is an impossibility, that amoral egotism, ignoring the rights of others would quickly devolve into a war of all against all. What we argue for is that everyone have equal freedom from restraint (limited only by respect for the rights of others) and that everyone have as nearly as possible equal access to resources, thus ensuring equal (or near-equal) freedom to act. This is anarchism in its theoretical sense.
this is some great writing right here! i just want to echo all of this, and i guess expand on it by vehemently negating the claimed similarities between the often-lumped-together libertarian "anarcho-capitalists" who seem to end up always advocating for a minarchist state, which kind of ends up doing the exact WRONG thing with a government and engenders police and military brutality. basically, the thing about capitalism, especially as it exists today, is that anyone living in a state that participates in it is nonconsensually compelled into participation, and in a true anarchist state (not in the government sense, but in the sense of a state of being) that isn't going to occur.
Quote from: transtrender on February 08, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
this is some great writing right here!
wish i could take credit for it!
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html (http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html)
Quote
libertarian "anarcho-capitalists" who seem to end up always advocating for a minarchist state, which kind of ends up doing the exact WRONG thing with a government and engenders police and military brutality.
i would argue these libertarian "anarcho-caps" are on a path towards anarchy. its too hard to jump from modern day liberal or conservative to anarchist... but going from conservative to libertarian to minarchist to anarchist is more prevalent. there is A LOT of learning that goes along with anarchy. its not just something you can accept over night, it takes a lot to accept and wrap your brain around. i will admit, i am most likely in the libertarian stage as i am not yet ready to let go of my coercive violent government just yet... as much as i want to.... i just don't feel i have adequate knowledge to defend an anarchist perspective just yet... maybe someday!!
Quote
basically, the thing about capitalism, especially as it exists today, is that anyone living in a state that participates in it is nonconsensually compelled into participation, and in a true anarchist state (not in the government sense, but in the sense of a state of being) that isn't going to occur.
i would argue capitalism does not exist today and most likely never has... well i speak of laissez faire free markets of course... maybe we got close with Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and JP Morgan... but not really
today, i would call it crony capitalism, crapitalism, corporationism... gov and corporations are in bed together to prevent competition and that goes against everything laissez faire free markets are about.
it would be incredibly hard to create a true anarchic society of 100% voluntary cooperation and zero non-consensual participation especially when it comes to industries that rely on natural resources... but that doesn't mean the theories should be abandoned... it just means we need to work harder to figure it out!
but at the same time... saying anarchy isn't practical, or is impossible because it can't be implemented PERFECTLY is kind of worthless because the system we have right now ISN'T perfect either! :)
so we seem to be at a stale mate ~ there is no perfect way to govern people... so why even attempt?
Well, transtrender, I understand that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It's a society where people follow rules not because a govt. tell thm to, but out of their own moral character. This requires that everyone agree on everything and that people all be of perfect moral character. That isn't going to happen. If you have a society where everyone is allowed to be completely individually free to do whatever he/she wants, then you have no order.
To your point, Penny, I understand that the system is not perfect. I'm not saying that it is. The govt. could use a lot of work, starting with replacing most of our congressional members. However, that isn't to say that we should all go from an imperfect system to no system at all. A court system would immediately cancel out anarchy. You can't have one fully embodying standard court system and still be an anarchist society. Anarchy is an ideal society, and we need standards. You can't have a society where individual preference takes precedent. Can we cut down on laws? Sure. Should we get rid of govt? No.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
You can speak positively all you want about anarchy, but, in the end, it's like communism in that it only works on paper.
1. During the Boston police strikes, crime and violence increased exponentially.
2. After California earthquakes, people often go looting since blackouts and cracked roads make it easier to get away with it.
**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work. From your own school experience, do you think that people are going to do it? Not a lot. The same holds true for anarchy. You just get a bunch of people into a society and trust in them to be able to keep themselves behaved. Not going to happen. We've seen that people have desires. No one is going to stand for being equal. There will always be people that want more. That's why communism doesn't work, and it's why anarchy won't work. There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Ozma, a completely laissez-faire capitalistic society never existed because it would never work. Look at what happened after the Revolutionary War. The govt was weak with the Articles of Confederations, and each state was basically given essentially limitless individual freedom. Needless to say, that system failed.
Next, 100% laissez-faire capitalism, essentially anarchy, would not work. Even with laws against it, there are people who provide unsafe practices: excessive hours, lack of hygiene, and improper waste disposal come to mind. US unions came together and demanded rights, but failed because they had no leverage and business owners could do what they wanted to the union workers. Once govt. backed up unions, they became strong.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Anarchy is great, in theory. However, once you come off of paper, it can't work. History has proven that time and time again. Keep dreaming of a perfect anarchist society, but don't fool yourself and admit that you're doing just that: dreaming.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 07:41:56 PM
Well, transtrender, I understand that anarchy doesn't mean chaos. It's a society where people follow rules not because a govt. tell thm to, but out of their own moral character. This requires that everyone agree on everything and that people all be of perfect moral character. That isn't going to happen. If you have a society where everyone is allowed to be completely individually free to do whatever he/she wants, then you have no order.
To your point, Penny, I understand that the system is not perfect. I'm not saying that it is. The govt. could use a lot of work, starting with replacing most of our congressional members. However, that isn't to say that we should all go from an imperfect system to no system at all. A court system would immediately cancel out anarchy. You can't have one fully embodying standard court system and still be an anarchist society. Anarchy is an ideal society, and we need standards. You can't have a society where individual preference takes precedent. Can we cut down on laws? Sure. Should we get rid of govt? No.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
You can speak positively all you want about anarchy, but, in the end, it's like communism in that it only works on paper.
1. During the Boston police strikes, crime and violence increased exponentially.
2. After California earthquakes, people often go looting since blackouts and cracked roads make it easier to get away with it.
**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work. From your own school experience, do you think that people are going to do it? Not a lot. The same holds true for anarchy. You just get a bunch of people into a society and trust in them to be able to keep themselves behaved. Not going to happen. We've seen that people have desires. No one is going to stand for being equal. There will always be people that want more. That's why communism doesn't work, and it's why anarchy won't work. There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.
Anarchy is great, in theory. However, once you come off of paper, it can't work.
to have anarchy work, you need to teach anarchy... just like we were taught how this system we have today works...
you can't just throw anarchy in people's faces and say THERE YA GO! ANARCHY! see if it works and when it doesn't say anarchy doesn't work as your proof
you're examples of riots, earthquakes and classrooms won't work then. its all about education. monkey see, monkey do
also remember, i never said i was an anarchist... maybe someday :)
You can't teach anarchy. Plus, you can't just dismiss my arguments because of some convenient hypothetical of a society filled with perfectly good people who all hold hands and get along.
What if people don't take the bait? We can throw hypothetical scenarios back and forth, but in the end, what's the most realistic?
Teaching anarchy is essentially teaching that you have individual freedom from standardized rule, but you can't do whatever you want.
There has to be a consensus of what is right and wrong. You can't just have individuals decide that for themselves. If you do, then the instant that someone does something that is "wrong," you will have a disagreement and a lack of actual rules. At that point, it basically becomes a matter of which side has the bigger mob backing it, and minority rights would be disregarded. You need standards.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
you started with the hypos! :)
--->**3. A system similar to anarchy would be to go into a classroom, give each kid a book, and then leave them alone to teach themselves and do some work.
I didn't say all hypothetical scenarios weren't to be used. Read my entire quote (now who's using a Straw Man argument? :P)
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 07:49:42 PM
You can't teach anarchy. Plus, you can't just dismiss my arguments because of some convenient hypothetical of a society filled with perfectly good people who all hold hands and get along.
I just have a problem with YOUR hypothetical since it is too much of a stretch. I provided a
realistic hypothetical, not one where you assume that people are perfect. What you did is the equivalent of a Pre-Crisis Superman comic. Superman needs to win, so he just gets a new perfectly convenient power.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 07:59:47 PM
You can't just have individuals decide that for themselves.
sure you can :)
Quote
I just have a problem with YOUR hypothetical
sounds like YOUR problem
Quote
Teaching anarchy is essentially teaching that you have individual freedom from standardized rule, but you can't do whatever you want.
i don't see the problem with teaching this...? if you can teach people to be nazi's, you can teach them anything
ill stand by my argument that you CAN teach people they DON'T NEED RULERS and they can provide for themselves WITHOUT RULERS telling them how to
Diana, why do you even bother to argue with me? If you say i'm dreaming... let me dream?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m2tg2sq7nr1qb85cqo1_500.jpg&hash=577f736e15b4219481ba038b68294b0effede8d9)
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 07:41:56 PM
There needs to be some standard for people to follow, and that's what govt. is.
Anarchy does not mean without rules or standards, but is a philosophy and social system without rulers. Some people incorrectly define anarchy as no rules or boundaries, but that most certainly would be a world of chaos and confusion. The distinction between rules and rulers is important. Likewise, anarchy does not mean a social system without leaders. In any group of people certain individuals will exhibit or demonstrate special or unique skills and abilities to lead others and to coordinate individual actions. Thus, anarchy is not barbarism. Anarchy is not Utopian or idealistic but a realistic logical conclusion to the principles of self and trespass.
Trespass is any violation of an individual's body or resources. By definition, trespass includes the threat of violation. Anarchy does not necessarily prohibit self-defense, but prohibits initiating trespass. Many philosophical anarchists believe that any self-defense must be proportional to stopping the trespass.
Anarchy as a social system contains a presumption of self-government. Anarchy depends upon the concepts of reciprocity, mutual benefit, free association, and voluntary exchange.
Philosophical anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.Anarchy and statism are incompatible, which explains why statists must mislead people by defining anarchy as chaos and disorder. Somebody once declared that the only two political theories that are completely consistent are anarchy and totalitarianism. Anarchy fully embraces the concept of self, totalitarianism fully rejects that concept. Statism always degenerates into totalitarianism.
Anarchy means self-government.
Anarchy means self-responsibility.
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy is not confusion.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchy means do not trespass.
Anarchy does not mean resistance but ignoring.
Anarchy means respect for legitimate property rights.
Anarchy means freedom to associate.
Anarchy means voluntary association.
Anarchy means being free to pursue your own happiness.
Anarchy means no individual is superior to another.
Anarchy is not force and coercion, but cooperation.
Anarchy is not political power, but persuasion.
Anarchy rejects political privilege.
Anarchy is liberty.
Anarchy is not a political system. Anarchy is apolitical. Anarchism is a philosophy — a social system. Anarchism is a conscientious decision to honor the freedom to choose without fear of trespass.
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
An anarchist is an individual who is at peace with neighbors and chooses not to use force and coercion to satisfy needs and wants; even the force and coercion used under the illusion of the color of law. An anarchist rejects the idea that various beliefs or worldviews can be forced upon other people, or that various non-trespassing human actions such as "vices" can be coercively stopped or controlled.
Anarchy is a logical conclusion to the concept of self.
Liberty is anarchy.
stolen from:
http://www.simpleliberty.org/essays/what_is_liberty.htm (http://www.simpleliberty.org/essays/what_is_liberty.htm)
I must say Diana, you are helping me to accept my anarchic tendencies by provoking me to do research on Anarchy. I need to thank you for that :)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal3.memecdn.com%2FSpread-Anarchy_o_99974.jpg&hash=aedc3fe8068f775acc5bd73f188c831e150bd2cf)
Why anarchy is impossible.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 09:10:32 PM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobal3.memecdn.com%2FSpread-Anarchy_o_99974.jpg&hash=aedc3fe8068f775acc5bd73f188c831e150bd2cf)
love it! now you're getting it LOL
Let me just add one thing. If there was anarchy where would I get my spiro and my estradiol? ??? Anarchy sounded good when I was like 13. But as an adult no way. :)
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 09:31:10 PM
Let me just add one thing. If there was anarchy where would I get my spiro and my estradiol? ??? Anarchy sounded good when I was like 13. But as an adult no way. :)
the same place u get it now... a pharmacy? i don't understand why it would be different
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:32:15 PM
the same place u get it now... a pharmacy? i don't understand
But why would company make something if there is no profit to it? Since there is no law once people start stealing things and killing each other! What would be the point in making stuff like spiro and estradoil? And who would regulate corporations to make sure they are producing medicine that want kill you?
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 09:42:41 PM
But why would company make something if there is no profit to it? Since there is no law once people start stealing things and killing each other! What would be the point in making stuff like spiro and estradoil? And who would regulate corporations to make sure they are producing medicine that want kill you?
From my post above:
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.
Why do you assume corporations want to kill you? if they did that, they would have no-one to sell products to LOL
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
But by the time you're dead, they've made their fortune and can retire in luxury. :P
Besides, how are bad actions measured? Anarchy implies getting everyone on the same page. Good luck getting the US population to agree on anything. ::)
Such as if a homophobe assaulted a gay person for no reason in an alley. No witnesses were around. The assaulter says that he saw that the gay person was about to rob a store, or something. Who do you trust? A court system would be needed to judge guilt.
Government: The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Synonyms: Rule, administration, management.
If a court system is used and its word is final, that's a government. Not just any government, but an aristocracy, which you claim to be against. Therefore, you no longer have anarchy. Anarchy = utopia, and we all know that doesn't exist.
The alternative is that everyone just get together and decide as a mob what to do. Mob rule doesn't work, either.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 09:53:44 PM
But by the time you're dead, they've made their fortune and can retire in luxury. :P
Besides, how are bad actions measured? Anarchy implies getting everyone on the same page. Good luck getting the US population to agree on anything. ::)
Such as if a homophobe assaulted a gay person for no reason in an alley. No witnesses were around. The assaulter says that he saw that the gay person was about to rob a store, or something. Who do you trust? A court system would be needed to judge guilt.
Government: The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Synonyms: Rule, administration, management.
If a court system is used and its word is final, that's a government. Not just any government, but an aristocracy, which you claim to be against. Therefore, you no longer have anarchy. Anarchy = utopia, and we all know that doesn't exist.
The alternative is that everyone just get together and decide as a mob what to do. Mob rule doesn't work, either.
that's your opinion of what would happen if we were free from the oligarchy coercive government... and you're entitled to it... i don't anticipate being able to change your mind so let us stop arguing with each other :) i appreciate your questions as they made me do research about anarchy and i'm almost able to call myself an anarchist! almost...
and to repeat this for the third time...
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:45:04 PM
From my post above:
Anarchy does not mean no rules, only no rulers.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Anarchists are not against law and order, but against the fiat legislation and rule of a privileged or self-appointed few. All philosophical anarchists oppose coerced, fiat, dictatorial law and social systems.
Why do you assume corporations want to kill you? if they did that, they would have no-one to sell products to LOL
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
Your living in a fantasy if you believe that! At one point we did have anarchy in the US I think they called it the wild west and it did not work. And about corporations its always about the cheapest way to produce something and with all that cost cutting the end product suffers.
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 09:59:08 PM
Your living in a fantasy if you believe that! At one point we did have anarchy in the US I think they called it the wild west and it did not work. And about corporations its always about the cheapest way to produce something and with all that cost cutting the end product suffers.
i'm not living in a fantasy world... it's philosophy... the idea that it is possible to live without RULERS!
and the best way to make money is not to use the cheapest materials... it's to create REPEAT customers (i.e. not dead ones)
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:59:55 PM
i'm not living in a fantasy world... its philosophy... the idea that it is possible to live without RULERS!
and the best way to make money is not to use the cheapest materials... its to create REPEAT customers!
I just prefer some order to the chaos you want.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:57:20 PM
that's your opinion of what would happen if we were free from the oligarchy coercive government
-snip-
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
1. It's not an opinion; it's a fact. Those are your only two options in a case to establish guilt of an infraction. Either create a system or just do what you as a group feel like doing.
2. If everyone is entitled to free association and voluntary exchange, that is, by definition, chaos. Everyone does what they want. Wants are volatile, and volatility is chaos.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 09:59:55 PM
and the best way to make money is not to use the cheapest materials... it's to create REPEAT customers (i.e. not dead ones)
Once again, once you make your money, it doesn't matter if people come back. You got the money, and any criminal act can easily be gotten away with in anarchy.
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 10:04:45 PM
I just prefer some order to the chaos you want.
Anarchy does
not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but
ordered liberty.
That's what anarchist say, yet that's not true. Anarchy is, by definition, chaos. There are no standards.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:05:46 PM
1. It's not an opinion; it's a fact. Those are your only two options in a case to establish guilt of an infraction. Either create a system or just do what you as a group feel like doing.
2. If everyone is entitled to free association and voluntary exchange, that is, by definition, chaos. Everyone does what they want. Wants are volatile, and volatility is chaos.
Once again, once you make your money, it doesn't matter if people come back. You got the money, and any criminal act can easily be gotten away with in anarchy.
did you read this part? every community can decide for THEMSELVES how to deal with it!! gosh
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:06:58 PM
That's what anarchist say, yet that's not true. Anarchy is, by definition, chaos. There are no standards.
he said, she said... this is what you say...
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:06:58 PM
That's what anarchist say, yet that's not true. Anarchy is, by definition, chaos. There are no standards.
lol, thanks for defining anarchy, wouldn't want to let any anarchists have a crack at defining it for themselves, since, y'know, it's their movement 'n all
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:06:10 PM
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
What have you been smoking? And who's running this ordered liberty? No matter what there is always a top dog it's human nature and your fooling yourself to think otherwise.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:05:46 PM
2. If everyone is entitled to free association and voluntary exchange, that is, by definition, chaos. Everyone does what they want. Wants are volatile, and volatility is chaos.
cha·os noun \ˈkā-ˌäs\
Definition of CHAOS
obsolete : chasm, abyss
a : often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos
b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
a : a state of utter confusion <the blackout caused chaos throughout the city>
b : a confused mass or mixture <a chaos of television antennas>
Anarchy is not confusion.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:09:11 PM
Anarchists do not pretend to know how humans will or should form their social structures and communities. Anarchists believe that such choices must belong strictly to each group of people, but also believe that all such choices must be based upon free association and voluntary exchange. With thousands of existing different worldviews, anarchists accept and embrace that many different communities would exist in anarchy.
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:15:00 PM
Anarchy is not confusion.
Anarchy does not mean chaos, disorder, and bomb throwing.
Anarchy does not mean no law or order, but ordered liberty.
No matter how many times you say it, it's still false. ???
Besides, a majority of the people on the world think that the best system is govt. Therefore, we decided for ourselves. If you want anarchy, go start your own independent commune.
Quote from: transtrender on February 08, 2013, 10:11:37 PM
lol, thanks for defining anarchy, wouldn't want to let any anarchists have a crack at defining it for themselves, since, y'know, it's their movement 'n all
I was pointing out a contradiction in their definition. Free association = doing what you want. Wants are not constant among people. Therefore, wants are fluid, and fluidity means chaos. It's not my fault that they can't define something properly. :-\
Besides, it's my right as an individual to define anarchy however I choose, or do you not like that? See how ineffective anarchy is?
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 10:12:47 PM
What have you been smoking? And who's running this ordered liberty? No matter what there is always a top dog it's human nature and your fooling yourself to think otherwise.
individuals... groups... communities themselves will decide for themselves... how many times do i need to say this? actually i'm not... i can't keep repeating myself if you aren't willing to grasp the ideas of being free without rulers
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
Besides, it's my right as an individual to define anarchy however I choose, or do you not like that? See how ineffective anarchy is?
you're silly
Quote from: transtrender on February 08, 2013, 10:11:37 PM
lol, thanks for defining anarchy, wouldn't want to let any anarchists have a crack at defining it for themselves, since, y'know, it's their movement 'n all
thumbs up
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:18:54 PM
you're silly
Can't come up with anything to counteract a good point, so why not just call the other side silly? ::)
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:19:12 PM
thumbs up
yo, can we start an anarchosyndicalist commune, i feel like that'd be awesome
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:20:18 PM
Can't come up with anything to counteract a good point, so why not just call the other side silly? ::)
because all you do is redefine my words and then tell me i'm wrong
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:17:24 PM
individuals... groups... communities themselves will decide for themselves... how many times do i need to say this? actually i'm not... i can't keep repeating myself you aren't willing to grasp the ideas of being free from rulers
Yeah I'm still not seeing this utopian vision of anarchy your seeing. ::) Where everybody is all happy and peace loving. Ever see the movie escape from New York? That the way I see anarchy.
Quote from: DianaP on February 08, 2013, 10:16:32 PM
Free association = doing what you want.
Definition of FREE ASSOCIATION1
a : the expression (as by speaking or writing) of the content of consciousness without censorship as an aid in gaining access to unconscious processes especially in psychoanalysis
b : the reporting of the first thought that comes to mind in response to a given stimulus (as a word)
2
: an idea or image elicited by free association
3
: a method using free association
where does it say you can redefine words?
Quote from: Heather on February 08, 2013, 10:23:56 PM
Yeah I'm still not seeing this utopian vision of anarchy seeing. ::) Where everybody is all happy and peace loving. Ever see the movie escape from New York? That the way I see anarchy.
well then that makes sense why you would feel that way... you should maybe do some reading about anarchy or watch some youtube videos... Stefan Molyneux is a great resourse :)
Quote from: oZma on February 08, 2013, 10:24:05 PM
a : the expression (as by speaking or writing) of the content of consciousness without censorship as an aid in gaining access to unconscious processes especially in psychoanalysis
Say whatever you want. Exactly. Thanks. :)
Hi friends :police:
Guess what?
Topic temporarily locked