Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Detractors of Anarchism

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 11:14 a.m. EST by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What does anarchism mean to you?

It has become apparent that many on here, for whatever reason, are deathly afraid of anarchism. People seem to think it is another word for communism, that it would abolish the Constitution, etc. As simply as I can put it, anarchism means that I don't think anyone should have governing power over me. It does not mean that law will be abolished and chaos will be installed.

We don't need a government. They've done a great job fooling you into thinking that we do, and that started all the way back in grade school. You were taught to be obedient to authority, no matter what (Milgram Experiment).

Why do you think we need a President? Why are you so willing to say "these people should rule over me"? And why do you back it up with such conviction? What has happened to you people? The American government has done a terrific job of indoctrinating you to believe that you need them.

You don't need them to tell you what to do. Break the mental shackles that government has put on you. Wake up.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

How is it possible to have law without a governing power?

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

The problem with "anarchism" is that while it may indeed describe the ideal society, it has not been very effective in helping people work out the path toward it. There are too many people waving anarchist banners while they go out to serve as some kind of lunatic SPCA burning down labs to enforce their particular view of animal rights, for example. Need I name others?

I think the bricks we need to build a better society are human rights. We know some of these - right to free speech, right to bear arms. Others, like the right to buy any drug we want (including those actually useful for medical treatment) should be obvious, but aren't in our hands. Many, like the right to adequate food, shelter, medical care, and employment, are being held up by an fundamentalist view of property which pretends that it is a fundamental law of nature rather than simply a scheme we've adopted to protect personal privacy and enterprise - even despite the prevalence of taxation.

When we identify and claim each of the individual rights of man, then it is but a small task to pile these bricks up into a sturdy and pleasing structure that repels all manner of legislation.

[-] 0 points by Idaltu (662) 8 years ago

Excellent historical perspective.


working models


[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

From your second link "The 'negative' side of anarchism - abolition of the State - has to be balanced against what replaces it - a society of freedom and free co-operation."

Like all political theories there is a vision of Utopia that makes it all seem so wonderful. It may not be the anarchists that will be the violent trouble makers, but anyone who believes an absence of laws, will mean society will be safe and stable is not thinking about it clearly. Prisons would not exist, as there would be no laws to enforce the people being in prison. Prisoners tend to be violent. There are alot of selfish violent people in society.

There would have to be some type of economic system. Clearly people have a need for goods whether you have laws or government. Some people would choose to take what they wanted rather than compensate others for it. And then how do you deal with those people? With no laws, vigilantism would rule the day.

Like i said in my other post, while i am a peaceful person, if i wanted to be ruthless, i have the ability, physically and mentally, to obliterate scores of innocent peaceful people. There are lots of people out there like that. Even in your link it addresses my very comments. "These local communities would need to develop some means of dealing with individuals who harmed others. Instead of a few thousand professional police there would be 51 million in the 'United Kingdom' alone. Ultimately, our only protection is each other."

48,000,000 Americans are on food stamps now. Collapsing the government to a system of anarchy would leave these people unable to get food. Urban areas are not near farms. The time it took to 'organize' people, would be horrible. All of the arguments in support of anarchy do not consider the repercussions. They attempt too but it is all so wonderful sounding, in practicality it will be abyssmal.


[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

Lol. The other anarchists around here don't want your type of anarchy. Had this discussion the other day, and they claimed that all the people with guns would just kill each other so they could live their utopian society. I asked them how they intended to get food, when armed Americans would defend their land. They didn't have an answer. While i don't support anarchy, because i like stability, like you I own a lot of weapons. I would not be a good guy to live near if our system collapsed and everyone had to fend for themselves.

[-] 1 points by laffingrass (362) from Normal, IL 8 years ago

I wasn't aware that the police force would disappear. Why is that?


[-] 0 points by Jimboiam (812) 8 years ago

I know what it is. I don't support it. I don't want to have to shoot people because they don't know how to act. personal preference. The other anarchists around here are anti gun, and think they can all survive sniffing daisies all day.