ANARCHY: Yay, let’s organize a group to end organization!
What’s going on in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Trailer
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Do not want | FAIL.GOV Next »
» 222 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Earl Simmons on Vandals Cashing In ba12348 on Both at the Same Time Edna Mode on Keeping the Internet Hone… Frank Miller on Vandals Cashing In InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Keeping the Internet Hone… InGen Corp. on Collect Em’ All InGen Corp. on Collect Em’ All 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
VIDEO: Nylah Sleeps Everywhere
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Quality shnuggle time
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. Captioned
Dave. It Was Dave.
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Tub Regrets
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
GOZLINGZ
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Pocket Protected
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
A FATHER'S EYES
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Women, Pegged
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
THIS IS GONNA BE THE BEST SHOW EVER
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
2012 Grammy Nominated Albums of the Year... Wif KITTEHS!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
My Unborn Child Totally Looks Like The Punisher
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Guns Can Be Girly Too
Not to mention have a guy giving everybody the International sign of your an asshole.
Means different things in different cultures.
It is quasi universal. However it is common knowledge in the west, many middle eastern countries, and in Asia.
Of course few things are universal, but the fact remains that for approx. 4-5 billion out of the 6 billion on this planet, that is the sign for your an asshole.
How did they get my an asshole!?!?
well done, you made me spit tea all over my laptop. D=
really, because i believe in india thats the vitarka mudra. Hinduism goes back quite a ways, and accounts for over 10% of the population.
Hence the 4-5 billion estimate. However, with Britian’s influence, I can assure you they know what it means when coming from a westerner.
Well, this pic is taken in Greece, I’m Greek, and this gesture don’t mean a thing here in our country. End of argument…
however it means “you’re gay”in your neighbour Turkey
And still, what with our penchant for anglophilia, it means nothing to us in Sweden. I seriously think you overestimate its globalness.
Never ever seen it before either. I would never have associated this with “you’re an asshole” – if anything it looked like an OK sign to me…
And I’m in Denmark…
Ummm… doesn’t work in 99.007% of Australia. I know that our 20+ million population should skew those stats right back. Of course, since I checked with all of those 20+ million, I’m quite comfortable quoting statistics.
Incidentally, does that mean all those people doing yoga in the morning are giving two arseholes? Golly. Who’d ‘ave thunk it?
Holy Mother Kundalini!
I lose more friends that way…
their their, your not an arsewhole
Common knowledge the west maybe, but definitely not used in Sweden, at least. Mebbe we’re neither west nor east, more just north. ;oP
Because you know that the universal sign for “just fine/ready/A-ok”
in scuba diving is that hand sign, correct?
Just wondering… are you sure that you tapped 1gwu?
Haha, this one was great.
This picture was taken in Berlin, in front of the Greek consulate.
It shows german / greek youths, part of a group of about 30 demonstrators who occupied the Greek consulate building to protest the shooting dead of a 15-year-old boy in Athens. The building was left peacefully 8 hours later.
You know it’s early in the morning when you read that “The shooting of a dead 15-year-old..”
Thank you for the story, it is very sad. But hopeful too.
Hopeful? They might leave peacefully, I doubt other youths in Athens will.
Read it again. It says “shooting dead of a” not “shooting of a dead.” Which means the 15 year old died from the wound.
Yes, I think that’s why Charro started with indicating that it’s early in the morning when you misread things like that. Did you read too quickly there?
Braille service coming shortly.
It’s funny, generally speaking, how we are supposed to have the death penalty to deter ordinary citizens from murdering people, but when the government murders people and nobody offers to kill them, that’s heroic.
Students…any excuse for a party….
since when is anarchy peaceful? Amateurs.
Why wouldn’t it be? Then again I don’t equate allowing someone to abuse you with “peace.”
“Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty.” –Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Legislation, 1802
Yeah, but he was a dumbass.
Its somewhat inaccurate, the anarchy symbol for example is an A encircled by an O, for the phrase Anarcy Is Order. They’re anti government, not anti organization. People should organize themselves out, not be dictated how to ^_^
Erm, Anarchy Is Order. I just woke up, can you tell?
So what they really want is to be dominated by the strongest without any form of redress. They want strong dictators…power to he who grabs it.
In bed even.
yea, but you guys get to use your escape clauses.
True, very true.
Thank you for completely ignoring what Candystripe said. They do NOT want order imposed from outside themselves and their immediate social group.
My favorite flavor is Green Anarchy, specifically the human rewilding movement.
lovely concept but what do you think would happen if everyone in the U.S. decided to participate in the rewilding movement?? competition for food, water, shelter and other resources – people would band together to protect resources and have the “power” to acquire more resources…the weak or unorganized would suffer and those with the “right skills” will ultimately once again establish a power base.. once that happens we begin to see warlords, echos of the feudal system starting to appear ???
I certainly agree that the knowledge and skills within that movement can be very important if you want to be able to depend on yourself and not just the government, but our current physical environment would never support mass movement into “self sufficiency” – people can no longer provide themselves with everything they need, and to assume that people will just get along is naive – most people only do things when they will receive some benefit in return even the aultruistic…lol…they get that warm fuzzy feeling of doing something for those who are “less than” – so once again, in order to maintain order on a large scale the “self-governed” will also lose out
rewilding is pretty crazy and largely unworkable, but only represents a tiny proportion of the anarchist movement.
google anarcho-syndicalism. that’s the really sexy stuff that has actually worked on a large scale in real life.
“They” (if you mean anarchist) do not want “strong dictators.” Anarchy is about mutual community cooperation. It is about getting rid of hierarchical power relationships…..you know, true equality.
uh, no, anarchy isn’t survival of the ‘fittest’, or about letting anyone take power,it’s about ordinary working folks running things for themselves, all together in a series of directly-democratic collectives for different workplaces, neighbourhoods etc.
i’m pretty amazed (although not surprised) at the sheer number of people who have absolutely no idea of what anarchism is, means or desires.
hmm spot the anarchist…
I remember in my younger days, before I knew anything about politics or culture, my cousin told me that the anarchy symbol meant asshole, see, cause there is an A inside a hole, A-hole, I totally believed him, untill the next summer when I fell in love with punk music……
It does mean that but the music is still good. Least when you catch the artists who aren’t screaming. Then again, I never claimed to be completely hip to the specific terms and genres so perhaps I am being too general.
*Singing loudly*
I am an Antichrist…
I am an anarchist…
Don’t know what I want….
But I know how to get it…
I wanna destroy….
The Passerby…
‘Cuz I wanna be…
Anarchy…
*sings a different song*
Ah’m no’ an anarchist
-Ah’m just a wee bit pissed…..
Dear old Johnny advertises Country Life Butter now… the wild man…
Are you kidding?!
You think I can make this stuff up?
Google “John Lydon Butter’ and check them out…
There are currently two running in the UK
The first one is behind my name above
Isn’t that crazy!! I think it must be one of the signs of the Armageddon! I don’t know how I feel about one of my teenage icons selling out to the man….
Okay, that was awful. You sure you don’t want to move to Illinois until those commercials are over? I can’t believe Vivian has come to this!
*wishes he had really died on that bus*
Oh, bloody hell. I don’t know whether to thank you for sharing that or just crying. Hated the Pistols, liked the small amount of PiL we could get out here. *Quiet sniff*
Because baby, I’m an anarchist,
You’re a spineless liberal,
We marched together for the eight hour day
Held hands in the streets of Seattle
But when it came time to throw bricks
through that Starbucks window
You left me all alone…….*Tear*
And then, the organization becomes a government. Anarchy is an interesting idea for those who are hard of thinking.
“hard of thinking”?
Anarchy depends on the idea that people, deep down, are nice & want to help each other naturally.
.
.
.
.
I guess you prove them wrong *sadness*
I am pretty sure Somalia and a number of other countries stuck in an area without any order proves them wrong. Anarchy depends on the idea that we would have anything worth more than a mudhole without some kind of order. A system that depends on pure altruism is going fail and fail hard.
Ya, I personally would love the idea of limitless freedom in a place where people only want to help. As yet, that place doesn’t exist.
I’m still waiting for someone to give us a patronizing explanation of why Somalia isn’t “real” anarchy….you know it’s going to happen at some point in the discussion.
As am I.
*looks down the posts* Sorry, did you have 10:45 to 11:00 in the pool, or did I?
The moment I place a bet, I will be wrong. I avoid gambling when I can…
I had 11:30 – 12:00… I was counting on laziness. -_-
So Somalia isn’t a real anrchy because…
I’m still waiting for somebody to say it. I might still win if they take too long.
I was counting UF’s comment: To state, for instance, that Somalia is an anarchy, is correct, only insofar as the term can mean chaos…. It’s not a political anarchy, since it has no functional systems.
Do you want to hold out for something more specific?
He stated it was a form of Anarchy so I am holding out. ; )
Hmm. Oh, all right. He did say it’s not a “political anarchy”, though.
Well technically it is. Anarchy means no government. Anarchy can’t be a system of government or it would cease to be an Anarchy. So it is a polital anarchy.
Which I think makes the term “political anarchy” an oxymoron unless it’s referring to complete absence of government, right?
(I may be confused, though. What can I say, my only course in government was taught by a football coach…)
No no, you make a point. I remember having a civics class taught by a football coach. I don’t like football but I loved his class.
Well, it did leave me unable to explain the process of how legislation is passed without resorting to the use of X’s and O’s with lines running between them.
I didn’t used to like football but it’s actually grown on me over the years. Probably in great part because I got talked into playing fantasy football. Anything where I can strategize is going to be of greater interest to me.
Never could get into it. I prefer a bit more violence in my fantasy and less tight pants. However, I can see the appeal though.
I do wish I could get an updated Mutant League Football game, that was fun.
Somalia is a society at war. I might as well ask you why ww2 is not an example of whatever the hell ideology you trumpet.
Actually they are in anarchy. There is no government. Just what people make. Well, people have made a hell there and the rest have to live in it.
DWN – i think you’ll find that a society living governed by a warlord is a dictatorship. given that somalia was, last time i looked, overrun by opposing warlords it might be considered several dictatorships or even a dictatorship in civil war.
similar fallacies – every state the USA refers to as communist has been a dictatorship – hence the common mistake in the US (due largely to 1950 propaganda ) that communism means having no freedom.
And these warlords rose out of the anarchy of the central government failing. Which illustrates my point rather nicely. These dictators didn’t fall from the sky. They came from the people and took power. There was nothing to oppose them so they did it.
Technically it is still an anarchy since there is no real ruling body. Just warlords vying to become the ruling body. Nothing centralized. Then again, if you are looking for a true state of anarchy, you won’t find one since people inevitably align with some faction or another or just make one.
So I get your point but mine still remains.
And these warlords rose out of the anarchy of the central government failing. Which illustrates my point rather nicely. These dictators didn’t fall from the sky. They came from the people and took power. There was nothing to oppose them so they did it.
Technically it is still an anarchy since there is no real ruling body. Just warlords vying to become the ruling body. Nothing centralized. Then again, if you are looking for a true state of anarchy, you won’t find one since people inevitably align with some faction or another or just make one.
So I get your point but mine still remains. And PK is fighting me tooth and claw tonight…
Oh f*ck you, PK….
these warlords rose out of the anarchy of the central government failing
Technically it is still an anarchy since there is no real ruling body.
…
‘rose out of’ yes, quite.
also
warlords are real dude. they exist & hold de facto power over people, thus they are govts in & of themselves.
firstly, there was never a “government” for the warlords to have arison out of. there was an US-backed attempt at democracy trying to tie together the local warlords (who have been there since prior to somalia having been amalgamated by colonists) in a vain attempt to prevent border-wars with the neighbouring countries.
anarchy is, as someone has already said, a lack of any authoritative figures in any given social group. warLORD kind of gives it away that there are authoritative figures. what you’re looking at is a completely different scope of governance to that which you are used to. understandably this can cause confusion, and i deeply recommend that you research african politics. it’s truly fascinating. TIA for example ^.^
@pedant: At what point did I say they weren’t real? I think you misread me there. I said they arose out of the situation. I didn’t say they were made up.
@tira: Alright, I will concede on the semantics angle since this works into my point just as nicely.
just an interesting side arguement…even if there are multiple factions within Somalia fighting amongst themselves, there is actually a “legitimate, recognized government” according to the international community and the country does still posses Westphalian, and International Legal sovereignty though they obviously lack Interdependent and Domestic sovereignty based on the current situation so technically not anarchy – just chaotic within their borders
This whole comment section is painful to read. God, I have at least scratched the surface of anarchist literature, and I also understand the differences between an idea, the people promoting that idea and the people living that idea. What is it about alternative lifestyles and social movements that the people outside of them are incapable of looking directly at them and seeing them for what they are?
There’s a complete lack of basic understanding here as to what constitutes order, human culture, sociality, government, and nationalism. Do you really think human beings always had nations, or that without nations we were just bloodthirsty savages who beat each other up all the time? First off there weren’t enough of us to constantly be at war; our population didn’t get to that level until we invented agriculture. Secondly, God, look around at the wild tribal people who still exist today. Not only are most of them not trying to kill one another day and night, but they are living in some of the most marginal and dangerous conditions possible because the farmers pushed them off the good land, a situation which ought to be stressful enough to make them implode and disappear. Hasn’t happened yet, although not for lack of trying on the part of domesticated people to facilitate that destruction.
When I am with my family or with my friends, we sort things out ourselves. We don’t need the government to do it. In fact I only ever need government because the food’s been locked up and people have been divided inequitably into artificial social classes and I need some protection against exploitation and attack because of those things. And that is not to say that when I’m with my family and friends I’m in some kind of utopia. But it IS to say that I don’t need some Big Daddy Bully telling me what to do.
And speaking of which I’m really sick and tired of people going, “Oh, this social movement is stupid and pointless because we’ll never have utopia.” While there have been utopian movements, it does not follow that all social movements desire utopia. Why don’t you try ASKING PEOPLE what they really believe about X, Y, and Z before making your asinine grand sweeping pronouncements about how what they’re proposing will never work. And don’t stop with the first guy you talk to. Talk to lots of people. Read. Study. Explore. Because if you won’t (not can’t, WON’T) do those things then you don’t know what you’re talking about and are not qualified to have an opinion. Thanks for playing.
And thus you reach the point of our problem with it… It only works in small groups. Your family and friends do not equal 6.5 billion people. Or a Million. Or even a thousand. Even those tribes out there still don’t have an anarchy.
I am really sick and tired of people thinking that something that works in VERY small groups would work for groups the size of nations. So yes, read, study, explore. Realize what exactly you are asking and what scale it actually works on and get back to us.
In support of this, I suggest anyone who wants to try an experiment have a potluck dinner, invite 25 people, and don’t tell any of them what to bring.
You will almost inevitably end up with 10 people bringing some type of bread, 10 people bringing some type of dessert, 4 people bringing appetizer type stuff, and one person who shows up with some type of bizarre vegan eggplant casserole that looks and smells odd.
To clarify, compare that with having four people do something like that, then you are more likely to end up with a reasonable meal.
What? You didn’t like my vegan eggplant casserole? Lord o’ mercy, you think it smells odd now… wait approximately four hours. It’ll disturb your wallpaper, for sure. Makes rhorho’s aspara-gust smell like a sweet verdant meadow after spring rain.
!kca,
idealism is nice, but the notion that an anarchic society will coalesce into some altruistic utopia is terribly naive. Given that sort of free reign, people are the most opportunistic and predatory of animals. There is an undercurrent of innately social behavior in people. If there is no established large-scale government, smaller governing bodies will emerge, eventually reverting to a larger government over time, but not without difficulty and likely bloody conflict on the way to getting there.
Anarchy—–>Tribalism—–>Feudalism—->etc—–>back to roughly where we are now
Exactly. As much as I’d love to believe that a peaceful anarchic (I hope that’s the right word) society is possible, I don’t think human nature would allow it.
True Libertarianism is really a Anarchist-Captialist utopia type philosophy, wherein the market allows there to be order, as opposed to govt… literally, the place becomes a ‘nation of shopkeepers’
Basically, the term anarchist, can mean anything from type of low govt communism, through to ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’
To state, for instance, that Somalia is an anarchy, is correct, only insofar as the term can mean chaos…. It’s not a political anarchy, since it has no functional systems. In fact, from a political point of view, ‘Somalia’ is more or less the name on a map for a gap bounded by Djibouti, Kenya, the Gulf of Aden with Yemen , the Indian Ocean, and Ethiopia than a geo-political entity.
A bit like Afghanistan…
So we go from a ruling body who at least pretend to serve us to a ruling body who flat out tells us they are in it for the money…
I didn’t say it was a good idea… and you’ve pretty much aced it… everyone does it for the commerce, be it barter, precious metals, sex, baby farming…
Oh, I wasn’t being accusatory. Just simplifying for those who might not have understood all your big words and small difficult words. : )
Hey! I have my own simultaneous translation….
Without charge… for now…
assuming I live that long….
My assassins… *cough* I mean you’re still here. : D
with all do respect, this thread is taken from a perspective of those of you who have never really experienced anarchy, which is vastly different from chaos. Both can be bad, very bad, but anarchy is an extended form of pure chaos. not very nice, however you want to describe it..
I’ve seen what can happen in what is a so called civilized area with rules that promise to prevent and punish with people you are told you can trust and love. I shudder to think what it is like in an area with no rules and no promises.
I haven’t been to war but I have a good enough idea to oppose the idea of Anarchy.
*bows to DWN’s response*
I’m afraid they’re broken…
Unc, are we pretty much saying
Libertarianism = Ferengiism?
Ya know, that makes a lot of sense.
Agree – Somalia is a name so people know where the mess is. Afghanistan… sort-of the same. But not quite. Afghanistan IS good for one thing. A Jezail bullet gave Dr Watson to Sherlock Holmes. And where would we be without those two?
Your idealism is nice. Please try to preserve it as you get older. Also, bear in mind it’s the same idealism the neocons use when they say: “Deregulate everything, the naturally good impulses of those in business will naturally curb all abuses.”
Thank you for all your well-reasoned replies, folks.
.
but, I was more commenting on Mark’s unnecessary dickism in his first post. it’s nice to see the dickishness was a passing phase.
*HUGS*
Problem was that it wasn’t dickish. It was the truth. The level of naivety required means that somebody didn’t think it all the way through. However, life shows us just how many people don’t think it all the way through.
Thanks DWN
Just helping where I can.
Political articles of faith and bones of saint… PTUI! This is why politics is just another religion…
Yep. Depending on the idea that people are not like all other animals, is to be hard of thinking.
/
What it really, essentially depends on is that everyone is equal. Anarchy cannot be sustainable where inequality exists, full stop.
And by that I don’t mean political inequality – I mean inequality of strength, of resources, of any practical rather than theoretical measure.
Exactly what I was thinking! (A little time after I had written my post, of course.) As long as the world looks as it does now, anarchy is impossible, and will not be able to make things better. Imo, ofc.
Pretty much my argument all along. @_@ Getting rather tiring having to repeat myself.
Not really, because everyone is a government then. Anarchy has different structures to it, namely anarchocommunism and anarchosyndicatism, although there are other schools of thought.
Which is where you fall into a problem. Not everybody can be a government unto themselves. True, they can rule their own lives perhaps but can they have the level of thinking to consider the community on the whole? And they would need to in an anarchy since bartering would still occur. It is where anarchy starts breaking down in practical means. It works fine until you have to interact with each other for longer than a day or maybe a week.
You really need to look this up because explaining an issue for which books have been written on is a little hard to condense into a post. There are structures that everyone can agree upon to ensure that things get done, savvy?
Ummm… does everybody agree on the structures? What happens to the ones who disagree with the structures? Who has the most valid view?
And when those structures need to be enforced, what then? You are still talking about something that either has to be fully embraced which won’t happen or needs to be enforced by a ruling body which defeats the whole point. Either way you end right back at square one, savvy?
Today, the balcony! Tomorrow, THE WORLD!
And Friday is poker night!
I like the guy on the far left side of the balcony, somebody forgot their black mask and had to use their scarf. how fascion friendly
Anarchism is in no way opposed to organization; and this “motivational poster” (which should not even belong on Pundit Kitchen to begin with) is retarded.
yet another hack who doesn’t understand anarchy, but still finds it appropriate to mock.
Indeed…
Without government and law, we revert to the State of Nature, in which (as a clever old Brit remarked) life is “nasty, poor, brutish, and short.” We have seen in, e.g., Somalia what happens when the rule of law breaks down.
True liberty is only achieved within a framework of order.
Why don’t you go read Ishmael or something
Substantively, there’s an element of correctness. Liberty is something that is granted by largesse of govt and can be legislated or voted away by whim of fashion and expedience.
Freedom, no man can take.
“…which no good man loses save with his life…”
One can die free…
covered in tapioca…
In bed?
Messy sounding but sure.
Hobbes.
… and Calvin?
BAW – remember where Hobbes goes with that?
In the act of creation of government, those participating give up all their rights but that to self-preservation to the sovereign. This means that the ONLY time a citizen can resist the sovereign is when it directly threatens their life.
Call me idealistic, but I believe that government should be accountable for its actions to someone other than god – perhaps those affected by those actions?
Annarchy does not equal chaos. Nor is it strictly anti-organizational. Just sayin’…
Maybe not, but thats where it is destined to end up at.
Anarchy can only work with groups small enough to operate by consensus. Otherwise there is majority rule including some enforcement against upset minorities – and an end to anarchy.
A group small enough to operate by consensus is seldom more than about 13 people.
It is no coincidence that this is the traditional number for a witches’ coven.
My personal experience is that it fails whenever there’s more than 3. (Or as soon as anyone has the nerve to express an opinion that differs from mine.)
Heh, even rule by consensus is democracy not anarchy. So anarchy pretty much works only in old school colonial day wilderness settings where you see your neighbor maybe once in a blue moon.
Pratchett was a wiser one here – the natural number for a coven is one. I’m sure someone should be able to quote chapter and verse from Wyrd Sisiters…
The caption on this image, and most of the comments for that matter, is a perfect example of the lack of education and understanding the average person has of just what anarchism as a philosophy really is–indeed, a bomb-throwing anarchist is the same as an Islamic militant or a Christian fundamentalist: highly publicized extremist perversions that do not accurately portray the majority. Real anarchists are in no way against organization, order, or even guidelines for that matter–only hierarchy (which puts too much power in the hands of individuals and small groups–religion, dictatorships) and poorly constructed economic systems (any in which the poor are kept poor and the rich get richer).
Here Here!
Where? Where?
When you find out, scoop it up and put it out of the window…
Below! Below!
*plop*
Sorry, sorry.
erm Hear hear… double typo fail
It’s always hilarious to find someone talking about philosophy, history or so in a place devoted to humor like this. Yay!
Doesn’t make it wrong to talk about it… Also, I didn’t see you dubbing the “Alamo” thread a few lols back “hilarious.”
here here. don’t forget that anarchy also discourages social hierarchy based on things like gender, race and religion. oh god, not an idea of government where people are treated like people capable of making decisions best for themselves and their community!
Yes, because we totally didn’t start there and end up here anyway… People assign themselves to groups, labels, ideals, and the like as a matter of course. Anarchy simply states that nobody is in charge by its definition. Ergo, anybody can do anything, including set up their own groups with their own codes.
It is the reason that Anarchy doesn’t work. It relies on a huggy kissy goodness the world doesn’t have.
False. “human nature” is an argument often used as a last resort, as it is thought to be irrefutable. This is not the case. Anarchism is, in fact, the only political philosophy to give deep thought into the matter. Look into it.
Also, anarchy will not be a utopian society. It will be a human society. Anarchists are not idealists. We’re completely aware of all the flaws in human beings, and that is why we believe in the radical notion that other people are not your property.
Mundus vult decipi.
And yet you forget that humans came up with what you oppose. So you are still fighting a construct instead of the actual problem. I never said anybody was my property. You can stop making up arguments to refute.
Anarchy is, essentially, the absence of government. Sarah seems like more of a Thoreau supporter (or perhaps a member of Students for a Democratic Society) to me.
Ah but government is a construct of people. Removing the construct does nothing for the problem as it is rooted in the minds of the people. It is like removing knife from a person’s hand without doing anything else. They still have a fist or can just reach for another weapon.
Anarchy wouldn’t work because it only attacks a construct. So it is, in essence, attacking nothing and assuming everything. People would just build another construct which would just be a new government and thus a lateral move at best. I believe I only have to point to Somalia to show you the darker possibility.
Government wasn’t handed down by space aliens, it was created by us. Anarchy treats it as if we just remove what we created and we won’t just do it all again.
I apologize for the pontification, just your remark set off my own.
Although this made me laugh, this is yet another fail on the general public’s part. Anarchy- an-archos- without rulers. It has nothing to do with lack of order, only lack of rulers.
The O around the A in the anarchy symbol means anarchy is order. So, yeah, read a book.
-
Was this part of your comment actually directed at anyone in particular, or do you just enjoy reading stuff you write?
I’d have to ask you the same question about your post.
I would assume that he thought the nesting function of his comment would help infer that he was talking to you just as I assume that this nesting will infer that I am talking to you.
Or shall we play more of “I know you are but what am I?”
There you go… over estimating the intelligence of people… you optimist!
In bed and apparently on comment forums.
Thanks DWN, some people just do not have a firm grasp of the obvious.. in bed or otherwise.
I still need to remember to refer to my wang as The Obvious when I get into bed. The look on Lynn’s face would be priceless.
“Hun, time for you to take The Obvious.”
Or
“I have a firm grasp of The Obvious. You best get a firm grasp too.”
Etc etc.
I was referring to the enjoying reading stuff he writes part… But, since it’s so difficult to grasp for you’re massive brains, when I said “read a book,” I was addressing the person who made the image in the first place, hence my comment NOT being nested.
I hope that helps you two to understand.
There is no Anarchy. There is no Order.
There is only Darkseid!
All hail Diskordia!
Grand and Gory old Diskordia!
Grand and Gory old Diskordia!
Grand and Gory old Diskordia!
Her Apple Korps is strong!
Um, no. Dumb.
Ever heard of Iceland?
Go to http://www.simplyanarchy to figure it out.
Anarchy is for people who actually think it through. Government is for people who don’t.
You guys:”Anarchy can’t work.”
Me:”Why?”
You Guys:”Because people are immoral.”
Me:”What is the government made of?”
You guys:”People.”
Me:”Who chooses the government?”
You Guys:”People. Hey, you’re just trying to confuse me.
Now calculate how many people actually think it through versus those who do not. Now calculate how many of those people would be the barbarians at your gate. So perhaps you should realize that no man is an island and thus those who cannot think it through still affect those who can. Government was thought up by those who can think it through to help keep those who can’t from ruining everything.
So yes, people are immoral and the government is made of people. Anarchy is made of immoral people too yet without any checks in place to keep it from falling apart.
I am still wondering why you didn’t post the next step in your conversation.
Well, that sort of sums up why I’m a eugenicist of sorts (but unlike most who hold the view, I really don’t think there’s anything worth handing on in my genes… quick straw poll – anyone fancy a lingering death during which everything you ever were and knew goes down the drain, and you die of pnumonia a drooling, incontinent vegetable? No? OK, don’t blame you) People who don’t or won’t think really don’t add much but random noise to the whole deal. But I’m also elitist… sue me… One of those things, some of the smartest people I know raise animals and crops, since they like it. They live off grid as much as possible… It’s not *entirely* possible to do so, but they try. There is a thriving parallel economy.
One good thing about the ones who don’t think. It means one has warm bodies to throw at people who also think in a place who have what one wants. Think ‘Iraq’ and the political rhetoric that got us all there… We were TOLD there was proof but never shown it, and then told that anyone who disagreed was ‘unpatriotic’ Great rhetoric for whipping up the proles
THe problem with the idea of the Govt as shepherds for the sheep is that the they quickly learn that, in the real world, the wolves will pay you if you throw the sheep to them… The Corps is mother, the Corps is father is a great idea, right until you become worth more to them as pie filling than as a working stiff… No system works for very long. It’s why the tale of Camelot is resonant.
Ya, I have hoped to get off the grid myself when I can actually get out of my damn apartment area. Ugh. I still want something distracting the sheep, lest they stampede, which they do when they think there is no order.
Unsolicited advice: Try and get a place that’s self sufficient for water. Then if the US Balkanises, you just have to join the local militia to keep the rogue states out when they realise that desalination costs.
Many thanks, that was very helpful. I have a friend who did the same thing after he retired and he told me about getting a personal well dug. Thanks for reinforcing his advice. I probably would have forgotten otherwise. @_@
You’d be surprised how many US states have to import water, either due to protracted drought or contaminated local ground… everything from mercury to dioxins… to be sure of it not turning into Love Canal you need to be a pretty thorough historian… I bet there’s not one of my neighbours who remembers the ‘luminous paint’ factory on the river, nor know of the layer of uranium salts that lie only a couple of feet under the top layer of mud… one dryish summer and one largeish boat and we’ll have glowing water (not in the taps, but the river would best be avoided…)
Ah, gotta love better living through SCIENCE!!! *radioactive glow music plays*
And the number one reason (sadly) anarchy will never come to the human race: there just aren’t enough hippies to make it happen. It’s an idea, nothing more. It, like all other ideas, relies on people to make it happen. No laws means no one knocking your door down in the middle of the night for breaking laws. This also requires everyone to realize that theft, murder, etc. hurts everyone. Anarchy requires living unselfishly. I’m ranting, aren’t I? Sorry.
No, not really. I share your reasoning so I might be biased though.
i wonder what that random paper in the window says on it
I think it might be this note. (click name)
Anarchy, complete with dairy product abuse FTW!!
Anarchy is sometimes interpreted as a system of government that doesn’t go beyond each township. Each town is its own government. Of course this does leave room for dictators banding them together under the guise of protection of “freedoms.”
One thing I dont like about other anarchists though is how a small group of them talk about overthrowing everything themselves, which is just silly. For anarchy to work everyone has to be on board, everyone has to choose it. So yeah, its not something that we will probably see in our life times.
Ya, it is something that requires a mass consensus for something that states that nobody will look out for them other than themselves. Definitely don’t see that happening.
This is really very interesting, but I have to agree that at the current population levels it wouldn’t work – in addition to the fact that humans create society, we create the instituions, social contracts, bureaucracies, ets. – as previously said – they didn’t just appear randomly. As soon as any group decides to interact, they must decide on common symbology to represent a form of exchange..two farmers must decide on “value of exchange even in a bartering system” and once that moves beyond the immediate group, well then there needs to be a consensus, and as it continues to ripple out to larger groups, you find yourself needing someone or an institution to moniter, and enforce compliance so some guy down the street doesn’t start under-cutting everyone else. The presupppsition that humans could manage to organize successfully without some form of “authority” is a fallacy in the argument itself. Then there is the fact that anarchy is being organized inside the current social frames, that in itself invalidates it as being “different” from the original – to truly change a socially constructed frame you cannot start by using the frame to define your stance.
We can argue from Tilly’s point of might makes right..or we can talk Durheim’s division of labor, or even Marx’s theory of economic inequalities – the point being ultimately in large scale human societies, yes there is a sorting within the group but as soon as you reach beyond that to interact with other’s “rules” have to be agreed upon, and there has to be some authority to enforce infractions and I don’t know about you, but knowing how individuals will at times make decisions based on revenge, jealousy or just petty stupidity – I prefer the rule of law even with it’s flaws..
Then again, pretty sure if we managed to get to an anarchist state, I would use all my skills to manipulate, consolidate and garner as much power as possible, and then begin my movement to conquer and rule additional communities – read your history…tribal groups were not the happy feely peaceful communities everyone seems to romantize…some yes, but not most – it’s always been survival of the fittest, even in nature – jmo
Let alone that the peaceful ones ended up being wiped out by their more organized and warlike neighbors.
And assuming we can both get into power, shall we have dueling battletanks at dawn to determine supremacy??
As there is maximum capacity for effective rule in regards to geography…let’s just divide it up and have “baby battles” to keep things interesting
just as a side note, there has never been a world empire (political entity), though it has been tried – it’s the one system that seems to get people to band together to fight against, unlike a world economic system. And though we do currently have a world system, the hegemonic state seems to be the best we’ve been able to manage…so if we go with you get 1/2 and I’ll take the other 1/2 we could probably keep the rest from revolution.
Then again, we could hand out regions to others to rule under our authority, and using the core, semiperiphery and periphery concepts, we would be able to keep the entire system stablized as the non-core groups would never organized against the core – you really have to admire the beauty of the design / manipulation at its most insidious
(hmmmm is that wrong ??? lol)
Okay, I will go with this just because it sounds cool enough to be entertaining.
world domination, your doing it wrong.
Yay! Let’s fail to understand Anarchism at a a fundamental level and then caption a photograph to that extent before putting it online so that the entire world may observe our ignorance!
But I guess that would’ve been a bit wordy, huh?
Anarchy is not the lack of organization! It’s the lack of hierarchical organization.
Anarchy is the lack of authority – hence democracy is not anarchism, it has representatives and bureaucrats who are given authority.
Instead of all just stating your opinions on what would or wouldn’t work, read up a little before you form a judgment. Famous anarchist writers included Bakunin, Bookchin, Chompsky, Goldman, Kroptkin, Berkman, Godwin, etc.
So many famous people are anarchists or were anarchists that the system doesn’t tell you about. These include Derick Jensen, (Debatably Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Zapata, Proudhon) Charlie Chaplin, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, , Leonard Peltier, Lucy Parsons, etc.
that is the point …it is easy for the individual to be anarchist, even a very small group, but once people begin to move in larger groups and interact with other groups hierarchial organizations develop….then there is the issue of being an anarchist inside the “system” – also not effective when you are using the current social frames to define your position
There have been multiple anarchist populations composed of “large groups”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
lol @ getting serious on a comedic picture site.
I recall that over a century ago the Anarchists head a World Congress and they spent most of the time arguing and could come to no consensus on anything.
The only impact any of them ever made was when a few individuals threw bombs.
The picture doesn’t make any sense.
END
Who says anarchists are against organization? Anarchists both of the individualist and social variants are against the state, as well as hierarchy in all its forms. Neither are against decentralized organization and cooperation, in fact quite the opposite it is the very basis of anarchist theory to begin with.
Who ever created this demotivational is either completely ignorant of anarchist theory or is deliberately being disingenuous. (straw-man logical fallacy)
listen to the left-libertarian, hes right. this image is funny but its based on a misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts of anarchism.
hell yes!!!!! i love dem peoplez!
This is not correct in any way… anarchy is meant to unite people that have the same goal on the bases that they all mutually agree on, anarchy only wants to disasemble organizations that do not have people as its priority, organize that only form because of the need to profit or to have power over others… anarchist come together to improve their lives and the lives of the people that have the same goals but they do not force anyone who does’t want to be part of it into the organization or into the struggle… and the reason why it might seem like it does is because people do not think for themselves they have politicians making decision for an entire society with laws that do not apply to everyone only to a few…
tl;dr
Anarchy isn’t an end to organization, it’s abolition of the governmental structure, and it preaches that any person should be the lord of himself or herself. It also preaches the existence of communities of equal individuals. So yes.
The state is an organization.
Organization is not always a state.
The OP is an idiot. Anarchists are not against organizations, as long as they are anti-hierarchal and use internal participatory democracy.
Johnny Come Lately?
There is something you forgot, very vital to your statement before you pissed on your keyboard to lay out your statement.
It is called reading the rest of the thread. And no, it hasn’t. Ancient tribes had ancient tribal leaders. I would go into it further but I have honestly addressed your thinking about three to five times today.
Sigh…
Somalia
Wolves live in packs with a an alpha leading
Ants live by the will of a queen ant
Life is very short
Poor means without wealth, wealth being a relative term depending on the society.
Life is not great. Great is once again, a subjective term. Life is life.
Animals kill, brutalize, steal, rape, and invade. Just like humans.
I am waiting for the great part since greatness only comes in bursts and thus the entirety of life cannot be called great.
So I will see your 2 examples and raise you eight examples of why your thinking is flawed.
really ?? have you ever just watched a large group when faced with a crisis situation…most people do need to be told what to do, no one wants to “be the first” to make a decision and as soon as 1 person is strong enough to take charge the rest follow…here’s a few examples…
near the capital (W.Dc) young woman hits bumper of car in front of her, man gets out and goes balistic..y.w. gets out of car begging everyone around her for help as she is being chased and attacked by said wacko – NO ONE helps, not one, wacko kills her
more recent, man is hit by car, NOT ONE person walks out into street to check on him as other people in cars just drive by, don’t even stop…
the chaos of the W.T.C nightmare is a perfect example…masses of people in chaos, unknown situation swirling around them…large numbers of people who got out of the towers where told by building security to go into the underground garages…pretty sure that decision was not in their best interests
I could go on, and on and on – people are not going to just organize into an organic happy family..doesn’t work that way…those who have strong or dominant personalities step up and take charge – this iswhy it is so very easy for anyone who is capable of projecting an image of authority to move large groups sucessfully
& the vital part of your statement dwn, is noticing the very apt & exact response to a post you stated bias towards.
if you live in a democracy, then you are not ruled, hence you are an anarchist…
but hey, who lives in a democracy, we (in the uk, us &c) hire representatives to rule us.
oh & as for stating that you know how prehistoric societies were run? laughable.
yes, for most of history there have been rulers, no most of history does not equal most of the past of humanity.
I’d love to see what would happen if Authority just “went away” overnight in the United States. I Imagine probably half the US would die in about 6 months from just killing eachother over things like food, water, etc, etc. Good luck running large scale projects like power grids, phone lines, hospitals or police.
At least it would be kind of fun, I’d get to put my elite dueling skills into practice.
Are you kidding me? There were always Chiefs/”Big Men” who made the critical decisions in almost every society since the beginning of man. Yes, he does know what he is talking about, this is pretty basic anthropology.
However, I don’t think they offer those courses in the crappy middle school you seem to be attending. Or English courses for that matter.
It may not show all of humanity’s past but it does show where we ended up in a lot of different places all at once without even having to collaborate to get there.
I just see a pattern in a ton of countries and continents based on what happened in the end. Since the result was practically the same in the majority of the places observed, how is it laughable to draw a conclusion based on the evidence in front of us? You are holding out for something because what is in front of you doesn’t support your claim. So you disregard and look for evidence for what you believe. Doesn’t matter what is actually there or not. Even if you see evidence that man naturally constructs hierarchies, you will still saying you are holding out for all the evidence. Or at least that is how it is appearing.
just curious, but what does the Mayan, Atzec or the Egyptians, Chinese and Indians represent a “blip?”..we have a great deal of documents in their own hand (including glyphs and other writing forms) that indicates hierarcies over a major time span, and that doesn’t count societies that are now “non-existent” – yes modern governments, nations, etc are pretty recent, but hierarchically designed communities have been around since man left behind the nomadic lifestyle
there is no reason for centralized authority when people are moving in small groups, hunting and gathering ONLY for their own use – but as soon as the groups began interacting things began to change leading us to our current state of organization
kidding you? no. there is substantial anthropological speculation, yes, there is not, however proof. any statement made without proof is laughable unless it’s a stated as opinion rather then as fact.
& if you happen to view witholding judgement due to a lack of evidence as foolish then you’re probably rather short on reason.
“There were always Chiefs/”Big Men” who made the critical decisions in almost every society since the beginning of man. ”
nb~ operative word in this statement – ‘almost’ which rather supports my point – i presume this was an accident, though it is rather amusing of you to criticise my education while accidentally supporting my point
now now, there’s nothing wrong with pedant’s english. colloquially speaking.
i would like to call you up on the “big men/chiefs” comment – actually a fair amount of “basic anthropology” suggests that many tribal cultures (as seen from studies done in similar cultures in the ‘modern’ world) were matriarchal or community based. matriarchal societies, incidentally, are usually co-ops. see “the future of cities” OU press for details.
I call you on your dare and say Somalia is not anarchy, Somalia is chaos with power hungry warlords fighting for power. Anarchy does not equal chaos except for those who like to slander anarchy by saying it is chaos, much like when you say “I’m a socialist” they call you Stalin.
Mmm, Warlords who rose out of the chaos/anarchy. So you get me on semantics as now it is a contested area but still helps my point. They didn’t just settle down when the government poofed, they became this.
You don’t have elite dueling skills and everytime you say that, another person is ready to kill you from a hiding spot. Let’s not pretend.
Exactly, hence your post is masturbation… Pointless masturbation since you refuted yourself. O_o
I’m not an anarchist nor do I front democracy as a useful government. Bush who plans to promote democracy doesn’t even know what he is pushing since he snubs academics.
True, if I recall a number of tribes in Africa have matriarchies. I remember my fiancee’ telling me about how one tribe would line up their prospective males who would smile real big and run in place to show their health and vigor. Fascinating stuff.
And paint their faces bright yellow, the color of charm. Must be why our nation is addicted to Wal-Mart…
That is a disturbing correlation if I ever read one.
Damn the lack of choice in my country. I was looking for the Woda’abe section, and all I could find was Old Person’s Cosmetics.
anarchy does not equal chaos. Chaos is not anarchy. Anarchy is not simple the removal of government, as there are schemes of organization for anarchy, and anarchy is chosen by the people. See anarchocommunism for example.
Pissing and masturbating on a keyboard at the same time…> Guhhh… best not be a laptop…