Oui. said:Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.
Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.
By knowing history we know that no government is needed to protect us. No military is needed to protect us. No police is needed to stop crime.ttomthebomb said:Oui. said:Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.
Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.
I seem to have been bit off.
Also, I was talking about the anarchist individualists.
I understand that it's not lawless, but I was under the impression that laws were not enforced, essentially seeing as how during a recovery period there would be no government facilities, such as services, like the police and what not.
Oui. said:By knowing history we know that no government is needed to protect us. No military is needed to protect us. No police is needed to stop crime.ttomthebomb said:Oui. said:Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.
Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.
I seem to have been bit off.
Also, I was talking about the anarchist individualists.
I understand that it's not lawless, but I was under the impression that laws were not enforced, essentially seeing as how during a recovery period there would be no government facilities, such as services, like the police and what not.
My usertitle holds a nice quote. However lawlessness does not naturally come with the abolition of police or military forces. It is in the culture and a result of the society. As you were speaking of individualist anarchisms such as anarcho-capitalism or illegalism I will have to agree, it is very stupid. Most anarchists agree that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism as it is contradicting the rules of anarchism. The individualist anarchism is often based on "I mind my own business and care not of others' ". I very much dislike individualism as I think of it as immoral and plainly stupid.
Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.ttomthebomb said:Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.
Oui. said:Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.ttomthebomb said:Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.
That can not even be questioned as it is impulsive. "Do I really want this man to save me now?". If police existed to help for instance then that would need to be questioned. "Do they really help me, do we really need them?" etc. No authority should ignorantly be accepted. If you were to question the authority of the man who will save you, you will come to the conclusion that it is legitimate for him to attempt to save you as there is not much of other choices when you are about to meet your death. I don't really see your reasoning here.ttomthebomb said:Oui. said:Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.ttomthebomb said:Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.
So if I pulled some one off a train track before they were hit, it would have to be questioned?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?