Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!) (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!)
Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted August 27, 2004 03:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it's one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.


At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist - you just don't realize it.

Let's start by taking a few examples from everyday life:


* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?


If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.


Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.


* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?


If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.
Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.


* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?


If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse.


But what if that weren't true?


And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society - that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.


* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?


It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.


Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?


* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?


If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.


Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.
http://www.anarco-nyc.net/

IP: Logged

StarLover33
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 04:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You better pray to god that your anarchist friends don't touch or even look at the Republicans from the GOP. Got it? Tell them to get over it, none of what they think is ever going to happen, at least not in their lifetime. You're hurting more than helping.

-StarLover

IP: Logged

quiksilver
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 04:19 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Starlover,
I,like you, do not embrace Harpyr's view nor do I see it as workable in a practical way at this moment in time. And I can understand where your less than favorable feelings towards Harpyr's ideas may be coming from. However, no matter what you may think of another person's views, it is my feeling that we could all learn a bit more than we expect by virtue of engaging (in a more friendly way) those whose opinions we do not share. Also, it is a lot less stressful Anyway, without belaboring the point, what is it that you disagree with Harpyr about? I have my own thoughts but I am interested to hear what you have to say.....

IP: Logged

StarLover33
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 04:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Don't worry Quick I changed my wording a bit. Harpyr you and many others are lucky to even have an organization like this. It's a miracle that this country even tolerates people like you. You don't realize that you're lucky, and you do nothing but complain and complain. How about you move somewhere else? How about Denmark? I heard they're ultra liberal and socialist. They work 35 hours per week and you get to have two month vacations.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted August 27, 2004 04:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do not have faith in my fellow human beings. I believe that some people are fundamentally corrupt - while I don't prescribe to the concept of "evil" in the traditional sense, I do believe that many people commit acts that could be catergorized by some as "evil".

I know that many of my fellow human beings are absolutely wonderful people. But the ones that aren't can screw it up for everyone.

Just stopped in for a sec, must go, will write more later...

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted August 27, 2004 05:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Starlover, did you even read the article?

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 07:09 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's a miracle that this country even tolerates people like you.

Beauty of being an American, SL - you can think and expound pretty much whatever you like.

Why the hostility?

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted August 27, 2004 08:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's understandable. She, like so many others, likely is afraid that 'crazy anarchists' are going to destroy NYC. It's hard to blame folks who are scared of this because it seems to be the favorite pasttime of most major news networks to completly demonize anarchists. It's a shame that people believe that garbage. Anybody who has ever asked an anarchist what they believe in would know how far from the truth the media is when it comes to describing anarchists.

I'm not sure I would classify myself an anarchist in the strictest sense but I do understand where they are coming from. I was posting this in an attempt to get some truthful info out there regarding anarchists in the wake of all the b.s. propaganda being pumped out for the RNC.

IP: Logged

StarLover33
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 10:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can believe whatever I want to believe, and I feel that anarchists are wasting their time, and are foolish. I'll ease off when the RNC is over, until then I'm on the police officer's side.

-StarLover

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted August 27, 2004 10:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Fair enough. No matter what convention may be taking place, I'm always on the side of free speech.

IP: Logged

StarLover33
unregistered
posted August 27, 2004 10:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's the bad eggs that I'm concerned about.

-StarLover

IP: Logged

26taurus
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 12:21 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Harpyr,

Thank you for posting that fabulous article. I enjoyed it!

And StarLover, we should be concerning ourselves more with our own self. Instead of so quickly jumping to judge others. I work at this everyday, believe me I'm far from 'there' yet. Try not to concern yourself with "the bad eggs". There is not much you can do about them. Nor should you. We are all where we need to be.
Believe it or Not.

------------------
"My country is the world and my religion is to do good." -Thomas Paine

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 28, 2004 12:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think all the anarchists should buy an island and create their own loosely-based government. I'd be curious to see what would develop in a few decades (if they are not conquered and taken over by a foreign power, that is).

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

26taurus
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 12:41 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm so there!!!

IP: Logged

26taurus
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 12:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
*decades later.....*


.....(coming by the boat loads)....

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 28, 2004 01:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Before long, there would be a few basic laws, then people to enforce those laws, then jails for those who cannot acclimate to anarchism (or who are too anarchistic for the rest of the society), and eventually elected officials to better help distinguish which laws are in the better interest of the community--while still adhering to the anarchistic philosophy. Eventually, an army would be needed to patrol the borders and keep the society safe. Currency would be needed as barter would no longer suffice. My guess is we would have a society much like many other modern societies in 100 years or less. This site was actually founded on some of those principles; many of us migrated from the Official site, because we wanted more freedom of expression and less restrictions. But guess what? We evolved into a society with rules, restrictions to protect the whole, and yes, even banishments. Such is the way of growth and progress. Now, I do think that an island of Libertarians would be successful for the long-term, as they believe laws should reflect two basic tenets: Don't hurt anyone, and don't take their stuff.

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 856
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 28, 2004 01:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If anyone has the time or inclination

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000956.html

------------------
If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans. ~James Herriot

IP: Logged

Alarik
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 04:45 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IF everyone who looked at an ideal and said "I would love for it to be so, but it cannot be done" could summon the courage to make an effort, then it would indeed be possible to reach new heights as a species. But the vast majority of you simply don't have the guts to make an effort, and so your prophecy comes true: people think nothing can change, and so nothing changes, because no one has the will to make change happen. Starlover thinks the anarchists are wasting their time. I think Starlover is wasting her life. And so are many others. When you look back on your life, lying on your deathbed, what will you say to yourself? I was complacent; I was comfortable? I followed the path of least resistance? I sold my honor and my self respect for ease and safety? Personally, I'd rather be able to say that I stood up for what I believed in (whatever that happens to be:, it need not be anarchy); that I lived as a man and not as a sheep, even if I failed to win my battles. What would happen, do you think, if *everyone* was willing to do the same? That which was thought to be unchangeable would be changed. That which was thought to be impossible would be possible. The zebra is preyed upon by the lion because the herd runs, each one concerned only with his own survival, and they are picked off one by one. But if the herd stood together and charged, the lions would be trampled. The lions know this, and they depend upon the fear of the zebras. It is no different with human beings.

IP: Logged

StarLover33
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 09:35 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No one can escape the power of Saturn, until we're evolved enough to do so that is. It is the astrological planet that will always force a person/people to follow rules, regulations, laws, and restrictions. Saturn will rule you with fear if it has to. It is the greatest authority in our lives, and will continue to be!

I have dreams, but the question is, how can you solidify a dream? You have to do it the Saturnian way. To do anything with yourself you have to plan, work, make rules and laws, use discipline, have restrictions, and never ever waver. You'll have to take a chance too, but that is something Saturn does not want to admit. I have courage, but I'm also not stupid. I'm not going to charge the jaws of a lion. That would be suicide! I'm going to plan it first, and see if I can make friends with the lion instead. He would make one good ally if you ask me. Alarik, nobody will be willing to do anything the same, and that is why ALL problems begin. I'm not wasting my life, far from it.

Thanks Randall.

-StarLover

IP: Logged

Irish Eyes
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 10:41 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Interesting, to say the least.

-Irish

IP: Logged

orchidspirit
unregistered
posted August 28, 2004 01:53 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you for the link to the Islanders Story Juni. I love a good read

Mirror mirror on the wall, will the islanders make it........? not all


IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 856
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 28, 2004 02:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi orchidspirit

Happy to share. It gave me new meaning to the adage "no man/woman is an island" too

Without the shipbuilder, we know not what we seek, why we seek it, and especially, how to get there.

------------------
If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans. ~James Herriot

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted August 29, 2004 07:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
*heh*

Dispite the feelings that Starlover tends to be true to her name and that she sure knows how to be ever so attentive to the rules and regulations to the government of the planet Saturn , it doesn't go without the fact that she ceases to be exempt from the minority vote of eschewment of the world at large and via... the majority of which any "superpower" or "empire" which stresses they're "right to rule" as a form of "duty and reponsibility"! Needless to say, all powerful establishments(in world history) tend to the liking of swinging that "double-edged sword" around!

Psychological Warfare wins again!

Whether or not that anybody can actually give any various sections of reponsiblity a name or names, one thing leaves to certainty, no present modern civilized society ever known to history will ever provide to it's subjects the aspects and actual doctrines that it's establishment has originally intended for without having it's own devastation and extreme discourse witnessed by a great multitude of people, enough to record it amongst history's archives.

This where "Shock and awe" come into play!

For example, lets take The Roman Empire's last days of existance:

Theodosius I (379-395) was the last ruler of the united Roman Empire. At his death in 395, he left the eastern portion of the empire to his 18-year-old son, Arcadius, and the western portion to his 10-year-old son, Honorius. Despite the nominal unity of this territory, the legacy of Theodosius was, in fact, the final division of the empire. A succession of child emperors weakened the throne, and no emperor ever again successfully controlled both east and west.

Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire remained strong, while the Western Roman Empire began a steady decline in the face of economic disintegration, weak emperors, and invading Germanic tribes. The breakdown of communications, commerce, and public order exposed the people of Gaul, Spain, and other provinces to famine and robbery. While the central government provided few services and little protection, it demanded more taxes and goods. Panic and alienation drove both peasants and city dwellers from their homes. They sought protection from powerful landlords, who controlled their own self-sufficient villas. In these heavily fortified villas, the lower classes hoped for relief from the twin predators of late antiquity: barbarians and tax collectors.

The Eastern Empire was stable and prospered. The eastern emperors were able to defend the Dardanelles, a strategic strait in northwestern Turkey (known in antiquity as the Hellespont) and to push migrating barbarian peoples to the Western Empire. The emperors of the west were often pampered and isolated, and they allowed generals and ministers to rule in their name. Declining manpower also led western emperors to recruit Germanic people for the army or even to engage entire tribes to fight on Rome’s behalf. In 410 the Goths sacked Rome. It was the first time Rome had suffered such an invasion since the Gauls had sacked the city in 390 bc—eight centuries earlier.

In ad 476 Germanic troops in Italy mutinied and elected a Gothic commander, Odoacer, as king. Odoacer, who was the first Germanic ruler of the empire, deposed the young emperor, Romulus Augustulus, gave him a generous pension, and sent his imperial regalia to Constantinople. But if the Western Empire had “fallen,” the commentators of the time barely took notice. It was not until four decades later that a Byzantine historian wrote that the imperial order initially established by Augustus had come to an end in 476. The date marked the demise of a political structure—the Western Roman Empire—but coinage, taxes, and administrators all remained in place. The exile of Romulus barely affected ordinary people.

Several factors explain why the Roman state collapsed in the west and survived in Constantinople for another 1,000 years. The most obvious is geography, since the Western Empire had to defend a long border along the Rhine and Danube rivers. The east was far more populous—Egypt had 8 million inhabitants while Gaul had 2.5 million—and thus could provide men and supplies for a larger army. The east also had a longer tradition of urbanization, and wealthy cities in the Eastern Empire provided continuing support while cities in the Western Empire were newer and weaker. When these cities came under pressure, much of the population fled to the countryside.

The east also had a stronger economic base. The rich lands of Egypt provided wealth, and much of the east’s other territory was in the hands of productive peasant proprietors. The Eastern Empire also received a financial boost from the tradition of manufacture in eastern cities and the control of the lucrative trade with Arabia, China, and India. Ancient agricultural economies produced very little surplus, and Rome itself had long depended on the profit of conquest, which included tribute, taxes from the wealthy east, and shipments of grain from North Africa and Egypt. When the east was lost and barbarians took Africa, the desperate Western Empire raised taxes and imposed restrictive regulations. As Germanic tribes seized more taxable land and revenues fell, the west could barely support its own unproductive soldiers, civil servants, and clergy. It certainly did not have sufficient revenue for the bribes and subsidies needed to pacify the Germanic invaders.

There is no simple explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but several interconnected elements provide some answers. The demands of the military and the growing bureaucracy forced the government to seek more income. When the elite avoided taxes, the burden fell on the peasantry, who had barely enough to feed themselves and no surplus to pay taxes. When farmers fled the land, incomes declined still further and manpower shortages forced the military to hire German mercenaries. This cycle led to a weak, impoverished central government that quietly collapsed in 476.

So, as you can see, though the (so-called) Roman Empire fell, Rome itself, it's people and the country that it is living under, to this day, Rome is still alive and kickin', it's just that the fact that it no longer has an empire to call it's own and thus forth never ended with a bang, but rather a wimper.

This will eventually happen too with the United States in the long run and in turn the people that live here or the people that will one day live here, will finanlly be fed up and come to the hard solution that maybe abandonment is the only best policy, realizing that all the things that this country that was intended to providing, was never really brought to light for the majority of it's peoples and never really found that "pursuit of happiness" that they only hoped to have. Not the Gods, nor the planets, nor the stars, nor Alan Greenspan, nor anyother celestial voice out there has ever called upon this, this was the work of something that lies within inside of us all, for the most part, we can blame it on the those nameless and faceless ghosts of our past called our ancesters and that the genetic makeup code of the human species ceases to provide us with the ability to maintain in one given place in any large amount of time and to inhabitate the area even longer, we were never made for it and like all other mammals we are to move on to find much greener pastures, in the world and maybe beyond.

Anarchy is a grand idea, but with a grandiose ideal in time(like everything else), was never ment to be made of as a government structure and to rule over masses of the population, as we know it, total self government will never work, not with man that is and this is what separates us from the other animals, but then again, it's also OK for animals to kill eachother, just not us! True to that, we already exercise the right to Anarchy, by making choices for ourselves, but for the minority of us tend fall short and to fail in this aspect, we manage to give this a name: CRIME!

Yes, I believe that mankind needs some kind of bounds with some restrictions and that Law & Order must indeed come into play! The only thing that I have a problem with is that too can be abused to a great extent and that they're should be restrictions for the one to provide the Law & Order, so much does this notion actually goes without! It's like saying that "Cops don't commit crime, because they're... cops!", well, you know better then I do, that this would be a load of BS and that just can't sustain within itself, it holds to be a much lame excuse into why they do something wrong and all they get is an suspention! Politicians are the same way(on both sides of our two party government), so why should they be exempt of punishment when they do break the laws of the land that THEY have made "to the people"?

These are just a few things to concider for the most part, but for one thing that will ever hold true, for all that we will ever know...

as always...

History abhors a Paradox!

IP: Logged

proxieme
unregistered
posted August 31, 2004 07:14 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On the lighter side...
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3880417

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted September 01, 2004 11:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
wah! the audio on my computer is broken..
That looks interesting anyway, prox..

*tempted to kick computer but decides to pout instead*

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a