Menu

Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

political thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by scary letters, Feb 26, 2008.

Share This Page

  1. Cozmo

    Cozmo Senior Member

    • Messages: 101
    • Likes Received: 0
    You really think it would work out all smoothly like that? Wow...

    Look, sooner or later, someone has to be in charge. Committee? By electing people to a committee, you're giving them a certain degree of power over you. And since one of the dictionary definitions of anarchy is, "absence or denial of order or government," having a committee in the first place kind of defeats the whole idea, don't you think?

    Besides, what happens when the people you elect to committee start deciding that, since they're the ones in office, their ideas are better than yours?

    Never mind committees. Look at laws. A lot of you are down on cops and the government, but they government sets up the laws that make it illegal for someone to flee the scene after they hit you in their car. If not for that, let's say some drunk mowed down your girlfriend or whatever, you'd have no recourse. You'd have a country of people saying, "Too bad, but it's not my f-ing problem." As much as you don't want to admit it, laws are good for society.

    You can dream about a leaderless society all you want, but it won't work in real life. People who choose to deny this are living in a fantasy.
     
  2. scary letters

    scary letters Senior Member

    • Messages: 193
    • Likes Received: 0
    i assume you're under fifteen, because only an adolescent could be that naive. anarchism rests on WOULDS, COULDS, and SHOULDS. you do realize that we live in a world of people with differing opinions right? not a commune of close-minded hippies. anarchism is based on the idea that people are morally perfect, and will always do the right thing. look at history! you talk about this like you have a plan and that governing billions of people is a walk in the park. i dont mean to be a total ass, but suburban white teenagers who've probably never done manual labor in their entire lives arguing about an agrarian-based commune society is one of my pet peeves. and if you are going to reply to this, please prove me wrong by all means, tell me HOW it would work in depth..because i honestly think you have little to know idea what you're talking about. i know everybody goes through the anarchy phase when they're young, but jesus please dont preach to us about it.
     
  3. Backalley Abortion Doctor

    Backalley Abortion Doctor Elite Member

    • Messages: 1,716
    • Likes Received: 0
    Rarely am I able to perfectly articulate my thoughts....

    for those times, I'm glad bigel is around
     
  4. wafflecakee

    wafflecakee Elite Member

    • Messages: 601
    • Likes Received: 1
    remind me to reply to this later when i'm more awake.
     
  5. Cozmo

    Cozmo Senior Member

    • Messages: 101
    • Likes Received: 0
    It's the same way with communism, or even world peace for that matter.

    Ideas are great, but once you get people involved it cocks everything up.
     
  6. lolque?

    lolque? Senior Member

    • Messages: 75
    • Likes Received: 0
    first of all, i never said there would be no laws. main laws would most likely be the same that currently exist. criminals would be arrested and (imo) judged democratically by anyone who wants to vote. what would replace fucking pigs would be a people's militia.

    Also, about people elected in comitees. their job would be to represent the interests of the open comitee they came from in a bigger one(i.e. a guy represents a neighbourhood in a city meeting). these bigger comitees would be open to everyone, as public. now, the public has the right to talk. also, there would be more than one represetant by comitee, this way they can check on each other, to see if they represent the right interests.

    and if one of them does not, someone shall mention it to the next meeting and that person would obviously not be re-elected.

    hope what i said is clear, having a little trouble with my english...
     
  7. Cozmo

    Cozmo Senior Member

    • Messages: 101
    • Likes Received: 0
    No, your English is fine. It's actually better than some of the native speakers here...

    My point is, an anarchy is a rejection of government or order. What you're suggesting is essentially a democracy, where representatives are elected by the masses. Such a thing is the exact opposite of an anarchy. So by your plan, you'd be trading one form of democracy for another.

    Same thing with the cops. Fine, get a militia, but you're trading one form of law enforcement for another. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

    And those "fucking pigs" you mention are people just like you. They're out there to protect the citizens of this country, including you. You wonder why cops are down on graffiti writers? Because half of them are just punks with bad attitudes, and second of all, they're breaking the law. The cops are just doing their jobs.

    They risk their lives to protect you and me, so I suggest showing a little respect. I know a lot of cops personally from when I was in the Army, and they're good people. The ones you see on TV beating people and firing their guns recklessly are not the norm. They don't become cops just so they can ruin your life. A lot of them seem to have a chip on their shoulder because they're sick of dealing with punk teenagers with too much time on their hands. I bet if you started showing some respect to your local cops they wouldn't seem like such dicks to you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2008
  8. lolque?

    lolque? Senior Member

    • Messages: 75
    • Likes Received: 0
    you can assume i'm under 15 all you want, i don't give a shit. i'm 16, and i'm mature enough to know that my idea is not just a stupid dream that comes from teenage angst. i know perfectly that no one is morally perfect, and it's false to assume that anarchism is based on that. and YES, i use woulds, coulds and shoulds. why? because it's theory at the moment, and i can't talk about it like if it was reality.

    you seem to confuse anarchists and "hardcore" emo suburban teenagers. man, i hate these kids as much as you do. you talk like you're so much fucking mature and you know everything and whatnot. my say is that you read to much capitalist propaganda. yes i've went through a stupid idealistic phase, when i was around 13-14. my ideas are now much more thoughtful.

    also, you seem mistaken about the real meaning of anarchy. anarchy doesn't mean "no government". it means "no ruler". no president. no prime minister. no one to decide what's good for the country alone. the people would decide what's good. it also means no hierarchy. not one person to have power over someone else.

    also, anarchists aren't in favor of "pure" liberty. obviously, it would be foolish to think that the world could work properly with no rules.

    we are in favor of organization. to make the society work, women and men must work along the principle of "free agreement" instead of "government".

    "Therefore, anarchist organisation is based on direct democracy (or self-management) and federalism (or confederation). These are the expression and environment of liberty. Direct (or participatory) democracy is essential because liberty and equality imply the need for forums within which people can discuss and debate as equals and which allow for the free exercise of what Murray Bookchin calls "the creative role of dissent." Federalism is necessary to ensure that common interests are discussed and joint activity organised in a way which reflects the wishes of all those affected by them. To ensure that decisions flow from the bottom up rather than being imposed from the top down by a few rulers" -from the faq below

    now i'd love to explain to you in depth how anarchism works, but i'm not an expert. you should go and see this anarchist FAQ: http://anarchismtoday.org/faq/ It dismisses many myths that you seem to belive, and tells you how a anarchist society would work.

    hope it helps
     
  9. lolque?

    lolque? Senior Member

    • Messages: 75
    • Likes Received: 0
    you seem to have little idea what anarchism really is. anarchism IS democracy. you should read this: http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
    i already answered to most of these myths in my previous post.

    i know most cops aren't a problem. i hate cops because: they repress violently peaceful student demos(like it happened in montreal this fall). they censor the independent press in demos, letting only big corporate news film what's happening.

    i don't personally have any problems with cops, because i don't do illegal graffiti, but hey! they're the soldiers of the system
     
  10. Cozmo

    Cozmo Senior Member

    • Messages: 101
    • Likes Received: 0
    I was going by the dictionary definition of anarchy, not with some anarchist group's self-definition.

    So most cops aren't a problem, as you say, but you still hate them? Seems a bit unreasonable to me...

    Let's talk about that Montreal riot (EDIT: I just realized that I was reading about an older incident from 2005, but my argument still applies). The police were originally called in because the students outside the building were blocking traffic on one of the main thoroughfares through town. When they refused to move, the riot squad was called in.

    According to the CBC, "The police had brought in the riot squad to get traffic moving after a protest by hundreds of students near the Port of Montreal on Tuesday morning. When the protesters spotted the riot squad, some started throwing rocks, large pieces of wood and even a metal shovel at officers."

    So, how does that make the cops the bad guys? Canada was built on the principles of Peace, Order, and Good Government, and students blocking traffic to make a point is a violation of that. Was their right to protest being violated? No. They could have chosen anywhere not in traffic to protest. They could have moved when the cops asked them to. But instead they wanted to make a point and it got ugly. If they'd had an ounce of common sense, there would have been no riot.

    Where are your examples of the police censoring independent press? I'd sure be interested to see that...


    EDIT: I just read about the protests from last November. Two interesting things about that: 1) The only students to protest were the French-speaking ones...the English-speaking students reportedly weren't interested in protesting and wanted to continue with their classes, and 2) Students in Quebec pay the lowest tuition rates in all of North America, and the the proposed tuition hike would raise it $50 over the next five years. So all that trouble over what was essentially a $10 increase per year. I'd have gladly paid an extra $10 in tuition a year for my college education. Are you students that bitter and jaded that you riot over something as minor as that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2008
  11. ...uhh

    ...uhh Senior Member

    • Messages: 269
    • Likes Received: 0

    lol scary letters owns ur shit lolque!!! ahaha
     
  12. ...uhh

    ...uhh Senior Member

    • Messages: 269
    • Likes Received: 0
  13. STR-WHO

    STR-WHO Guest

    your such a fucking red neck, chill out about Barack Obama, so because of his pastor, that makes him a bad politician? and im pretty sure most of those quotes are bullshit. so stop spreading this israeli AIPAC Republican bullshit and educate yourself
     
  14. Backalley Abortion Doctor

    Backalley Abortion Doctor Elite Member

    • Messages: 1,716
    • Likes Received: 0
    You have to understand that people don't function as one unit, as one brain. Aristotle said it best.."man is by nature, a political animal"

    It means we need a government, we need some sort of control in our lives or shit gets haywire. You want an example of REAL anarchy? The LA riots in the 90s. THAT'S what happens when people have more power than the officials above them. Police were helpless against the masses and it turn, everyone was just as powerful as the next person. THAT is what anarchy is, that is why we need a government to prevent it from happening.
     
  15. ...uhh

    ...uhh Senior Member

    • Messages: 269
    • Likes Received: 0
    ...redneck....lol wow...just ridiculous....

    no his pastor doesnt make him a bad politician...as a matter of fact he is a pretty good one....he can make u beleive he cares about you...as for the quotes...

    here is farrakhan in his own words....mind u farrakhan was given a medal or some shit by obamas church...

    http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/farrakhan_own_words.asp

    pal ....i will not stop spreading truth ...u can go fuck urself if u think that just because u find something ...inconsistent with ur ideas that i will change for u.
    the video of obamas church giving farrakhan the medal isnt made up bullshit... it happened....and u need to educate urself...

    in western democracies....silencing dissent is a bad thing....telling ppl to stop talking is a no no....and trying to make others seem like intolerant bigots becaue of their viewpoint....is seen as foolish


    get a fucken book....
     
  16. Steel!

    Steel! Elite Member

    • Messages: 561
    • Likes Received: 0
    aight heres what i think the problem is with govt of any kind.. everyone here is talking about complete extremes. ie: total anarchy, total democracy, total democratic republic, total communism. its pretty much safe to say that none of those ideas will work perfectly in todays world.

    but what about a mix? something we have no name for.. just a mix of only the elements that would work.

    the thing is.. what kind of a politician wants to press for a government that is a little bit of everything? all politicians find their fame and following in endorsing and campainging for a single absolute form of government.. if they suggest anything else then they are perceived as weak leaders right?

    if u think about it.. bush is just as a fanatic about democracy as saddam was for dictatorships.. and they both arent working right now simply because extreme and pure forms of govts. will never work in the real world.. you need a mix. but who is willing to do that?
     
  17. STR-WHO

    STR-WHO Guest

    Can you please send me a link where there is audio of his pastor saying this, or video, not just a slideshow with words? I can put that together and say no matter what about anyone. Why shouldn't I tell you to stop spreading these rumors, you come on the forum and give me a GLENNBECK link? What the fuck is that? If you want to show things as "facts" come in a with a reliable source, not Paula Zahn bullshit. You need to spread out your sources, try InformationClearingHouse, or DemocracyNow, instead of pre packaged news for you that is fed through your thick skull. If you had enough brains, you would try and research the Apartheid thats being implemented at this moment which it seems your oblivious too because your too busy watching FOX. The only video statement recorded of Obama's pastor saying is that "the government is responsible for 911." Which I don't think is a preposterous comment. The structure of the twin towers were able to last hurricanes, explosions, earthquakes, any natural disaster, and a plane flies into the middle, and it collapses? It's impossible. Anyway, try and span out your sources, read different news, and you might suprise yourself.
     
  18. cast LI

    cast LI Elite Member

    • Messages: 793
    • Likes Received: 1
    you just contradicted yourself

    the very word anarchy mean no (an) ruling body (archy)

    if theres people voting on shit to do its still some form of government. and where there is government there is no anarchy

    and you wanna replace the cops with a militia? the militia would enforce "laws" set up by the "majority" whats stopping this from becoming just as corrupt as the goverment is now?

    i'm not against anarchy and i'll listen to anyone's opinion but not if they cant back it up with a reasonable arguement
     
  19. scary letters

    scary letters Senior Member

    • Messages: 193
    • Likes Received: 0
    i read that faq, i honestly did, and it was interesting...but still no i dont see your point. for all this political theorizing the one thing you guys dont seem to understand is that the world does not exist in a vacuum. you talk about a government being run by the people, but that is so vague it doesnt even begin to touch on reality. how would you manage that many people with just a vague concept of consensus? the world is a complicated place, with complex issues, anarchy does not even begin to cover all the bases. when i read that faq, i heard nothing but a bunch of idealism and broad theory; nothing concrete and factual about how the basic pillars of civilization would be run. prisons? banks? property? dissenting views? crime and deviance? media? tell me who would control those things. has it ever occurred to you that there are people in society who NEED governance?
     
  20. thebigtakeover

    thebigtakeover Member

    • Messages: 34
    • Likes Received: 0