Anarchists Protest Lack Of Government Spending

I always find humor in rioting anarchists who are mad that government isn’t spending enough money, imposing price controls and rationing products.

The Telegraph re ports:

Student tuition fee protest turns violent as Tory headquarters evacuated.

A demonstration against tuition fees by tens of thousands of students and lecturers descended into violence today when a group of protesters smashed their way into the headquarters of the Conservative party…

Rocks, wooden banners, eggs, rotten fruit and shards of glass were thrown at police officers trying to beat back the crowd with metal batons and riot shields.

Inside the building, windows were kicked in, desks and chairs were overturned and the walls were daubed with anarchist graffiti.

It’s clear that anarchy means we must destroy public property and demand bajillions of dollars in free stuff from the government.

I think the anarchists should start their own political party, run for office, and then handout free stuff to everyone. It would be great. Such an anarchist Utopia would be just like the anarchy of the Soviet Union or Zimbabwe.

I’m not sure why the anarchists would rather riot than use the power of government to extract money from the productive members of society. It’s much easier to use State sanctioned violence against the innocent than to directly engage in it yourself.

reply to post by mnemeth1

an·ar·chy
   /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled[an-er-kee] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.
a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4.
confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Source

Anarchy means no government at all.......

I don't think these guys got the memo.....

reply to post by mnemeth1


It doesn't say anything about anarchists wanting government money. Might want to re-read it. All it said about anarchists is that there was "anarchist graffiti" which doesn't mean anarchists even painted it. Anyone can go paint something.

Originally posted by DaMod
Anarchy means no government at all.......

I don't think these guys got the memo.....

You're kidding me.

I thought it meant that government ran everything down to the smallest detail.

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It doesn't say anything about anarchists wanting government money. Might want to re-read it. All it said about anarchists is that there was "anarchist graffiti" which doesn't mean anarchists even painted it. Anyone can go paint something.

Oh come on, we all know rioting black block "anarchists" want nothing to do with real anarchy.

They want state control over the means of production and wealth redistribution at gun point.

The media plays up on this constantly.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Sorce

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers") is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support anarchy or the elimination of state, abolition of private property, and prefigurative politics (i.e. modes of organization that consciously resemble the world you want to create. Or, as an anarchist historian of the Spanish Revolution formulated, "an effort to think of not only the ideas but the facts of the future itself".) Though the terms "anarchist" and "anarchy" have been used to describe purported anti-statists and their positions since ancient times, political anarchism originates with the first self-declared anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's publication of What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government in 1840. Proudhon's famous declaration that "Property is Theft!," along with his less famous declaration that "Property is Liberty", inspired different anarchist economic models throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anarchy is difficult to explain with such a little passage. I agree with the above source. What do you think? Do you agree? Sorry for the large source. I needed a lot to share. :/

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Sorce

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers") is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support anarchy or the elimination of state, abolition of private property, and prefigurative politics (i.e. modes of organization that consciously resemble the world you want to create. Or, as an anarchist historian of the Spanish Revolution formulated, "an effort to think of not only the ideas but the facts of the future itself".) Though the terms "anarchist" and "anarchy" have been used to describe purported anti-statists and their positions since ancient times, political anarchism originates with the first self-declared anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's publication of What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government in 1840. Proudhon's famous declaration that "Property is Theft!," along with his less famous declaration that "Property is Liberty", inspired different anarchist economic models throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anarchy is difficult to explain with such a little passage. I agree with the above source. What do you think? Do you agree? Sorry for the large source. I needed a lot to share. :/

You can't have abolition of the State and abolition of private property at the same time.

Such a situation automatically creates conflict and violence.

If I create something by inputing my own labor and talents into raw materials, I naturally own that product as "mine." If the State is abolished and there are no private property rights, then anyone can come along and say that which I produced is theirs - which automatically creates a situation for violence.

So, the State must necessarily own everything (including my person) or their must be private property rights.

Any other way leads to unresolvable violent conflict.

If the State owns everything, there must necessarily be violence, but that violence is a controlled monopoly, which allows it to be perpetuated in functional manner. Without the State, the violence would be dysfunctional if private property was not recognized.

Great last post, you might want to know that "sorse" is spelt source

Communists masquerading as Anarchists.

Nothing to see here, move along.

That is really what it is, people that believe that the government should control everything, because the EVIL corporations. Funny how they do not realize that GOVERNMENT is a corporation.

Humor of the ignorant!

Great website here-The Corporation known as the United States of America

reply to post by mnemeth1


I would have to have to agree with you on that statement. Personally I'm more on an Anarchist without adjectives.
Source
I feel every form of Anarchism has something to offer in today's world.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I would have to have to agree with you on that statement. Personally I'm more on an Anarchist without adjectives.
Source
I feel every form of Anarchism has something to offer in today's world.

You are probably more of an anarcho-capitalist like myself if:

-You believe you own your own body
-You believe you own what you produce with your labor and tallents

It is entirely possible to have a voluntary socialist commune operate inside of an anarcho-capitalist nation. The key word being "voluntary".

No violence is being imposed on the members of the commune forcing them to stay within the commune as slave labor.

The commune is free to operate as its own voluntary "State" within a nation of private property rights, but its members must engage in that form of anarchy voluntarily.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Your post displays a complete ignorance of the issue at hand here. Yet it's quite interesting to see someone with absolutely no knowledge of the situation wading in with uneducated opinions.

The protest is not to force "everything free for everyone!!!" as you seem to think.
The tuition fee increase will TRIPLE the debt that students face when they leave education. This will affect those who ALREADY struggle to fund their education, while those in the upper class have no concerns about paying it.

This is a wholesale sacrifice of the poor to benefit the rich, AGAIN.

How many individuals from poorer backgrounds will even attempt to continue any education in the future?

Surprisingly, it leaves the spaces for education open for those wealthy enough to be able to afford it.

Please, if you're going to start a thread discussing a topic, at least spend a few minutes to learn the facts.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes I am. As well I'm an individual at heart! I do believe people should get help with welfare. Since I'm thankful to be on welfare and I believe people need to help themselves. Which puts me in a pickle.

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It doesn't say anything about anarchists wanting government money. Might want to re-read it. All it said about anarchists is that there was "anarchist graffiti" which doesn't mean anarchists even painted it. Anyone can go paint something.

Good point. Its a common enough symbol and its cool!

reply to post by mnemeth1




Not sure why this is in "US Political madness" for?

But anyway... Anarchists?


These students voted for a party who promised the abolition of student fees and singed a pledge stating the same thing.... this party (somehow) got into government and formed a coalition with the conservatives.... this new coalition have now announced that fees are set to triple.

So from no fees.... to 3 times as much, fees.... I'd be pretty pissed too.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Your post displays a complete ignorance of the issue at hand here. Yet it's quite interesting to see someone with absolutely no knowledge of the situation wading in with uneducated opinions.

The protest is not to force "everything free for everyone!!!" as you seem to think.
The tuition fee increase will TRIPLE the debt that students face when they leave education. This will affect those who ALREADY struggle to fund their education, while those in the upper class have no concerns about paying it.

This is a wholesale sacrifice of the poor to benefit the rich, AGAIN.

How many individuals from poorer backgrounds will even attempt to continue any education in the future?

Surprisingly, it leaves the spaces for education open for those wealthy enough to be able to afford it.

Please, if you're going to start a thread discussing a topic, at least spend a few minutes to learn the facts.

The facts are a bunch of rioting socialists are mad that government isn't giving them free stuff.

Rather than crying about government not giving them free stuff by keeping tuition rates artificially suppressed, they should be demanding that government get out of the education industry so private markets can drive the rates back down to sane levels.

Demanding government keep prices suppressed below operating costs IS DEMANDING FREE STUFF.

Someone has to make up the difference - and that someone is the tax payer.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Your post displays a complete ignorance of the issue at hand here. Yet it's quite interesting to see someone with absolutely no knowledge of the situation wading in with uneducated opinions.

The protest is not to force "everything free for everyone!!!" as you seem to think.
The tuition fee increase will TRIPLE the debt that students face when they leave education. This will affect those who ALREADY struggle to fund their education, while those in the upper class have no concerns about paying it.

This is a wholesale sacrifice of the poor to benefit the rich, AGAIN.

How many individuals from poorer backgrounds will even attempt to continue any education in the future?

Surprisingly, it leaves the spaces for education open for those wealthy enough to be able to afford it.

Please, if you're going to start a thread discussing a topic, at least spend a few minutes to learn the facts.

The facts are a bunch of rioting socialists are mad that government isn't giving them free stuff.

Rather than crying about government not giving them free stuff by keeping tuition rates artificially suppressed, they should be demanding that government get out of the education industry so private markets can drive the rates back down to sane levels.

Demanding government keep prices suppressed below operating costs IS DEMANDING FREE STUFF.

Someone has to make up the difference - and that someone is the tax payer.

edit on 10-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Mate, I don't think you understand what's going on here. This is happening in the UK, where, for a degree, you'll end up paying roughly £3000 pounds per year. The Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg promised the students and the people that he would fight to keep the cap on tuition fee prices. But now the coalition government is removing the cap and proposing costs of upto £9000 per year, he has agreed and the people are absolutely livid that he has out right lied.

This is a protest/riot against the TRIPLE-FOLD INCREASE of tuition fee prices in the UK that would seriously jeopardize the chances of our younger siblings and upcoming children getting a degree.

No one is asking for free stuff, everyone pays back their tuition fees, it's a matter of paying back £12,000 - £20,000 or paying back £36,000 - £41,000

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Not sure why this is in "US Political madness" for?

But anyway... Anarchists?

These students voted for a party who promised the abolition of student fees and singed a pledge stating the same thing.... this party (somehow) got into government and formed a coalition with the conservatives.... this new coalition have now announced that fees are set to triple.

So from no fees.... to 3 times as much, fees.... I'd be pretty pissed too.

edit on 10/11/10 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I totally feel the students pain.

I understand why they are mad.

However, rioting and demanding more free stuff clearly demonstrates they don't understand the root cause of the economics behind the situation.

The statist educational institutions have created a bunch of little monsters that are going to further the self-implosion of the State.

I also find this humorous.

Originally posted by FermiFlux
Mate, I don't think you understand what's going on here. This is happening in the UK, where, for a degree, you'll end up paying roughly £3000 pounds per year. The Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg promised the students and the people that he would fight to keep the cap on tuition fee prices. But now the coalition government is removing the cap and proposing costs of upto £9000 per year, he has agreed and the people are absolutely livid that he has out right lied.

This is a protest/riot against the TRIPLE-FOLD INCREASE of tuition fee prices in the UK that would seriously jeopardize the chances of our younger siblings and upcoming children getting a degree.

No one is asking for free stuff, everyone pays back their tuition fees, it's a matter of paying back £12,000 - £20,000 or paying back £36,000 - £41,000

edit on 10-11-2010 by FermiFlux because: (no reason given)

No - I understand perfectly what is going on here.

If tuition is 1,000 per semester, yet the college's operating costs are 3,000 per student per semester, where does the extra 2,000 come from?

Who is paying that extra 2,000?

If the State raises tuition rates to 3,000, is this wrong?

Hey, I want free stuff, can we get together and riot? We can go around and destroy other people's stuff and maybe get what we want.

You know, I think I moved past that stage of the terrible twos when I was two, is it just me or do I find people that are attempting to argue the point disingenuous?