Stop calling Antifa fascists...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Antifa's antics have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the misappropriation of the constitution by the right when the document doesn't belong to either side and you can't keep them from changing it if enough people decide that it is the thing to do no matter how much you think "American Constitutional values" are on your side.

a reply to: daskakik

Legally NO as I answered you before NOR can ANTIFA....as stated rather clearly MANY times.Money and lawyers can obfuscate it of course, but THAT'S admiralty law's flaws ,ONLY through a convention of states can the wording be altered legally and literally.
Defying it because you feel your interpretation is better, makes NO difference to our laws.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Legally NO as I answered you before NOR can ANTIFA....as stated rather clearly MANY times.Money and lawyers can obfuscate it of course, but THAT'S admiralty law's flaws ,ONLY through a convention of states can the wording be altered legally and literally.

I agreed but that isn't what I'm talking about.

Defying it because you feel your interpretation is better, makes NO difference to our laws.

Exactly the same situation with the "American Constitutional values" professed earlier in the thread.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: daskakik

Legally NO as I answered you before NOR can ANTIFA....as stated rather clearly MANY times.Money and lawyers can obfuscate it of course, but THAT'S admiralty law's flaws ,ONLY through a convention of states can the wording be altered legally and literally.
Defying it because you feel your interpretation is better, makes NO difference to our laws.

That's not the only way congress can make amendments as well. Though I'll say some things will only change with a convention of states. For example term limits on congress. Congress are not going to vote themselves out of office.

originally posted by: Lurker1

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Your pretty wrong about anarchy though...
Anarchy is considered to be the purest form of democracy.

True Anarchy basically means there is no government and the people look after themselves ( it doesn't have to be about crazy destruction and loony regime changes)

In my mind Anarchy would be the way forward but humans are to selfish to keep themselves in check.

You are insane and clueless. You advocate mob rule. The end result of that philosophy is widespread, overwhelming criminal behavior.

How old are you? Twelve?

I believe you're the 12 year old...

You can check it on wiki, Anarchy is classified as the purest form of democracy.
It doesn't have to be mob rule, it doesn't have to be chaos.

The idea being anarchy would work great if everyone was able to look after themselves and compose themselves correctly in a society that doesn't need to be policed.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: GreenGunther

anarchy is the negation of authority and negation of societies and civilisations 'spooks and phantasms' and realising true individual liberation

You clearly get the concept of a 'self-governed' society.
star for you!

a reply to: dragonridr

Anarchy means there is no government and society is self-governed.

Modern day 'anarchists' have twisted the concept.. Millennials.. Am I right?

Anarchy doesn't mean choas nor does it mean there is a 'governing body'

It means people look after themselves, and only accept help in dire times.
True freedom and independence

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: dragonridr

Anarchy means there is no government and society is self-governed.

Modern day 'anarchists' have twisted the concept.. Millennials.. Am I right?

Anarchy doesn't mean choas nor does it mean there is a 'governing body'

It means people look after themselves, and only accept help in dire times.
True freedom and independence

No government has all ways failed. And usually leads to suffering and death. It's human nature without laws and relying on individuals to self govern doesn't work. Want an example Somalia currently has no government. They have no laws and individuals have to fend for them selves. As we see in Somalia this leads to famine death and destruction.In large parts of the developing world governments are too weak or dysfunctional to perform even the most basic tasks, like securing the property rights of their citizens. Do you know how countries get to advance beyond third world countries?

Simple they form governments establish rules and protect individuals from violence by others. They set up a monetary system to support tthe population. Throughout history anarchy has been condemned as people established the rule of law. Most of human existence was under anarchy it wasnt until governments formed that society advanced.

Did you know pirates where anarchists in the truest sense of the form? And even they established the articles a set of rules for pirate behavior. Anarchists never get beyond the basic ideals and in to what practically can work.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: Lurker1

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Your pretty wrong about anarchy though...
Anarchy is considered to be the purest form of democracy.

True Anarchy basically means there is no government and the people look after themselves ( it doesn't have to be about crazy destruction and loony regime changes)

In my mind Anarchy would be the way forward but humans are to selfish to keep themselves in check.

You are insane and clueless. You advocate mob rule. The end result of that philosophy is widespread, overwhelming criminal behavior.

How old are you? Twelve?

I believe you're the 12 year old...

You can check it on wiki, Anarchy is classified as the purest form of democracy.
It doesn't have to be mob rule, it doesn't have to be chaos.

The idea being anarchy would work great if everyone was able to look after themselves and compose themselves correctly in a society that doesn't need to be policed.

Define 'compose themselves correctly'. According to who's standard or rules? What if one person does not behave correctly? Does that mean the whole idea failed? Or do you remove them from the society so it all fits back together?

The moment they stop ACTING like fascists -- is the moment they'll stop BEING CALLED Fascists. HELLO??

a reply to: snewpers

Compose themselves correctly ie. not mentally or physically harming other individuals, and looking after the ones that are dependent on them.

I don't have time to wright a thesis on a working anarchically organised society, so I can only provide the gist of it.
This is ATS, you should know we advocate the idea of a government free society, it can be classified as many things, but anarchy would be a fitting definition. For some reason kids in the 90's all though anarchy meant breaking sh!t and making life difficult for the working class.

It doesn't need to be like that

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: dragonridr

Anarchy means there is no government and society is self-governed.

Modern day 'anarchists' have twisted the concept.. Millennials.. Am I right?

Anarchy doesn't mean choas nor does it mean there is a 'governing body'

It means people look after themselves, and only accept help in dire times.
True freedom and independence

Anarchists never get beyond the basic ideals and in to what practically can work.

Perhaps it's just the individuals being bad at anarchy?

That's usually the dilemma with anarchy, individuals who don't understand the game plan.
Society in it's current form would never cope with anarchy because humans are just bipedal POS - something I believe is due to TPTB who always try to keep a brother down.

originally posted by: GreenGunther

originally posted by: Lurker1

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

Your pretty wrong about anarchy though...
Anarchy is considered to be the purest form of democracy.

True Anarchy basically means there is no government and the people look after themselves ( it doesn't have to be about crazy destruction and loony regime changes)

In my mind Anarchy would be the way forward but humans are to selfish to keep themselves in check.

You are insane and clueless. You advocate mob rule. The end result of that philosophy is widespread, overwhelming criminal behavior.

How old are you? Twelve?

I believe you're the 12 year old...

You can check it on wiki, Anarchy is classified as the purest form of democracy.
It doesn't have to be mob rule, it doesn't have to be chaos.

The idea being anarchy would work great if everyone was able to look after themselves and compose themselves correctly in a society that doesn't need to be policed.

The only way anarchism would work is if we were all Vulcans. The human animal is driven by primitive emotion and greed. Look at the riots around the country. Look at the looting during Katrina.

That is anarchy in action. CHAOS, not altruism.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate academic source. It is subject to editing by every Tom, Dick, and Harry, regardless of credentials, or lack thereof.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: dragonridr

Anarchy means there is no government and society is self-governed.

Modern day 'anarchists' have twisted the concept.. Millennials.. Am I right?

Anarchy doesn't mean choas nor does it mean there is a 'governing body'

It means people look after themselves, and only accept help in dire times.

True freedom and independence

I can't take you seriously. You are absolutely deluded.

a reply to: Lurker1

The ineffective nature of a system does not change it's definition.

In other words, whether anarchy can or cannot work doesn't change the fact that it is a system with no government. If a system has a government, by definition it cannot be anarchism.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Lurker1

The ineffective nature of a system does not change it's definition.

In other words, whether anarchy can or cannot work doesn't change the fact that it is a system with no government. If a system has a government, by definition it cannot be anarchism.

There is a fundamental difference between pseudo-intellectual idealism and reasoned pragmatism.

originally posted by: Lurker1
There is a fundamental difference between pseudo-intellectual idealism and reasoned pragmatism.

Yes, there is but it doesn't change the defining characteristics if the ideals.

In any case, pragmatists should avoid calling things something they are not. Pretty much the point of the OP.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Lurker1
There is a fundamental difference between pseudo-intellectual idealism and reasoned pragmatism.

Yes, there is but it doesn't change the defining characteristics if the ideals.

In any case, pragmatists should avoid calling things something they are not. Pretty much the point of the OP.

I'm sorry. I'm not allergic to the truth.

The Soviets wanted Communism. The best they could do was a half-assed version of Socialism.

Why? The human animal, a creature of primitive habit.

Let me know when Homo sapiens evolves to the next level. Then I'll revisit various ideologies.

a reply to: Lurker1

The truth is that sometimes definitions don't apply.