The media is out to smear anarchy/libertarians yet again Guess it really bothers them to see people

The media is out to scare/smear libertarians/anarchists agian. There is alot of propaganda and sensationaganda in the MSM about anarchy. People look at self-governed form of societal management and think "bunch of crazy kids that want to buck agianst the status quo" or Mad Max or a primitive 3rd world country. I felt the need to redirect this mindwash with this...

We do NOT hate government. We just see that the institution is fundementally flawed(can be hijacked infiltrated by powerful interests). Why hate a institution?(its pointless) Why hurt or scare people you don't even know? (also pointless) Makes no sense at all.
Does that solve anything? Nope. We realize that so we don't do things like that. Thats not the way to bring libertarianism to america. It just validates Big Brother and small sister(us).


We are PEACEFUL libertarian(not authoritarian) activists that hate violence(because its unproductive) and want our own "self" governed colonies were we are free from authoritarian influence. Keep your banker hijacked/trojan horse management firm/government just let us have our lives free of thier influence.

We do NOT advocate acts of violence or terrorism on any level. Fear is a authoritarian societal tool of control. We don't scare people into ramming our philosophy down thier throughs.

We are NON-VIOLENT and don't push our beliefs of "self-government over proxy government" on anyone.

We are NOT terrorists. We don't like prison or life sentences for acts of violence,vandalism,etc. It won't even change anything anyway. So why do it? It legitimizes the state's authoritarian(big brother governmentsmall sister public)idealogy.

We DO like George Carlin,Richard Pryor and Monty Python.

The state violently steals from people every year. Do we act like hypocrits and be violent (thieves) too? When it comes down to it its a character problem.

Right is Right.

Wrong is Wrong.

Hurting/killing innocent people is wrong PERIOD

Lying is wrong.

Stealing is wrong.

Murder is wrong.

Selfishness is wrong.

Greed is wrong.

Jealousy is wrong.

Hating your brother is wrong.

This is basic. Its simple to understand. This country is great because of us. The american people. We make this country the best.

Only if the rest of the world could live like this xxx

Peace

Great, now go make a modular, self-sustaining, floating city and take to the high seas

High Seas/ International waters

Then formulate a workable system so we can all come join you, making it profitable helps

Originally posted by Elzon
Great, now go make a modular, self-sustaining, floating city and take to the high seas

High Seas/ International waters

Then formulate a workable system so we can all come join you, making it profitable helps

What about a bunch of self sustaining(anarcho-capitolists) city-states in the bahamas or dubai? Hey we can even trade with US corporations and buy thier products.

Then america's products would be made by americans and not foriegners and Corporate can still do what it wants...Just not on our island states.

We can sell them desalinated water,subsidized crops etc. Corporate can profit off the fresh drinking water and we can live like non-slaves free of illegal taxes and theft. See there can be compremise without violence.

No taxes,no expenses == more money to buy US corporate products. See we can have our cake and eat it together.

here is a great sight where such things are discussed:

globalguerrillas

don't let the name fool you

makers,hacker-spaces, alternative economies resilient communities and more

S&F they're at it again with the old:
"Those Goddamn Anarchists they want to wreck the world in order to rule the ruins" trope
when we all know who really wants to wreck the world.

So, tell me if the following statements can be considered True by an Anarchist/Libertarian.

No one can tell me what to do.

No one can be the boss of me.

I should be able to do what I want, when I want and how I want to do it.

There should be no negative reaction to the actions I take.

Originally posted by whatukno
So, tell me if the following statements can be considered True by an Anarchist/Libertarian.

No one can tell me what to do.

No one can be the boss of me.

I should be able to do what I want, when I want and how I want to do it.

There should be no negative reaction to the actions I take.

In response to the first three, the answer is yes. The fourth statement is irrelevant, because any true anarchist/libertarian, recognizing that the first three principles apply to everyone and not simply him or herself, would never initiate force against nor defraud anyone else. If there is no negative action, there is no need for negative reaction. If there is no crime, punishment is obsolete. Justice is ubiquitous.

reply to post by whatukno
That's how we find ourselves in the situation we are in.

Too many people think that freedom is doing whatever they please,without regard to the rights and well being of others.

Now go try to find the flawed way in which most of you think and act.

Be honest with yourselves,I'm sure most of you are not capable of such...

reply to post by NthOther


So you believe that all actions should be a judgement call on the part of the person intending the action?

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
What about a bunch of self sustaining(anarcho-capitolists) city-states in the bahamas or dubai? Hey we can even trade with US corporations and buy thier products.

Interesting post, except the capitalism bit. You can't have liberty with capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. It is not money, or markets.

The Anarchy part of Anarcho-Capitalism simply means no government, it's not the same as traditional Anarchism that is libertarian in the true sense of the term, non-authoritarian.

Capitalism requires an authoritative state system in order to protect the privileged. It is also exploitative as the majority of people have to work for a private owner. Who are you going to have freedom from exactly?
Capitalism without the state would be bad for both sides of the fence. How would you as a workers have any control at all without some over site? All the gains we've had in labour have been from socialists not capitalists.
Without the (socialist) labour movement capitalism would not look quite as nice.

Anarchism is not just about 'no government', anarchists have traditionally stressed social and economic goals as well as political. Socialism, the workers ownership of the means of production, has been the traditional economic model of choice of Anarchists since the beginning.

Mikhail Bakunin, known as the founding father of Anarchism...

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

It's not really governments that are the problem, as governments are just a part of the capitalist state system, it's the capitalist system itself that is the problem. It's capitalists private property that creates the need for authority, government and the state system. It's capitalists control of the economy that creates an unbalance in wealth.

Look at this contradiction, leading 'anarcho-capitalist' Murray Rothbard said the state, 'arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area.' Then he admitted that 'obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc.'

So it's bad for the state to have that monopoly, but OK for a 'private owner'. What's the difference?
That is not Anarchism, capitalist private property only gives liberty to the private owner, and exploits those hired as labour. Socialism is the preferred economic model because it puts the power in our hands and profits made are more fairly distributed, workers earn more.

Proudhon, an Anarchist (and socialist) said capitalist employees are 'subordinated, exploited' and their 'permanent condition is one of obedience.' Capitalist companies 'plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers' and are 'an outrage upon human dignity and personality.' However, in a co-operative the situation changes and the worker is an 'associate' and 'forms a part of the producing organisation [and] forms a part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject.' Without co-operation and association, 'the workers would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.' Thus the 'workmen's associations' are 'a protest against the wage system', and a 'denial of the rule of capitalists.' His aim was, 'Capitalistic and proprietary exploitation, stopped everywhere, the wage system abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed.'
...The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

(by private property I mean as in the 'means of production', capital, property used to exploit and create profits. It does not mean your personal property which is btw not secure under capitalism (it only secures capital), along with your 'freedom').

reply to post by Wally Hope



Starred
Bloody Ell! Someone on ATS that mentions Bakunin? I am so sad to inform you that I am very impressed. I was about to leave ATS as I donot care for people who do not know their leftists from their rightists. I agree with your critique of capital but having looked at communism (in depth i.e. carrying the card) I cannot support communism. The lobbyists in congress give me the creeps. And the working people get screwed every time be it capitalism or communism.

Great post

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Wally Hope

 

Starred
Bloody Ell! Someone on ATS that mentions Bakunin? I am so sad to inform you that I am very impressed. I was about to leave ATS as I donot care for people who do not know their leftists from their rightists. I agree with your critique of capital but having looked at communism (in depth i.e. carrying the card) I cannot support communism. The lobbyists in congress give me the creeps. And the working people get screwed every time be it capitalism or communism.

Great post

Well thanx [blush] I appreciate the kind words.

I don't support communism either, socialism is not communism. There are some similarities, but the connection mostly comes from Marx, and the way terms all get thrown together and thus lose their real individual meanings.

Communism though has not really screwed anyone as there have been no real communist countries, only by name.
The so called communists countries were in reality capitalist economies with authoritarian state systems, dictatorships.

Anarchism is basically non-authoritarian socialism.

This is a good read if anyone wants to understand Socialism from the Anarchist viewpoint...

....The association of "socialism" or "communism" with these dictatorships has often made anarchists wary of calling themselves socialists or communists in case our ideas are associated with them. As Errico Malatesta argued in 1924:

"I foresee the possibility that the communist anarchists will gradually abandon the term 'communist': it is growing in ambivalence and falling into disrepute as a result of Russian 'communist' despotism. If the term is eventually abandoned this will be a repetition of what happened with the word 'socialist.' We who, in Italy at least, were the first champions of socialism and maintained and still maintain that we are the true socialists in the broad and human sense of the word, ended by abandoning the term to avoid confusion with the many and various authoritarian and bourgeois deviations of socialism. Thus too we may have to abandon the term 'communist' for fear that our ideal of free human solidarity will be confused with the avaricious despotism which has for some time triumphed in Russia and which one party, inspired by the Russian example, seeks to impose world-wide." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 20]....

infoshop.org...

Also the term 'libertarian' came from (socialist) anarchists...

....due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it.

www.infoshop.org...

If people don't understand how these terms have been manipulated, then nothing will ever change. The real socialists and communists were anarchists, not Starlin or Mao.

So basically this guy is saying that his view on anarchy is that no one should have to work for anything, and basically they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want with absolutely no repercussions if what they want is to murder a family.

I mean as long as the family has the means to defend themselves, they won't be hurt. But if not, the anarchist believes that killing that family is perfectly within their right and if he does so, nothing should be done to him.

Just like if there was a murderer in a village or town, and the townsfolk decide to go after the murderer themselves and they tear him apart. Maybe latter to find out the person they tore apart wasn't actually the guilty party.

No trials, no courts, no corrective measure, mob rule all the time.

I believe whatukno summed the whole anarchy movement nicely. Just to add:

Current (developed) society = rule of power + rule of legal experts + rule of people (in varying proportions)
Anarchy society = rule of power

Originally posted by whatukno
So basically this guy is saying that his view on anarchy is that no one should have to work for anything, and basically they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want with absolutely no repercussions if what they want is to murder a family.

I mean as long as the family has the means to defend themselves, they won't be hurt. But if not, the anarchist believes that killing that family is perfectly within their right and if he does so, nothing should be done to him.

Just like if there was a murderer in a village or town, and the townsfolk decide to go after the murderer themselves and they tear him apart. Maybe latter to find out the person they tore apart wasn't actually the guilty party.

No trials, no courts, no corrective measure, mob rule all the time.

Who is advocating killing?

Is it You?

Its Not us.

We will deport/exile criminals to prison colonies(islands) that have no people other than other criminals.Don't want to come back you don't have to.
You can be a criminal all you want. Just not in our country. When they get thier act together they can get on waivers and come back.Otherwise we kick out the troublemakers.

We will still have rights and laws and police and firefighters. Just no central management bureacracy(private interests hijacked government).We (locally) vote in the laws(by state/county) DIRECTLY.

Anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness or violence. It means TRUELY publically ran society.

But go on disinfo agent.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Thats not anarchy. Thats city-STATES governed by direct democracy. Anarchy means there is no state, no anthority, even democratic city-state is by definition forbidden.

Nothing terrifies a statist more than people waking up to the fact that they don't need to be ruled.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Thats not anarchy. Thats city-STATES governed by direct democracy. Anarchy means there is no state, no anthority, even democratic city-state is by definition forbidden.

edit on 12/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Anarchy means no State (rulers) - not an absence of rules.

Anarchy != chaos

Private security guards and private "loser pays" courts would deal with property rights issues.

I'm sure you are aware of this, just adding commentary for the plebes.

I was watching one of the news channels, forget which one but it doesn't really matter their all the same, and they were trying to link the nutcase in AZ to anarchists and libertarians.

Doesn't really surprise me.

I see anarchy as an ideal but libertarianism as the reality. We seek to retain government...........but just pare it down to the bare minimum. Humans are flawed but that includes those that lead us too, power corrupts so more power=more corruption. But if you remove one bully without having something better to replace it with the next bully in line just takes their place.

reply to post by lastrebel