Toward Reclaiming Our Birthright, Anarchists Unite!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, since you all choose to avoid the question, I think its safe to say that none of you advocating anarchy have ever experienced it. Which is generally the case with anarchy. Only those without experience would advocate it. Anyone who has lived it knows how bad it truly is.

To your defense you said anarchy is some Utopian world we're creating in our fantasies, right?.... then at other times you say it's truly bad and people today are living it ... then all of a sudden it's the worst thing in the world.... hhhmmmm.... if you feel YOU must have a dog collar and a master pulling you around... then I feel anarchy is out of the question... because there are many like you today.

*btw* I've never claimed to be anarchist... I have sympathies for this evolved state however mankind is not ready for it.... as your view is a dime a dozen right now....

Correct me if I'm wrong... maybe I'm putting more words in your mouth....

But yes, of course the webster dictionary's meaning of anarchism is different from the definition preached and practiced for generations and generations before Webster lived. Propaganda against "terrorism" is very real. What's your point with that whole thing? Have you not heard the terms "direct action"?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

And, the 800lb gorilla in the room that you continue to choose to ignore: HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCED TRUE ANARCHY? Its not even a hard question.

edit on 3-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

For everyone... the answer is no. The obvious answer is no. As long as there are governments and rulers... either overseas or not... the answer is no. And if you think a country thousands of miles away does not affect you, think again.

You've not read all my posts... I've explained to you... Anarchism is no destination or an absolute state. This is the half-baked notion we as humans feel the need to peg on every political ideal of living (because we've been conditioned for this). Anarchism is a constant growth, in the hearts and minds of any living being with breath, life, and the necessity of liberty. At birth we flail our arms, we kick, cry... we've just been unleashed into a new form and that excitement of a bit more freedom is expressed. That is the revolution... the breaking through the womb... the kid flailing in it's new natural freedoms is essentially and metaphorically the anarchism we embrace, yes the kid must learn to control these new freedoms in order to survive the obstacles put forth and we will as mankind progresses... and we will constantly keep learning as a species... there is no end all be all... anarchy/anarchism is not something so easily typed to you on a forum. And so in our failures of expressing you that which cannot be expressed, you prance around with your lists and your "gorilla" question and prop yourself up on your high horse. Respectively, from us new romantics... it's impossible to explain to you... I understand it's impossible but I'm trying anyways. Do you understand the notion?

Very nice rebuttal. No apparent T&C violation on my part for calling a spade a spade, either. Maybe the kid was helpful in keeping the thread going long enough to attract interested parties, anyway.

I'm actually looking into anarchist forums at the moment as I realize ATS is probably not the right place to discuss serious plans, regardless.

When I settle on one, I'll be sure to post a link on this thread for anyone interested in continuing the conversation.

Nice to meet you all, and hopefully we can work together in the future toward the reclamation of our birthright.

many thanks.

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, since you all choose to avoid the question, I think its safe to say that none of you advocating anarchy have ever experienced it. Which is generally the case with anarchy. Only those without experience would advocate it. Anyone who has lived it knows how bad it truly is.

To your defense you said anarchy is some Utopian world we're creating in our fantasies, right?.... then at other times you say it's truly bad and people today are living it ... then all of a sudden it's the worst thing in the world.... hhhmmmm.... if you feel YOU must have a dog collar and a master pulling you around... then I feel anarchy is out of the question... because there are many like you today.

*btw* I've never claimed to be anarchist... I have sympathies for this evolved state however mankind is not ready for it.... as your view is a dime a dozen right now....

Correct me if I'm wrong... maybe I'm putting more words in your mouth....

But yes, of course the webster dictionary's meaning of anarchism is different from the definition preached and practiced for generations and generations before Webster lived. Propaganda against "terrorism" is very real. What's your point with that whole thing? Have you not heard the terms "direct action"?

I'm not quite sure why you all continue to tell me to go away, yet also continue to direct posts to me.

1)You are confusing "anarchy" as a theology with anarchy in a situation. They are two different things, based on the same idea. One can be in a situation that is truly anarchy, within a society that does not have anarchy rule (which is not a nonsensical statement as was earlier claimed).

2)I feel no need to have a collar around my neck, and I see you are choosing to continue with the ad hom tactics. A society in anarchy cannot advance.

3)My view is a dime a dozen? Please then, lay it out for me. If my view is so generic, you should be able to tell me succinctly and clearly what my stance is.

4)Again, comparing generations thousands of years ago to now is fallacious. It is similar to comparing a horse drawn carriage to an automobile.

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

And, the 800lb gorilla in the room that you continue to choose to ignore: HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCED TRUE ANARCHY? Its not even a hard question.

edit on 3-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

For everyone... the answer is no. The obvious answer is no. As long as there are governments and rulers... either overseas or not... the answer is no. And if you think a country thousands of miles away does not affect you, think again.

You've not read all my posts... I've explained to you... Anarchism is no destination or an absolute state. This is the half-baked notion we as humans feel the need to peg on every political ideal of living (because we've been conditioned for this). Anarchism is a constant growth, in the hearts and minds of any living being with breath, life, and the necessity of liberty. At birth we flail our arms, we kick, cry... we've just been unleashed into a new form and that excitement of a bit more freedom is expressed. That is the revolution... the breaking through the womb... the kid flailing in it's new natural freedoms is essentially and metaphorically the anarchism we embrace, yes the kid must learn to control these new freedoms in order to survive the obstacles put forth and we will as mankind progresses... and we will constantly keep learning as a species... there is no end all be all... anarchy/anarchism is not something so easily typed to you on a forum. And so in our failures of expressing you that which cannot be expressed, you prance around with your lists and your "gorilla" question and prop yourself up on your high horse. Respectively, from us new romantics... it's impossible to explain to you... I understand it's impossible but I'm trying anyways. Do you understand the notion?

1)Again, simply not true. As I said before, situations can be anarchy, even while the society is not.

2)Where did I say countries thousands of miles away dont affect me? Where did I mention countries thousands of miles away at all? More falsehoods.

3)I have read them. And I do know that it is not an absolute state. There is no such thing as an absolute state. You claim that all experience the same things at birth. You claim that the reaction is the same for all at that moment. But that, again, is untrue. You ignore the INDIVIDUAL in your utopian idea.

4)You, and your cohort, like to talk about how anarchy "worked" long ago (which is false). You then state, and this is an exact quote: "we will constantly keep learning as a species", yet you REFUSE to consider the idea that one of the things we have "learned as a species" is that anarchy is a form of inferior societal life, and that we havent seen it on a grand scale for hundreds of years BECAUSE OF THAT FACT.

I've chosen flag.blackened.net and any interested parties can find Reclaiming our Birthright under general topics tab in a day or so...still reading other posts and learning the lay of the site...

many thanks

Originally posted by joechip
Very nice rebuttal. No apparent T&C violation on my part for calling a spade a spade, either. Maybe the kid was helpful in keeping the thread going long enough to attract interested parties, anyway.

I'm actually looking into anarchist forums at the moment as I realize ATS is probably not the right place to discuss serious plans, regardless.

When I settle on one, I'll be sure to post a link on this thread for anyone interested in continuing the conversation.

Nice to meet you all, and hopefully we can work together in the future toward the reclamation of our birthright.

many thanks.

To plan means you wish to have authority, make sure your plans do not impose on a true anarchist.

If you cannot free yourself and reclaim your birthright on your own dont try and disguise yourself as a man who wishes to stand on his own two feet. All this "our" and "we" makes you sound like a politician wishing to govern.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Believe me, I have no wish to "rule" or even " lead" but merely discuss ideas, and this is in no way counter to either "individualist" or "social" anarchism. To plan doesn't imply anything of the resulting hierarchical notions that you assert. Anarchists have planned, agreed upon, and executed actions since the very inception to the idea.

To define anarchism, as you have, in such a fundamentalist manner, is actually counter to anarchism.

The thread is now up in the General Discussion tab. I look forward to fruitful discussion. Thanks.

reply to post by InhaleExhale


Actually, you should spend five minutes browsing an actual Anarchist forum before spouting your negativism; from what I've seen, nobody serious about anarchy is threatened in the least by the idea of discussing, planning, or sharing ideas with other anarchists.

And I went there, not merely to avoid the needless arguments I find sprout on ATS like spring wildflowers, but also to feel less alienated, as I know only one other anarchist personally. Admitting, even to yourself, much less on a public forum that you are alienated is so antithetical to the authoritarian mindset you accuse me of having, that it's laughable. Haha.

Good luck,

Perhaps you should go and start an anarchist city so you can live and prosper with like minded people.

Have a great life.

reply to post by Wildbob77


Thank you, I appreciate your well-wishes.


joechip

sorry, don't want it...why? if i had grown up in a culture where i had to be totally self-sufficient, then it would be far easier. i like having functioning sewer, water, electrical services. the ability to go down to the supermarket and get a variety of foods, without having to hunt, grow, or steal to eat. the idea that i can travel freely without being hunted down by maruading gangs. i like living in a house with a bed, heating and air conditioning for summer and winter, and creature comforts rather than living in a blown out building, tent, or cave. if i get sick, i go down to my doctor, and not worry about surviving a bout of a curable ailment.
anarchism brings chaos, fear, destruction, and even death...something that civilized people should shun, not embrace. we need a balance between conservatism and liberalism, taking the best from each, and not trying to forceably impose the worst from either.
are there laws that need to be done away with? sure. are there laws that still need to be imposed? yes. civilization is constantly in flux, changing to suit the needs and desires of it's citizenry. if you have a complaint, you have to work hard on designing a coherant solution, convince enough people that the solution you've designed is needed, gather vast numbers of like-minded people to engage your elected officials to make the change.... this is the opposite of anarchy, and it works a hell of alot better.

reply to post by jimmyx


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?

A little food for thought for those that don't think they could possibly live without governance....without the inherent evil of governance, I should say:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found
the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them,
and these will continue till they are resisted. . ."

-- Frederick Douglass

That exactly says what I've been saying, government is inherently evil. "Injustice" and "wrong" is what you are defending. Submitting to. Arguing for. the quote is excellent, of course, but no quotation is needed if your damn eyes are at all open.

Originally posted by jimmyx
sorry, don't want it...why? if i had grown up in a culture where i had to be totally self-sufficient, then it would be far easier. i like having functioning sewer, water, electrical services. the ability to go down to the supermarket and get a variety of foods, without having to hunt, grow, or steal to eat. the idea that i can travel freely without being hunted down by maruading gangs. i like living in a house with a bed, heating and air conditioning for summer and winter, and creature comforts rather than living in a blown out building, tent, or cave. if i get sick, i go down to my doctor, and not worry about surviving a bout of a curable ailment.
anarchism brings chaos, fear, destruction, and even death...something that civilized people should shun, not embrace. we need a balance between conservatism and liberalism, taking the best from each, and not trying to forceably impose the worst from either.
are there laws that need to be done away with? sure. are there laws that still need to be imposed? yes. civilization is constantly in flux, changing to suit the needs and desires of it's citizenry. if you have a complaint, you have to work hard on designing a coherant solution, convince enough people that the solution you've designed is needed, gather vast numbers of like-minded people to engage your elected officials to make the change.... this is the opposite of anarchy, and it works a hell of alot better.

edit on 6-8-2012 by jimmyx because: sentence structure

Sorry jimmy but the government didn't build your house or your bed etc etc, people did that. Government didn't dig your well or your septic system or discover air conditioners or furnaces, people did that. People were healing themselves and each other long before bureaucratic busy body government oversight came along.

But governments are the ones most often responsible for blowing out people's buildings, thus forcing them to live in caves or tents or caves.

So why do people scare you more than government?

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?

Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?

reply to post by frazzle


On the other hand, without the government, the 'people' would not have been able to build these things on a level to keep up with population growth.

Like our highways? Thats government. Like our dams? thats government. Like a power grid? That government.

the bottom line is, if all it takes is people, why did we not see these advancements until governments came into play?

Originally posted by Expat888
uniting goes against being an anarchist ... true anarchists have no need nor use for leaders.. nations... governments...

I stand on my own ... Ive neither need nor use for any leaders... nations... governments... I am a human being living my life on my terms...

Leaders?

What? We are all our own leaders.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.

reply to post by joechip

 

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

Stop it!

Your making too much sense! Native americans didn't have a government to manage thier lives?!
Impossible I say!