Bitcoin Forum

So over many months I've felt my political views change gradually. From being a small-government libertarian to sympathizing with anarchist ideals and points. These include the whole idea behind the non-aggression principal and that the state is nothing more than a hazardous monopoly over force and the creation/enforcement of law. However, I must ask those who call themselves "Anarchists" (regardless of what kind of anarchist you are), what made you say with confidence and ease "I am an anarchist"? Remember that we were all raised with the notion that "anarchy" means "chaos", and that we should fear anarchy. Thus for me, I have a hard time saying "I'm an anarchist" (in my head at least) and feeling comfortable with it simply because of the stigma around it.

What made you decide with certainty to call yourself an "anarchist" or "anarcho-[insert word here]"?

Also, what made you get over this kind of discomfort with openly calling yourself an anarchist (assuming you had any discomfort to begin with)?

It is a strange word, since its been beaten to death by these bastards:

http://www.thefastertimes.com/wp-content/uploads/news/files/2013/04/punk9.jpg

You don't necessarily have to get comfortable with this word however; I think what is most uncomfortable is how others will perceive you for it, since you and I understand what anarchism really is and we're not worried about any strange looks between each other :P  Technically speaking, we're all statists, since statism isn't an option, even if we hate it.  If asked, I'd probably say I was an advocate of voluntaryism, since it can't be misconstrued as "confused republican" as libertarianism seems to somehow have adopted, and doesn't involve any strange looks as would entail with anarchist.  Otherwise, I can't say I'm put off by the word; it is often misunderstood as "chaos, violence, survival of the fittest", ironically enough for these are the qualities of totalitarianism, but at the same time, I wonder if it's necessary to point out the true meaning of anarchism to these people; since anarchism is the natural evolution of a rational society, there is no need to advocate for anarchy, since it happens by itself; you don't need to propagandize anarchists, as another way of putting it.

Anyhow, I believe I started considering myself an anarchist shortly after considering myself a libertarian; upon understanding the difference between authority and liberty in government, it was easy to see where I could have the greatest amount of liberty and how I could achieve such a goal, so I rolled with that.  So far I've only been attacked for being a "libtard", oddly enough; you'd figure anarchism would be the odd one out.

Well, I guess I'll put in my two cents...I am not an anarchist and I doubt you're going to find many people who self identify with that radical ideal.  Anarchy is not productive at all and is quite simply bad for business. A true anarchist would likely also be considered a domestic terrorist.

Yes, this is the typical viewpoint of anarchism by the public ;D

Is it safe to say you've also never studied any amount of anarchist theory?

Yeah, anarchist theory is not something I have indepently studied, mainly because it's more disorganized philosophy than theory and has little to no practical value in today's political climate.

If you've never studied it, how would you know?  To compare, how accurate would your opinion of saltwater taffy be if you've never eaten it before?  You might think it has a terrible taste, or perhaps a good one, but it's impossible to tell without trying it; anarchism at the moment is the equivalent of reading the ingredient label of saltwater taffy and saying, "Yep, that sounds pretty good to me" or "No this is awful", but it's hard to really make this opinion without first giving yourself time to understand it, wouldn't you agree?  It's not as fast as just eating the taffy and quickly realizing how you'd like it, but we gotta get enough people to want to try it before we can know.

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet. ;)

Ha ha well, nobody's really had a taste of it, aside from that one time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0XhRnJz8fU); what makes you believe anarchism is not productive and bad for business?

I guess it would have to do with my seeing the onset of anarchism as a faction-based society, causing general interruptions to the delicate balance of supply and demand among other systems.  Goods and services would not be as accessible as they are now I think. This is just a theory, however.

You don't need to taste shit to say it's bad... ;D
Also you don't need to be a cow to say how good milk is ;)

Yes, for a significant amount of time I had a certain amount of discomfort using the word anarchist.

I think I just reached a point where I stopped caring.  Labels are just labels at the end of the day and are there for convenience in conversation.  It's the ideas we have that matters, not so much the label.   But anarchist was the label used initially for this idea so I'll stick with that one for now.  If it turns out that one of the other labels ends up catching on more, a rebranding essentially, I will be fine with calling myself that as well.   A lot of the most prominent anarchists out there who I like and respect use the anarchist label to describe themselves so I figured there was no reason why I shouldn't either.

EDIT:  I also think it helps having a firm grasp of the ideas and ways to talk to people.  Nobody likes getting the question "but how would x work?" and not being able to answer it.  That creates discomfort and people can then imply that you really haven't thought your position through.  It takes a bit of this and talking to other anarchists and reading things before you feel like you won't get caught out by this line of questioning.

I would encourage you to do some research on it.  Would you class yourself as a big or small government person?

Much of the market is anarchy in action.  There is no government required to get us the goods and services that we need.  In fact, the more government interferes the worse these services usually become.  Look how bad banking is for example where the government is heavily involved.

Anarchy is saying you can't use force to get people to do what you want.  It is saying that people trading voluntarily in a free market system provide goods and services to others.

I would consider myself a small government person.  I think I might do a little research on the subject, good talking to you.

I don't mind calling myself an anarchist, because I look, think and act very differently from how popular culture describes anarchists. This might cause people to stop and think again :)

At that point I'm ready to explain the etymology of the word, how it means the idea of not having a single ruler/governor and doesn't have anything to do with chaos.

I don't align myself with any political ideology, and I suggest that none of you people should either.
Take the good parts from each *-ism and mix it together.

Once you learn it means freedom.

Good points indeed. Whenever I think of the word "anarchist" I think of how others perceive it moreso than how I feel about it. Also I found myself aligning with anarchist ideals shortly after calling myself a libertarian (Ron Paul anyone?). Though with your last point..I dont really feel it's so "natural". If it were this way, then why do we have so many people, even today, advocating for strong, central rule? Even when the US was founded on tiny govt principals, there were people in the US who wanted a king. Sure we've come a long way from outright monarchies, but perhaps what we have now won't result in anything much better later on. Maybe its fairest to say that people inherently seek some sort of organization, and that the only way to achieve such organization is with a central authority with such massive scale and power?


Remember, though, that most little kids have this curiosity to at least touch their own poop but parents disallow that. I'm not saying they should allow their children to do that stuff, but what I am saying is that the only reason we "know" shit tastes bad is because we were told this by our parents and strictly prohibited from experimenting. That and well..shit stinks and you can smell it..you can't smell anarchy :P


Wouldn't most people create their own "-ism" to reflect this combination, though? lol

At least you don't deny the fact that if something stinks we should be very careful about touching it (remember, curiosity killed the cat :P). To keep some form of true anarchy you would inevitably need to impose some rules over it, which in effect would make it just another form of order

Indeed I don't. People should show skepticism and care when approaching something they don't know..though I don't like that saying "curiosity killed the cat". Curiosity can lead to experimentation, which can be very rewarding at times, though of course that depends on the context..clearly being curious about what your own poop tastes like isn't gonna turn out well for you.

As far as anarchy goes, though, I do see a new form of order coming from it in the sense of people being held accountable. I think that's what people think of when they say there should be rules, because if someone does something wrong, they must be held accountable somehow. The way I imagine anarchy would be a society that creates a form of accountability and order without the need of what we know as a government, which we know is a group of people who are placed in some moral echelon above everybody else (legal monopoly over force, etc, etc).

For those who are not quite content with the proverb, there's an ending to it, i.e. "but satisfaction brought it back". Apparently, it is still a matter of much debate what this ending actually means for the cat in question...  ;D

It may look very appealing indeed at first sight, but there're still a lot of hard questions, especially the questions regarding who will keep people accountable for their alleged wrongdoings ("they must be held accountable somehow"), who will in practice set the rules ("they say there should be rules") and so forth and so on... You will always end up facing the necessity of giving priviliges/power to one group of people before/over another. This will not be anarchy, anarchy in its true form means "each for himself and devil take the hindmost", which is self-destructive and thus not viable in any human society... 8)

False; the entire point of anarchism is to completely decentralize lawmakers.  You, and the people you're participating life with, lay down the laws you agree upon, usually involving "don't kill, don't steal, don't rape" et al following the non-aggression principle, and if someone steps out of line, they are punished by the people who have agreed to instill those same punishments upon themselves if they were to break these laws.  Anarchism is clearly defined: non-hierarchical relationships in government and business.  At any point in time that you present a scenario within anarchism that requires a ruling class and a ruled class, follow these steps:

1. Stop
2. Take a breath
3. Discard the idea

It will save you and I a lot of time.

I disagree, the very fact that we have a society proofs that groups humans are indeed capable of organizing them self and build structures that enable a society.

Let's go with an extreme example. Say upon tomorrow the state would cancel all laws on murder and from there on killing someone would go completely unpunished. Would we have chaos and random slaughter on the streets?

No, (at least not for long). The solution is simple. People don't want to be killed, so very quickly kinds of retaliation bonds would form. "If someone of us gets killed we strike back".
Soon they would realize that when someone of one ring acts out on someone of another ring they would be stuck in a vicious circle. So rings agree to punish only the first responsible person.

At next there would be rings that offer investigative services (for ease we call the police  ;) ) if a member is accused and the decision of a tribunal of members of the involved rings (lets call them court ). Soon we end up in a system that's not very different from ours today, but people can choose from different sets of protection and judgement or don't have it at all if they choose so.

Basically this works for most crime scenarios and there is no ruling class necessary for it to work.

The "rings" may punish the person responsible but colleagues of that person would ofcourse not accept that he did something wrong. In their eyes, there is injustice and so they would also retaliate eventually. Anarchy would divide people and create conflict. The winners of which would rule the people and create democracy.

There will always be a difference in power and there will always be people who will try to rule others. Having complete anarchy would just reset our current political system to zero but the end point is the same. The problem in our society now are dictators, lack of transparency, and fiat currency. Slowly as we solve these problems, the shackles of slavery would be removed from the people. When we eliminate dictators, we let the people govern themselves although I do think that the democracy today should have limitations. Elected leaders should always have pemission from the people to do something. The leaders' job is to suggest and only apply what the people want. When we inforce absolute transparency, we could be assured that our tax goes to the right places. When we eliminate fiat currency, we remove the power of the government and banks to inflate our money supply. We prevent them from indirectly robbing us of our wealth from inflation. There is much to done to fix our political system today. What we currently have is a fake democracy where our leaders act as if they are dictators. We only need to fix the 3 things I have stated above. Sorry but going back to scratch is just ridiculous.

I had this written as a reply before I read all the comments, but had posted too son to post again so I copied it and decided to read the comments while I waited, I wanted to be the first to say it haha :P.

I think the word sounds powerful.  It's great when you act using the non-aggression principle as a guide in your behavior because then people can't have a reason to think you are a bad person, although they still may not like you, they just can't say you are bad.  Then they get confused when you say you are an anarchist and I always hope the contradiction between my behavior and their perception of the word anarchy will confuse them enough that they might rethink their ideas about it, even if it's just to the slightest degree.  Maybe if they think about it, I might recruit a few people just because I tell the truth, its has a powerful connotation so I take advantage of it.

How are you going to implement this in reality? Read Animal Farm by George Orwell to see how it would turn out in real life, provided we have started from scratch (and first of all excluded inevitable violence out of the equation at that). People punishing themselves or at least agreeing to take punishment or just agreeing upon anything, what? Where do you really come from?  8)

You simply can't define it this way. Defining it in such a manner would require redefinition of both government and business which are hierarchical structures (meaning hierarchical relationships within them) by their own definitions. I thought it was evident... :o

Why did you write this? Did you write these lines for yourself? :D
You appear to have not read closely what I'd written. This scenario is not within anarchism, it just proves why true anarchism is impossible in reality :-X

It seems that you don't understand how human nature actually works. To keep true anarchy going for any significant amount of time you would need an exterior force that would constrain the manifestations of this nature (selfishness, ego-centrism, greed, etc). There's no such force save for the state (which itself is a converted form of the lust for power, another trait of human nature), which excludes anarchism by definition. I wrote about this previously and this is crucial for why true anarchy (universal equality between people) is impossible in principle unless we have aliens ruling among us... 8)

Where did I state that humans are incapable of organizing themselves? Lions make prides, birds flock together, even wolves form packs and, yes, humans organize into societies. But these are hierarchical structures all throughout with those who subdue and those who are subdued. No anarchy, right? It just couldn't be any other way... ;D

Come watch The Purge movie ;D

Actually, criminal gangs and other organised groups with strong hierachy within them will instantly grab the power and soon begin fighting with each other, the winner forming a quasi-state with its laws, law enforcing bodies, penalty and tax systems...  8)
Still no trace of anarchy ;D

Well, if it's in a movie it must be true.

i too am against anarchy. when there's a power vaccum, where is a power struggle. it's just human nature. to think otherwise would be naive and wishful. if you mean by anarchist to mean an egalitarian/idealistic society, which is what i think some of the anarchy supporters here mean.

i don't really see it being much different from darwinism in the animal kingdom. some groups will be more hungry to dominate others.

Anyone interested in the actual efforts of establishing a stateless anarchist society could read about Nestor Makhno who unleashed plunder and outrage in his "Free Territory"... ;D

Anyone interested in government systems can read up on Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc,etc...

Funny how your guy doesn't seem to have the infamy of these other guys...

I don't quite understand where you're going... ???

If you want to say that Hitler et al are inveterate villains all over and Makhno is not their match then that was not really my point 8)
In fact, he was just a local guerrilla leader who didn't succeed much (unlike those other guys), anarchy aside... ;D

That argument does make sense and I always saw that as a reason to not even consider anarchy of any form. Tho I'd propose that there be a new power structure that relies of voluntary interaction rather than one monopoly over force and so on. Those who align with anarcho-capitalism may argue that multiple competing entities that provide law and justice could be a viable option. I'll admit that businesses may WANT to exploit workers and customers, and they may try, but amidst healthy competition people could always leave said company for another, or even begin their own.

The exterior force exists, it's called nature, karma, god, love, truth, whatever you'd like to call it.

Anyways, there are aliens among us, so it's all good.

My pick would be nature. Sorry, but the nature lurking deep down inside a human being works against anarchy. So you have to choose some other exterior force which would override nature... 8)

I'm not that sure about aliens out there (or here), but do you actually mean they are all inveterate anarchists? ;D

Do you see packs of squirrels killing each other for acorns?  No, this is nature, where EARTH's resources are shared and rightfully owned by no person, but earth.

Nature is the perfect balancing force of the universe.  If someone wants to try and gain power over people, let nature take them out.

Take your antifreedom agenda elsewhere.

You do see packs of Chimpanzees killing and eating one another.  That also is nature.  We humans are a lot more like the chimps than squirrels.

Never saw feral dogs fighting to death with each other for a bitch or food? Never heard of ant armies waging wars between themselves or chimps killing their own posterity? Maybe, it's some other nature, not from this planet? ;D

By the way, this is not a pro-anarchy site, so I guess you're taking it too far to tell anyone here (even me) what they should do, right? 8)

So you propose we continue killing each other, because that's what monkeys do?

You and your noob friends are pushing awfully hard.

Me?! God forbid!!! :o
I just wanted to show you that nature is not just "packs of squirrels", that it can be brute, ruthless and lethal (and in fact is just such), that there is nothing specifically "human" in all this... ;D

If you read my posts closely here (or elsewhere for this matter) you will see that I refrain as much as I can from value judgments about anyone. I'm always doing my best to provide hard facts and give cogent reasons for anything I say or state... 8)

It can also be loving and peaceful, there is no need for fear.  An anarchist society would show us this.

I propose that we accept reality.  Humans are intrinsicly violent and every human society creates structures to control the violence that is inherent in our natures.  The modern state, with its separation of powers, is the most effective way of controlling violence so far.

If you want to replace it, you have to offer something better.  So far, no anarchist has offered a way to prevent things like domestic violence or female genital mutilation in communities that contract their "protection" to companies that turn a blind eye to such cultural practices.  That says to me that anarchy would be worse.

I don't accept that we must be violent just because we have been throughout history.  Violence, as everything, is a choice.  Once we grow up and see that we are all a family, and remove the factor of greed from the equation by giving up money, we really have nothing to gain by acting hatefully towards other humans.

Anarchy is the solution all in itself.  Those that want to kill others because they think there will be no repercussions, well, they have another thing coming.  At the anarchist level, natural selection takes role very quickly, there's no reason to expect anymore violence than there is today for more than a few days, if at all.  It's important we understand and practice forgiveness to those around us and to ourselves.

To be free of our scheduled lives will truly promote the conscious expansion by focusing on the present moment.  People will evolve as they learn to do things for themselves.

Well, I don't exactly call myself an Anarchist, although anarchist life is certainly the kind of life I wand for me and my community.
For the rest, I really don't mind. I even think most of the people had better be governed as most of them use power and freedom for corruptive, selfish goals.
Of course, no one can guarantee that mine are better, not even me, who knows if I was right. But I know what the alternatives are, and that the current situation is not good.
So for the reord - I do believe that my trusted friends whom I learned that are reliable, are better than the government. For the rest, for whom I don't know, I can't tell.

I think you are a good person and see the good in other people.  While I admire that, we won't agree that its a basis for a society so I will bow out.

/peace

people don't hate for nothing,
there is always a reason why someone is being hateful, hate doesn't just come from nothing
and hate is something that humans use to punish someone for his bad behaviour, for behaviour that did bad thing to another human being
when you can't take revenge and can't find an another way to punish someone for something that harmed you or your loved ones the only thing left is hate..
even if you get away with something hate makes you remember that there are consequences for shit  you've done.

Out of curiosity, have you ever been robbed?  I mean a complete stranger attacking you in your home or on a secluded spot, subduing you and taking your stuff?  I have and I swear, the guy totally hated me. 

I think the robber had intentionally wrought himself up or otherwise he might not have the courage/mind to attack you... I've been there, I fought a few times in the streets in my youth when approached with similar intentions...

kiki112 says that the hatred must be rational or well founded.  I was checking to see if he ever met a complete stranger who truly hated him and beat the shit out of him.

In the case you refer to the hatred is absolutely rational since it is aroused consciously and on purpose, so it is well founded too...

People don't hate you, they hate their self.

But they hurt you.  And they spit on you when you are unconscious.  Once you wake up, you may wonder why their self-hated has them out drinking and having a laugh while you are in hospital.

In the case of robbery it is no more than simply a tool which helps reach some aim (i.e. rob you of your stuff), there is nothing else to it really. Since time immemorial soldiers just do the same. Berserkers ate some shit before battle to get frenzied and go wild...

Not saying it's your fault for such a thing to occur, but you did make choices that led to that event.

Anyways, many people steal and rob people because they lack the resources they 'need' to live a happy life.  In a truly free society we wouldn't margin our resources as to what makes the most profit but as to what people desire to have.  And I know humans are capable of creating anything with the power of consciousness, when everyone sees this, there's really no reason to desire material goods from earth.

All this requires is us to detach from our scheduled lives and live in the moment and our understanding of the universe will evolve exponentially.  All we have to do is give up money and the universe is yours.

You are absolutely right.  I went jogging. 

The funny thing is that as you grow older, you will see this again and again.  Someone is a victim of cancer, a heart attack or a random act of violence and some prick comes along trying to say "Its not you fault but really, you asked for it."  Its like the notion of a random disease or a random act of violence is too hard for them to deal with,

Dank, life is random and in a random system, bad things happen.  Don't kid yourself that "choices" make a difference.  If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you have no choice and bad stuff happens.

Nothing is random.  Everything has a cause.

You have a lot of thinking and a lot of growing up to do.  In a lot of ways, you are someone to be envied as you have no knowledge of random luck.  But I pity you for your ignorance.

So you're telling me you just typed those letters together randomly?  You didn't choose what to type?

Reverse your words against your tongue and see if that sentence you wrote has any meaning to you.

I am telling you that in towns all over the world, every night people go out looking for victims and beat them unconscious or kill them.  They don't know who they will hurt but they do know it will be fun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2505111/Boy-17-killed-man-street-single-punch-going-friends-house-play-games.html

These people have a conscious, they feel empathy for all their actions, they are just not connected to it.  One day, all that negativity they spread will punch him back way harder in the face than he punched that guy.

Um no.  He actually killed the guy and is being punished.  He will be released in 8 years and can lead a normal life if he wants.  The guy is dead - he doesn't get that choice.  And tonight, there will be more killed the same way for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  That is a core part of human existence. 

When you die your ego is ripped away from your soul - it dies, your soul doesn't.  Your soul knows all, your soul knows the rippling impact your actions have had on others around you.  If you cannot kill your ego enough when you are alive to see this, you surely will when you die.

Maybe your existence, not mine.

OK now you are saying you have a sky fairy.  Since I don't have a sky fairy, I can't compete.  Grats!

No.  I'm saying you have a consciousness.  You are that consciousness.  And by spreading negativity on earth, you are not strengthening your consciousness, rather weakening it.  Your ego can insist that your 'sky fairy' consciousness is not real so it does not matter.  But when you die, you will have no ego to protect you, you will see the light, you will see the truth.

There is no negativity in dealing with the reality of randomness.  There is a random chance you are correct about an afterlife just as there is a random chance that Pope Francis is correct.  I'm perfectly happy with there being a random chance I am correct in saying that when a person dies, they cease to exist and that's the end of it.

No, there is not random chance of anything.  Afterlife is not a random chance but a inevitable occurrence.  Your are consciousness, the highest form of energy that creates our underlying world.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed - you cannot die.  Your ego, sense of humanly fear and realm of physicality, can die.  You cannot.

The universe is a very simple, yet complicated math problem unfolding itself.  This is why there is fate, it's all reactions of energy.  Go outside and wave to your neighbor, your actions and energy will forever be felt by the receiving ends of the universe.  Go to the beach and walk in the sand, you will forever change the structure of earth.  We create our destiny by our choices, we shape the universe, we are the creators.