How many anarchists?

[madmadmax]

I wonder how many members are actually anarchists since we have been expanding quite a lot.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.75&soc=-2.15

[xkeyscore89]

I haven't taken the test, and I will when I have time since it asks some pretty interesting questions.  There are very few true anarchists in the U.S., let alone on this board.  The only group that comes to mind that qualifies as such would be some of the more radical members of the "Sovereign Citizens Movement".  These are the people who get pulled over for a busted tail-light and are uncooperative with the officer. By uncooperative, I mean immediately stepping out of the car after being pulled over.  Some people do this to verbally argue with a cop, but these people don't step out to argue.  They step out of their car with a modified automatic AR-15 equipped with a 100-round drum and deliver a 25-35 round burst into the police cruiser.  There are no words spoken and no bullet-proof vests utilized by any police force in the nation that can save him (with the exception of Dragonskin, which is military only).  Death is almost instantaneous, there's no pain for the officer at least, only shock for a period of 5 seconds or less.  A shot that shreds the aorta has a higher kill rate than a head shot because it's not protected like the brain is and it contains the most blood of any artery.  The blood loss caused by a single direct bullet impact is always fatal and consciousness is lost in 3 seconds at the most.  A 35-round impact, with say, 10 contacting the aorta directly? Well, you do the math.

They do this not because they have warrants.  They do it because they believe that they belong to a group that is not subject to the laws of any government.  Being pulled over by police infringes this "sovereignty" and is treated by the most radical members as an act of war.  This is the closest thing to a real anarchist there is and real anarchists evolve into domestic terrorists with a goal of not only bringing down the current system but establishing their own.

No anarchist with the power to bring down a government would stop at that point.  Human nature and greed change the focus into establishing a system designed to generate wealth and power at the expense of others.  I think any real anarchist gradually evolves into a domestic terrorist.

Timothy McVeigh is another example of this.  His anarchist views led him to become a domestic terrorist, though he was not a true anarchist.  His mental predisposition, his belief system (I'm not saying he was insane) combined with reading "The Turner Diaries" was the beginning of the end for him.  He wasn't a true anarchist, he just wanted to make a statement that the status quo had to change.


It's safe to say that all parties mentioned above are part of the approximately 50% of citizens who don't pay taxes, the "IRS anarchists" 

[madmadmax]

I haven't taken the test, and I will when I have time since it asks some pretty interesting questions.  There are very few true anarchists in the U.S., let alone on this board.  The only group that comes to mind that qualifies as such would be some of the more radical members of the "Sovereign Citizens Movement".  These are the people who get pulled over for a busted tail-light and are uncooperative with the officer. By uncooperative, I mean immediately stepping out of the car after being pulled over.  Some people do this to verbally argue with a cop, but these people don't step out to argue.  They step out of their car with a modified automatic AR-15 equipped with a 100-round drum and deliver a 25-35 round burst into the police cruiser.  There are no words spoken and no bullet-proof vests utilized by any police force in the nation that will save them.  Death is almost instantaneous, there's no pain for the officer at least, only shock.

They do this not because they have warrants.  They do it because they believe that they belong to a group that is not subject to the laws of any government.  Being pulled over by police infringes this "sovereignty" and is treated by the most radical members as an act of war.  This is the closest thing to a real anarchist there is and real anarchists evolve into domestic terrorists with a goal of not only bringing down the current system but establishing their own.

No anarchist with the power to bring down a government would stop at that point.  Human nature and greed change the focus into establishing a system designed to generate wealth and power at the expense of others.  I think any real anarchist gradually evolves into a domestic terrorist.

Timothy McVeigh is another example of this.  His anarchist views led him to become a domestic terrorist, though he was not a true anarchist.  His mental predisposition, his belief system (I'm not saying he was insane) combined with reading "The Turner Diaries" was the beginning of the end for him.  He wasn't a true anarchist, he just wanted to make a statement that the status quo had to change.


It's safe to say that all parties mentioned above are part of the approximately 50% of citizens who don't pay taxes.   

I think it is rather important to remain reasonable and be exposed to other ideologies regardless of how absurd they may sound at first, I have read Mein Kampf, I have read communist propaganda straight from the communists as well as authoritarian propaganda straight from authoritarians, no system which is as logical and as fair as anarchy exists.

The vast majority of the stupid masses choose their political views based on what hey are fed on the TV and other obviously biased news sources (since any news source is biased really) so the average person doesn't even understand what anarchy means, most people believe the word to mean a state of chaos rather than a state of harmony.

Paying taxes serves a higher purpose ultimately, since then you can be free to spread your world views and potentially affect the world rather than being behind closed bars. If you are shooting at a police officer that has stopped you how are you better than a tyrannical government?

[xkeyscore89]

I haven't taken the test, and I will when I have time since it asks some pretty interesting questions.  There are very few true anarchists in the U.S., let alone on this board.  The only group that comes to mind that qualifies as such would be some of the more radical members of the "Sovereign Citizens Movement".  These are the people who get pulled over for a busted tail-light and are uncooperative with the officer. By uncooperative, I mean immediately stepping out of the car after being pulled over.  Some people do this to verbally argue with a cop, but these people don't step out to argue.  They step out of their car with a modified automatic AR-15 equipped with a 100-round drum and deliver a 25-35 round burst into the police cruiser.  There are no words spoken and no bullet-proof vests utilized by any police force in the nation that will save them.  Death is almost instantaneous, there's no pain for the officer at least, only shock.

They do this not because they have warrants.  They do it because they believe that they belong to a group that is not subject to the laws of any government.  Being pulled over by police infringes this "sovereignty" and is treated by the most radical members as an act of war.  This is the closest thing to a real anarchist there is and real anarchists evolve into domestic terrorists with a goal of not only bringing down the current system but establishing their own.

No anarchist with the power to bring down a government would stop at that point.  Human nature and greed change the focus into establishing a system designed to generate wealth and power at the expense of others.  I think any real anarchist gradually evolves into a domestic terrorist.

Timothy McVeigh is another example of this.  His anarchist views led him to become a domestic terrorist, though he was not a true anarchist.  His mental predisposition, his belief system (I'm not saying he was insane) combined with reading "The Turner Diaries" was the beginning of the end for him.  He wasn't a true anarchist, he just wanted to make a statement that the status quo had to change.


It's safe to say that all parties mentioned above are part of the approximately 50% of citizens who don't pay taxes.  

I think it is rather important to remain reasonable and be exposed to other ideologies regardless of how absurd they may sound at first, I have read Mein Kampf, I have read communist propaganda straight from the communists as well as authoritarian propaganda straight from authoritarians, no system which is as logical and as fair as anarchy exists.

The vast majority of the stupid masses choose their political views based on what hey are fed on the TV and other obviously biased news sources (since any news source is biased really) so the average person doesn't even understand what anarchy means, most people believe the word to mean a state of chaos rather than a state of harmony.

Paying taxes serves a higher purpose ultimately, since then you can be free to spread your world views and potentially affect the world rather than being behind closed bars. If you are shooting at a police officer that has stopped you how are you better than a tyrannical government?

I think you may have taken my statements out of context.  I've skimmed through Mein Kampf, (I wasn't impressed by what I read by the way. It was more a collection anti-semitic ramblings and scattered political thoughts than a manifesto.)  I have read The Communist Manifesto, which I enjoyed very much.

In regards to what I bolded in your quote.  In a perfect world, you'd be correct, anarchism would work in a practical sense.  Similarly, in a perfect world, Communism would work.  However, I think you're focusing on the applications of anarchy in a perfect world.  You're losing sight of the fact that you will live and die in a world which is far from perfect and resists change.  I consider myself to a Deist and believe that the human race is inherently flawed and corrupted by one thing above all others, greed.  Because of this, anarchism will always remain theory and could never be successfully implemented.  In a utopian existence, this would not apply.

It's not so much that I think anarchy is completely without merit in a theoretical since.  It's an interesting topic to discuss and debate in a philosophical forum where it may be possible to extract a practical application for some of its tenets. But why waste time making it into a movement when it's fatally flawed by the constraints of the world in which we live?  Not to mention that, if your movement somehow grew large enough, it would be quickly dismantled by government entities before you even realized it.

[madmadmax]

I think you may have taken my statements out of context.  I've skimmed through Mein Kampf, (I wasn't impressed by what I read by the way. It was more a collection anti-semitic ramblings and scattered political thoughts than a manifesto.)  I have read The Communist Manifesto, which I enjoyed very much.

In regards to what I bolded in your quote.  In a perfect world, you'd be correct, anarchism would work in a practical sense.  Similarly, in a perfect world, Communism would work.  However, I think you're focusing on the applications of anarchy in a perfect world.  You're losing sight of the fact that you will live and die in a world which is far from perfect and resists change.  I consider myself to a Deist and believe that the human race is inherently flawed and corrupted by one thing above all others, greed.  Because of this, anarchism will always remain theory and could never be successfully implemented.  In a utopian existence, this would not apply.

It's not so much that I think anarchy is completely without merit in a theoretical since.  It's an interesting topic to discuss and debate in a philosophical forum where it may be possible to extract a practical application for some of its tenets. But why waste time making it into a movement when it's fatally flawed by the constraints of the world in which we live?  Not to mention that, if your movement somehow grew large enough, it would be quickly dismantled by government entities before you even realized it.

To be clear, what is it exactly that you claim will fail in anarchism due to us being inherently flawed (which I agree with completely) or is implementing it the only struggle?

I see other political movements relying far more on flawed people than anarchism, democrats assume that most people out there know what is best for them which is a pretty wild assumption, communists assume that people would be noble enough to self reflect and determine whether what they have is according to their need and how they work is according to their ability, an even wilder assumption. Authoritarians believe that if you give the 1% total control of the 99% they won't abuse that power because every single human being is completely just and logical, there is only one truth to which all within the 1% will remain loyal, which is complete crazy-talk.

So among all the systems, anarchism relying on flawed humans the least.

[guybrushthreepwood]

I wonder how many members are actually anarchists since we have been expanding quite a lot.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.75&soc=-2.15

On the test I got Libertarian:

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

[xkeyscore89]

I think you may have taken my statements out of context.  I've skimmed through Mein Kampf, (I wasn't impressed by what I read by the way. It was more a collection anti-semitic ramblings and scattered political thoughts than a manifesto.)  I have read The Communist Manifesto, which I enjoyed very much.

In regards to what I bolded in your quote.  In a perfect world, you'd be correct, anarchism would work in a practical sense.  Similarly, in a perfect world, Communism would work.  However, I think you're focusing on the applications of anarchy in a perfect world.  You're losing sight of the fact that you will live and die in a world which is far from perfect and resists change.  I consider myself to a Deist and believe that the human race is inherently flawed and corrupted by one thing above all others, greed.  Because of this, anarchism will always remain theory and could never be successfully implemented.  In a utopian existence, this would not apply.

It's not so much that I think anarchy is completely without merit in a theoretical since.  It's an interesting topic to discuss and debate in a philosophical forum where it may be possible to extract a practical application for some of its tenets. But why waste time making it into a movement when it's fatally flawed by the constraints of the world in which we live?  Not to mention that, if your movement somehow grew large enough, it would be quickly dismantled by government entities before you even realized it.

To be clear, what is it exactly that you claim will fail in anarchism due to us being inherently flawed (which I agree with completely) or is implementing it the only struggle?

I see other political movements relying far more on flawed people than anarchism, democrats assume that most people out there know what is best for them which is a pretty wild assumption, communists assume that people would be noble enough to self reflect and determine whether what they have is according to their need and how they work is according to their ability, an even wilder assumption. Authoritarians believe that if you give the 1% total control of the 99% they won't abuse that power because every single human being is completely just and logical, there is only one truth to which all within the 1% will remain loyal, which is complete crazy-talk.

So among all the systems, anarchism relying on flawed humans the least.

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?

[hilariousandco]

I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist, but I don't need to take that test to confirm that.

[madmadmax]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?

The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Not to mention that such companies would be inclined to help people in distress for free as means of PR.

[RebelWorm]

I became libertarian:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

[Mike Christ]

The following is a list of reasons, in no specific order, why Anarchism will fail--or so I've been told or something...

1. "It's in our nature to participate in coercive hierarchies."
2. "Who would build the X?" [Roads, hospitals, tanks]
3. "Warlords!"
4. "It's every man for himself; who will protect the elderly and the orphans?"
5. "Who would fix/stop the X?" [Climate, animal abuse, wars]
6. "Who would print the money?"
7. "Nobody wants to live like cavemen."
8. "Who would regulate the market failures?"
9. "Who would give me X?" [Welfare, SS, "free stuff"]

And, of course:

10. "There would be no law/order.  There would be chaos."

[Mike Christ]

I became libertarian:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

Most people are libertarian, they just don't realize it; it's not something generally taught in schools, for apparent reasons.

[RebelWorm]

I became libertarian:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

Most people are libertarian, they just don't realize it; it's not something generally taught in schools, for apparent reasons.

Yeah, I was quite sure I would be classed as a libertarian before I even took the test. I know where I am standing politically already.

[madmadmax]

To sum up the actual questions (3 actually promotes anarchism since there would be no warlords):

2. "Who would build the X?" [Roads, hospitals, tanks]
4. "It's every man for himself; who will protect the elderly and the orphans?"
5. "Who would fix/stop the X?" [Climate, animal abuse, wars]
8. "Who would regulate the market failures?"
9. "Who would give me X?" [Welfare, SS, "free stuff"]

2. You, the taxpayer, the same way you currently build them.
4. Already answered in my previous post, first of all it isn't in our nature to harm the elderly and the orphans, second of all they would be tempted to use services to defend themselves, third is that people would be motivated to give to charity.
5. Given the free market there wouldn't be 6 corporations controlling all of the media in the U.S. like there currently is so naturally you would hear about the companies that abuse animals, the only real issue is foreign tyrannical governments invading you to give you "democracy" or some other bs reason.
8. The free market has never failed, nature has perfected it during the millions of years it existed.
9. LOL, who would take from you and give you back less you mean? Well you could pay for life insurance, health insurance etc in the company that most appeals to you.

[cryptasm]

[Mike Christ]

5.

5 is important to statists, it would seem; all the ones I've met seem to care deeply about the environment and animal rights and ending poverty etc. etc., and seem to believe that the state is the only way to get this done.  I'm guessing this relates to the whole "Every man for himself" thing that tags along with the stereotypical anarchist society, aside from "chaos, destruction, bodies everywhere!"

[RebelWorm]

Oh my... A bit radical? (nothing wrong with that)

[cryptasm]

Oh my... A bit radical? (nothing wrong with that)

lol nearly off the chart. left of Ghandi, I can live with that 

[madmadmax]

5.

5 is important to statists, it would seem; all the ones I've met seem to care deeply about the environment and animal rights and ending poverty etc. etc., and seem to believe that the state is the only way to get this done.  I'm guessing this relates to the whole "Every man for himself" thing that tags along with the stereotypical anarchist society, aside from "chaos, destruction, bodies everywhere!"

Silverback gorillas have no government and they seem to handle poverty, animal rights and environmental issues pretty well in comparison to humans.

The government is the reason why we see that phenomena to begin with, the government is behind most rapists and most murderers, not in a sense that they support them but in a sense that they have let them down as children and completely forgot about them in their artificially forget system that they have the arrogance to claim is superior to millions of years of evolution.

If there were no governments there would be no tax breaks and other benefits to corporations so monopolies would be destroyed, when they do information will flaw freely.

[xkeyscore89]

The implementation will be a challenge, but not the most pressing one, imo.  If implementation was successful, problems and ideas fed by greed will become harder to detect and prevent before they are able to cause harm to the society in the form of criminal and predatory acts.

Are individuals in an anarchistic society also supposed to function as law enforcement?  If so, the results would be disastrous.  Therefore, an entity has to be created with the mandate to protect the populace.  How can they be trusted to protect and serve when there's no one to challenge their authority?

Does the mere fact that there would exist a group dedicated to peace and order mean that the system no longer qualifies as an anarchy?


The same way you pay a monthly fee for the very internet you used to post that message you could pay to a privately owned company that would take the role of "police" in guarding you and ensuring your well being. There would be dozens of companies offering "police" services and their success would be dependent upon their performance and contribution to humanity, given the free market media would become a lot more transparent so if people were to notice the company that they are subscribed to being brutal they would move onto another company.

Well-stated, I hadn't even considered that.  The only correction I have is that I don't pay for internet. I cracked my neighbor's WPA2 key via a WPS vulnerability quite a while ago so he's the only one paying monthly fees for the internetz.    

When I'm downloading a 3.3gb file at 2.2mb/s wirelessly, sometimes I wonder if he thinks the 56k-like speeds he experiences as a result during that time are a form of Comcast "maintenance".  The guy is a total asshole and a complete dumbass so I don't feel the least bit bad about it.  Fuck him.