Our Current Position... American Politics and History

[CrimeCore]

Anarchism functions on a social order. I would explain all this to you in detail.....but who would listen? who would care? who would do their best to tear all my beliefs apart?

listen. The best thing you can do when someone is talking about their political views and you think that they're being rediculous...do some research of your own.

Anarchism is not disorder.

because I'm not good at debating..and I'm certainly not articulate...I'll quote someone that can say how I feel about anarchism better than I can.(and no i didn't adopt my beliefs from this person)

Here is an introduction in which an author described the views of Anarchist writer Peter Kropotkin

"In opposition to some of the social concepts drawn from Darwinian theory, Kropotkin argued that within species mutual aid and cooperation had been a more decisive factor in evolution than the struggle for survival. This concept underlay his image of the anarchist society. Extending a theory of social labor that Proudhon had voiced earlier, Kropotkin advocated anarchist communism: all labor is social labor, for all the producers in a society are so mutually interdependent that it is impossible to measure the contribution of any particular individual. Therefore all have an equal claim to the goods of society, and each should be rewarded according to his needs rather than according to his work.
As a scientist himself, Kropotkin placed a high value on scientific validation of his social theories, and he took great pains to demonstrate that anarchism was not a utopian dream but a natrual and logical outgrowth of prevailing economic and institutional trends. His view of human nature, however, was less a product of scientific investigation than of moral faith in the reasonableness of human beings. Although he was not totally opposed to revolutionary acts of violence where they seemed necessary, his image of the anarchist revolution was that of an organic process, a constructive and more or less peaceful displacement of the old system of social production and distribution by the new."

[Matthew]

Well played old boy. When you run, you have my vote.

[karmakaze]

i am not going to even bother talking about the whole anarchy thing anymore. in these posts it has been proven to be a idealistic theory, but entirely impractical to actually be applied to realistic situations and that there is not way to actually implement it. i have also seen no evidence to back up that you can be a Christian anarchist. in fact, i am pretty sure that it has been prove to be a pretty distinct hypocrisy.

laws are necessary because people are stupid and or evil.

if you can not adequately discuss your beliefs here, then what motivation do i have to try to talk to you privately about them? especially considering, that i don't give a rats ass what you believe.

[4X541N7]

i am not going to even bother talking about the whole anarchy thing anymore. it these posts it has been prove to be a idealistic theory, but entirely impractical to actually be applied to realistic situations and that there is not way to actually implement it. i have also seen no evidence to back up that you can be a Christian anarchist. in fact, i am pretty sure that it has been prove to be a pretty distinct hypocrisy.

laws are necessary because people are stupid and or evil.

if you can not adequately discuss your beliefs here, then what motivation do i have to try to talk to you privately about them? especially considering, that i don't give a rats ass what you believe.

I <3 You!!!

[Melicious Scam]

i have also seen no evidence to back up that you can be a Christian anarchist. in fact, i am pretty sure that it has been prove to be a pretty distinct hypocrisy.

laws are necessary because people are stupid and or evil.

if you can not adequately discuss your beliefs here, then what motivation do i have to try to talk to you privately about them? especially considering, that i don't give a rats ass what you believe.

And you have every right not to believe him.... I am pretty sure that you have believes that you carry that people might not agree with... and you have that right to express those ideas. Just like derek does.
and yes, if you would have looked karmakaze at infoshop.org... and did a search about christain anarchism i am pretty fucking sure you would have gotten some pages to read. but did you take the time to read them? i suppose not. it is goddamn organized religion that anarchists do not agree with and yes you can be fucking christian and NOT be in a church. There are other christian anarchists out there.... they have the same beliefs and ideas that derek does... now if you don't want to go to infoshop. org then i have answered this goddamn fucking question for you... now please read it .... reguardless if you do or don't agree with it than that is fine... but you CANNOT SAY that it there was no substancial proof to what he has said....
here is the link, just in case you think i made all of this up....
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html
in fact, this is a great way to learn more about anarchism... anarchist, what they believe, what they don't and ect.... BECAUSE IT IS A MOTHERFLIPPING FAQ OF INFOSHOP... WHICH IS AN anarchist based news website.

A.3.7 Are there religious anarchists?
Yes, there are. While most anarchists have opposed religion and the idea of God as deeply anti-human and a justification for earthly authority and slavery, a few believers in religion have taken their ideas to anarchist conclusions. Like all anarchists, these religious anarchists have combined an opposition to the state with a critical position with regards to private property and inequality. In other words, anarchism is not necessarily atheistic. Indeed, according to Jacques Ellul, "biblical thought leads directly to anarchism, and that this is the only 'political anti-political' position in accord with Christian thinkers." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 75]

There are many different types of anarchism inspired by religious ideas. As Peter Marshall notes, the "first clear expression of an anarchist sensibility may be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from about the sixth century BC" and "Buddhism, particularly in its Zen form, . . . has . . . a strong libertarian spirit." [Op. Cit., p. 53 and p. 65] Some, like the anti-globalisation activist Starhawk, combine their anarchist ideas with Pagan and Spiritualist influences. However, religious anarchism usually takes the form of Christian Anarchism, which we will concentrate on here.

Christian Anarchists take seriously Jesus' words to his followers that "kings and governors have domination over men; let there be none like that among you." Similarly, Paul's dictum that there "is no authority except God" is taken to its obvious conclusion with the denial of state authority within society. Thus, for a true Christian, the state is usurping God's authority and it is up to each individual to govern themselves and discover that (to use the title of Tolstoy's famous book) The Kingdom of God is within you.

Similarly, the voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all been taken as the basis of a socialistic critique of private property and capitalism. Indeed, the early Christian church (which could be considered as a liberation movement of slaves, although one that was later co-opted into a state religion) was based upon communistic sharing of material goods, a theme which has continually appeared within radical Christian movements (indeed, the Bible would have been used to express radical libertarian aspirations of the oppressed, which, in later times, would have taken the form of anarchist or Marxist terminology). Thus clergyman's John Ball's egalitarian comments (as quoted by Peter Marshall [Op. Cit., p. 89]) during the Peasant Revolt in 1381 in England:


"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then a gentleman?"

The history of Christian anarchism includes the Heresy of the Free Spirit in the Middle Ages, numerous Peasant revolts and the Anabaptists in the 16th century. The libertarian tradition within Christianity surfaced again in the 18th century in the writings of William Blake and the American Adam Ballou reached anarchist conclusions in his Practical Christian Socialism in 1854. However, Christian anarchism became a clearly defined thread of the anarchist movement with the work of the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy.

Tolstoy took the message of the Bible seriously and came to consider that a true Christian must oppose the state. From his reading of the Bible, Tolstoy drew anarchist conclusions:


"ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing wrong." [The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 242]

Thus a true Christian must refrain from governing others. From this anti-statist position he naturally argued in favour of a society self-organised from below:

"Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life for themselves, as well as Government people can arrange it nor for themselves but for others?" [The Anarchist Reader, p. 306]
Tolstoy urged non-violent action against oppression, seeing a spiritual transformation of individuals as the key to creating an anarchist society. As Max Nettlau argues, the "great truth stressed by Tolstoy is that the recognition of the power of the good, of goodness, of solidarity - and of all that is called love - lies within ourselves, and that it can and must be awakened, developed and exercised in our own behaviour." [A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 251-2]

Like all anarchists, Tolstoy was critical of private property and capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon, had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land, arguing that "were it not for the defence of landed property, and its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land of which there is still so much in the world." Moreover, "in this struggle [for landed property] it is not those who work in the land, but always those who take part in government violence, who have the advantage." [Op. Cit., p. 307] Thus Tolstoy recognised that property rights in anything beyond use require state violence to protect them (possession is "always protected by custom, public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence." [Ibid.]). Indeed, he argues that:


"Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor -- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations of workmen have been defrauded and are still being defrauded. Yet more do the hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back to sell at triple price in time of famine." [Op. Cit., p. 307]
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore, "he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [The Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]

>From his opposition to violence, Tolstoy rejects both state and private property and urged pacifist tactics to end violence within society and create a just society. In Nettlau's words, he "asserted . . . resistance to evil; and to one of the ways of resistance - by active force - he added another way: resistance through disobedience, the passive force." [Op. Cit., p. 251] In his ideas of a free society, Tolstoy was clearly influenced by rural Russian life and the works of Peter Kropotkin (such as Fields, Factories and Workshops), P-J Proudhon and the non-anarchist Henry George.

Tolstoy's ideas had a strong influence on Gandhi, who inspired his fellow country people to use non-violent resistance to kick Britain out of India. Moreover, Gandhi's vision of a free India as a federation of peasant communes is similar to Tolstoy's anarchist vision of a free society (although we must stress that Gandhi was not an anarchist). The Catholic Worker Group in the United States was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy (and Proudhon), as was Dorothy Day a staunch Christian pacifist and anarchist who founded it in 1933. The influence of Tolstoy and religious anarchism in general can also be found in Liberation Theology movements in Latin and South America who combine Christian ideas with social activism amongst the working class and peasantry (although we should note that Liberation Theology is more generally inspired by state socialist ideas rather than anarchist ones).

So there is a minority tradition within anarchism which draws anarchist conclusions from religion. However, as we noted in section A.2.20, most anarchists disagree, arguing that anarchism implies atheism and it is no coincidence that the biblical thought has, historically, been associated with hierarchy and defence of earthly rulers. Thus the vast majority of anarchists have been and are atheists, for "to worship or revere any being, natural or supernatural, will always be a form of self-subjugation and servitude that will give rise to social domination. As [Bookchin] writes: 'The moment that human beings fall on their knees before anything that is 'higher' than themselves, hierarchy will have made its first triumph over freedom.'" [Brian Morris, Ecology and Anarchism, p. 137] This means that most anarchists agree with Bakunin that if God existed it would be necessary, for human freedom and dignity, to abolish it. Given what the Bible says, few anarchists think it can be used to justify libertarian ideas rather than support authoritarian ones.

Atheist anarchists point to the fact that the Bible is notorious for advocating all kinds of abuses. How does the Christian anarchist reconcile this? Are they a Christian first, or an anarchist? Equality, or adherence to the Scripture? For a believer, it seems no choice at all. If the Bible is the word of God, how can an anarchist support the more extreme positions it takes while claiming to believe in God, his authority and his laws?

For example, no capitalist nation would implement the no working on the Sabbath law which the Bible expounds. Most Christian bosses have been happy to force their fellow believers to work on the seventh day in spite of the Biblical penalty of being stoned to death ("Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." Exodus 35:2). Would a Christian anarchist advocate such a punishment for breaking God's law? Equally, a nation which allowed a woman to be stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night would, rightly, be considered utterly evil. Yet this is the fate specified in the "good book" (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Would premarital sex by women be considered a capital crime by a Christian anarchist? Or, for that matter, should "a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother" also suffer the fate of having "all the men of his city . . . stone him with stones, that he die"? (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Or what of the Bible's treatment of women: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." (Colossians 3:18) They are also ordered to "keep silence in the churches." (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Male rule is explicitly stated: "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

Clearly, a Christian anarchist would have to be as highly selective as non-anarchist believers when it comes to applying the teachings of the Bible. The rich rarely proclaim the need for poverty (at least for themselves) and seem happy to forgot (like the churches) the difficulty a rich man apparently has entering heaven, for example. They seem happy to ignore Jesus' admonition that "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21). The followers of the Christian right do not apply this to their political leaders, or, for that matter, their spiritual ones. Few apply the maxim to "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Nor do they hold "all things common" as practised by the first Christian believers. (Acts 4:32) So if non-anarchist believers are to be considered as ignoring the teachings of the Bible by anarchist ones, the same can be said of them by those they attack.

Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to reconcile with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice far more than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches hold de facto political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South America, in nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth, typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has the power to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role of the Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.

In addition, most social anarchists consider Tolstoyian pacifism as dogmatic and extreme, seeing the need (sometimes) for violence to resist greater evils. However, most anarchists would agree with Tolstoyians on the need for individual transformation of values as a key aspect of creating an anarchist society and on the importance of non-violence as a general tactic (although, we must stress, that few anarchists totally reject the use of violence in self-defence, when no other option is available).

i know that you will probably still not agree with this or anything else that derek has said, and that is fine. that is your beliefs, your ideas, and your opinions..... but don't say that he or i don't know what we are talking about because we do. you may not agree with what we say, and therefore think we are stupid..... and that is fine. however, give us the respect that we give you when we DEBATE over what we believe the next time.

[Jack]

[CrimeCore]

First off....unless your actively involved in anarchism...please do not try to tell me what it is. Because I'm actively involved it in...I have researched it in one way or another everyday for about 3 years. That would be like me trying to argue with oh...I don't know..The Fallen about gothic music. Which I think everybody knows would be completely ridiculous on my part to even attempt something like that (not saying that I would B.T.W. The Fallen kicks ass and is a super fucken nice guy)


There's no religion that can be proven to be true..or not true. Religious thought is not logical. It can not be discussed with logic. Thus can not be said to or not to be involved with anarchism because Anarchism CAN be discussed using logic. Religion cannot. Religion is something that someone BELIEVES. One of the definitions of believe is "to hold as an opinion" I personally believe that this is a God. I personally believe that Christ died on the cross. However I do not believe the current direction or direction of the church at all ever was a good Idea. I'm looking further into the gnostic gospels which contradict some of the already published gospels. Constantine had a lot to do with the arranement of the bible and before his unexpected change of faith to christianity...was a very strong PAGAN. I never once said I believed everything the bible said (although i believe it has many important teachings)(mostly teachings about how money and power can corrupt a person.)

By the way...I'm not a traditional christian by any aspect. My girlfriend is a Pagan....so don't tell me what i can and cannot associate myself with.


http://www.infoshop.org

http://www.crimethinc.info
(these forums are nothing but anarchists..when I brought up my faith i encountered nothing like i encountered here. Politics are constantly debated on t heir forums and never are they as ridiculous as they are here.)

By the way...Anarchy is a term often used by 15 year old momma's boys. If you are familiar with anarchism from a source similar to that...please don't try to tell me what it is.

[Russo]

Researching anarchism does not make you an anarchist. Living your life free of the constraints of government does. And that's pretty tough to do in this day and age.

Anarchism will never, ever work. Sorry, kid. Living without order is impossible. There are people in every society that naturally take the lead of a group, and they become our government. Even in animal packs there is some sort of order (Alpha males and females, acceptable conduct within hierarchies, etc). Even if you systematically kill each person that tries to control a group, another one will come along. It's just human nature, and it's hard to beat that into submission.

[karmakaze]

i read it. i am not impressed.

fist off, i am done with this discussion. you are both taking it to far and to seriously.

second off, do not insult my intelligence. i have researched both, and previously i have been christian and an anarchist.

third off, i have been arguing definitions. not religion. I think your theories are ideological. Great ideas, to bad that they cannot be implemented and are not practical. But, that has always been stated as an opinion. By the general definitions, I find Christianity and anarchy to be opposites. If you had a different term for it I would not have nearly as hard of a time swallowing what you are trying to say.

in conclusion, if you want to have an intellectual debate, i am all for that. (preferable in your own words without having to rip someone else off) but if you are going to keep acting like these pissy 15 year olds that you talked about, then just shut up.

[Melicious Scam]

If you are looking to the dictionary as your definitions of anarchism, then you are looking in the wrong place.

do you think that anarchism is another form of terrorism? if you have been an anarchist and a christian, do you not disagree with the definition of anarchism in the dictionary itself?

if you aren't looking in the dictionary for your definition of anarchism, then enlighten me and give me the link to where you have found your definitons of anarchism AND christianity to lie.

I am just curious, I want to know where you stand on this. If you are right, then please let me read what you have found.


and if you can give me links then i will read them and then i will base my decision on those as well.

[Russo]

My favorite book on anarchism can be located here.

Here is a little tidbit:

Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.

I do like the book, even though I think anarchy is a pipe dream. Very insightful. I suggest you "true anarchists" read it.

[Jack]

Moreover idea that Christianity is basically anarchism is hard to reconcile with its history. The Bible has been used to defend injustice far more than it has been to combat it. In countries where Churches hold de facto political power, such as in Ireland, in parts of South America, in nineteenth and early twentieth century Spain and so forth, typically anarchists are strongly anti-religious because the Church has the power to suppress dissent and class struggle. Thus the actual role of the Church belies the claim that the Bible is an anarchist text.

I think you're confusing Church with Religion.

[karmakaze]

our definition of anarchy is the same.

my view on anarchy is that is its impossible. i can argue this from the perspectives of sheer impracticability and from a christian perspective.

i do not consider the term "christian anarchist" a hypocrisy because of this impracticability. that would be like saying you can not be a philosopher and a christian at the same time.

i consider the term to be an impossibility because to be a christian, you are being ruled by something other than yourself. i don't see the difference in following any other ruling body or how the exception can be made.

[Jack]

i consider the term to be an impossibility because to be a christian, you are being ruled by something other than yourself.

Not necessarily. Since the Bible and the gnostic gospels both say such contradictory things, there are certainly radical but valid interpretations of "Christianity" that don't involve being "ruled" by anything other than a sense of morality.

[CrimeCore]

Ok...I'll attempt to post a less offense more self spoken post than before..........here I go

Researching anarchism does not make you an anarchist. Living your life free of the constraints of government does. And that's pretty tough to do in this day and age.

Anarchism will never, ever work. Sorry, kid. Living without order is impossible. There are people in every society that naturally take the lead of a group, and they become our government. Even in animal packs there is some sort of order (Alpha males and females, acceptable conduct within hierarchies, etc). Even if you systematically kill each person that tries to control a group, another one will come along. It's just human nature, and it's hard to beat that into submission.

I should have elaborated more on my post. Trying to live your life....free...as an anarchist....claiming to be or not claiming to be...can be very mentally exhausting. There's certain things that have been (for lack of a better word at the moment) programmed into us at a young age.
1) having money and a house is important.
2) seeking a mate that is thin or a mate that has money already
3) doing what we're told by authority figures

those are more obvious than others.

I personally live everyday attempting to rid myself of desires that have been programmed into me. Some things I have removed from my mind and healed...some I still have to work on. I'm very fearful of authority figures. I realize that they can make decisions that I have no say in. Decisions that affect me. THAT I HAVE NO SAY IN. And that is terribly wrong.
As a male there I feel that we are programmed to treat women differently then fellow males. My mother taught me to never hit a woman..and to respect a woman no matter who she is or what she looks like. But media tells me to find a skinny little submissive woman. And I have sided with my mother on this one. Thank God.

I don't appreciated being called kid....but I'm sure you didn't mean it personally. I obviously have small man syndrome.

I'll go ahead an take a break from all that and describe where I'm coming from...what values/beliefs I'm leaning towards and what not. I admit that I have been takin all this a little bit too personally..but it's hard for me to not take this personally.

My christian beliefs...are somewhat close to that of a Quaker. There's a quaker church(that I need to check out) in Johnson City. It's a tiny modest little church. When they meet they simply sit there and whenever someone feels moved to speak...they speak and a discussion is started. When I meet with my friends about what we need to do...we function much like that. Noone directs discussion and noone attempts to alter the other's way of thought. We do all things collectively. That is more or less how I feel anarchism is to work. I also lean towards being a primitivist. I need to do more research on the subject of primitivism to see where exactly I stand but I feel that capitalism only makes things complicated and complicates life in general. I am a vegetarian (who would like to be vegan) because I do not agree with the meat and dairy industry. I think milk is gross and I really need to stop eating dairy products. Milk contains blood and puss from the cows on dairy farms. Animals are being killed to satisfy the people's urges. They are born to die (and to be mistreated in life) and I believe that that is wrong. I also believe that scientific testing on animals is ridiculous not only because it's harmful to the animals but because they are making medications based on a different animals reaction to the drug. Monkeys can carry AIDS but are not affected by it. We are. There's no reason why we should be making drugs that correlate to animals other than ourselves. (I realize that most people think that animals don't matter and that they were put here for us to feast on...however red meat isn't really the best thing for your body and has shown to contain carcinogens.) My stance on force and violence is this. Whether or not someone is killing or is murderous blah blah blah I do not believe that the same is to be done to them. "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

Now I will begin to again discuss my views on anarchism.

It is said that anarchism is only a dream and would suck as a reality. Alot of people are confused as to who would do what and how in the hell would industry function and how in the hell would medicine work. Well it's a lot easier than you think. Industry would obviously be changed to be more efficient and much less harmful to our planet. This would be a much easier transformation then than it would be now. Cars are not running on hydrogen yet simply because the model has to be more cost effective. There would be no need for money then and that would no longer be an issue. Producers of such mechanical devices in a future anarchist society would be people that have the knowledge and ability to already do so. We have the materials we need to continue production and the knowledge. We also have books and people who can teach to teach any abilities that need to be taught. We have everything we need right here...right now.
For most of our existence we have operated as an Egalitarian animal species. Meaning...the primitive humans operated without a leader. It's actually more simple to operate as so. Of course the larger the group gets the more difficult it is to operate in such a way...however it isn't impossible at all. It's a purely natural social order to work collectively and to not search for personal gain. It usually takes something catastrophic to snap consumers out of their NO PAIN NO GAIN TAKE BEFORE IT'S TAKEN mindset. Hence..lets say...a tornado tears through your town. People will come outside and help their neighbors with no thought of personal gain.
Now, I will discuss why anarchism is needed.
Is it really that hard to understand how ridiculous it is to elect a handful of men or women and allowing them to make decisions for every aspect of our lives when they know nothing about or lives or our real needs, when they all have tons of money and don't worry themselves with real problems? That's more or less people being lazy and letting someone else making our decisions for us. I suppose I am pretty much done.
And since I intend to handle all the criticism more rationally..I again invite people to either pm me or e-mail me if need be...but discussing it on here is also fine. DodyScam@yahoo.com

Peace, Love, and Anarchism.

[Jack]

But media tells me to find a skinny little submissive woman. And I have sided with my mother on this one. Thank God.

Wait... so are you implying that "skinny little submissive women" are not worth dating? Are you just going to let "skinny little submissive women" be dated by jerks and losers, then?

I mean, come on, man. If you respect all women, respect that some women are skinny and/or submissive. It takes all kinds to make a world. Perhaps if you wouldn't avoid such girls, you could help them to become fat and arrogant!

[iblis]

But media tells me to find a skinny little submissive woman. And I have sided with my mother on this one. Thank God.

Wait... so are you implying that "skinny little submissive women" are not worth dating? Are you just going to let "skinny little submissive women" be dated by jerks and losers, then?

I mean, come on, man. If you respect all women, respect that some women are skinny and/or submissive. It takes all kinds to make a world. Perhaps if you wouldn't avoid such girls, you could help them to become fat and arrogant!

Hahahahahahahahaha

[Russo]

Thanks for being more civil this time around, but I still disagree with you on several points.

but I feel that capitalism only makes things complicated and complicates life in general.

How does it complicate anything? You buy, you sell, you trade. You work hard and get what you deserve, most of the time. It's the best system you're going to get.

I am a vegetarian (who would like to be vegan) because I do not agree with the meat and dairy industry. I think milk is gross and I really need to stop eating dairy products. Milk contains blood and puss from the cows on dairy farms. Animals are being killed to satisfy the people's urges. They are born to die (and to be mistreated in life) and I believe that that is wrong.

If you can tell me one thing a cow is good at, besides being tasty, maybe I'll stop eating them. They have no purpose in life except to provide nutrients to those higher on the food chain, i.e., ME. When you eat a cow, you are helping the environment by preventing overgrazing and stopping cow flatulence that harms the ozone. And cows produce milk all the time. What are they going to do with all that milk? I'll drink it. It's better than letting it go to waste.

I realize that most people think that animals don't matter and that they were put here for us to feast on...however red meat isn't really the best thing for your body and has shown to contain carcinogens.

It also contains more iron, a very important nutrient that your body MUST HAVE, than any vegetable. It's about a well-balanced diet. You can't just eat red meat, and you can't just eat vegetables. It's been proven that vegans and vegetarians are NOT any healthier than those who eat a balanced diet of meat and veggies. Plus, I could go on a whole rant about why we have canine teeth, but enough with this topic.

It is said that anarchism is only a dream and would suck as a reality. Alot of people are confused as to who would do what and how in the hell would industry function and how in the hell would medicine work. Well it's a lot easier than you think. Industry would obviously be changed to be more efficient and much less harmful to our planet. This would be a much easier transformation then than it would be now.

Huh? Making industry more efficient is a goal of every government, not just anarchy. And it's easier said than done.

There would be no need for money then and that would no longer be an issue.

Why would there be no need for money? You haven't explained it. You can't just say it. Back things up!

Producers of such mechanical devices in a future anarchist society would be people that have the knowledge and ability to already do so. We have the materials we need to continue production and the knowledge. We also have books and people who can teach to teach any abilities that need to be taught. We have everything we need right here...right now.

But what are the chances of them working without payment? Very, very slim. You have far too much faith in the human race. We are selfish, paranoid, and most of us are lazy. These three traits are not compatible with an anarchist society.

For most of our existence we have operated as an Egalitarian animal species. Meaning...the primitive humans operated without a leader. It's actually more simple to operate as so.

Noooo. We roamed in packs. It was easier to move around and hunt in tight knit groups of 10 - 20 people with one leader that made most of the decisions. Which is easier? Killing a mastadon by yourself, or with a few of your buddies?

It's a purely natural social order to work collectively and to not search for personal gain.

No, that is completely wrong. I'm sorry, but what the hell are you thinking? Taking care of yourself is usually a priority. I can understand working to provide for your family, but certainly not for some stranger. We do just about everything for our own personal satisfaction. We. Are. Selfish.

People will come outside and help their neighbors with no thought of personal gain.

I love hypothetical questions, so I'm going to pose one for you. Say a tornado was rapidly approaching your home. Your daughter and her friend are outside playing. You only have enough time and strength to grab one of them and rush them inside. Who do you take? Your daughter, or her friend?

Is it really that hard to understand how ridiculous it is to elect a handful of men or women and allowing them to make decisions for every aspect of our lives when they know nothing about or lives or our real needs, when they all have tons of money and don't worry themselves with real problems?

First of all, you can not assume that all rich people don't have "real problems." That's bullshit. And second, it's not productive to have every single member of a community stand up and voice their opinion for everyone. That's why you elect delegates to speak for you. It may not be a perfect system, but "town meeting" style democracy doesn't apply to a population the size of America, or even Knoxville.


Okay, I have nothing else to say.

[iblis]

Is it really that hard to understand how ridiculous it is to elect a handful of men or women and allowing them to make decisions for every aspect of our lives when they know nothing about or lives or our real needs, when they all have tons of money and don't worry themselves with real problems?

First of all, you can not assume that all rich people don't have "real problems." That's bullshit.

Pfft. Money fixes everything. Rich people can't have problems! That's why I say, "Hooray for capitalism!"

At least, I'll say that until I take over the world. Then it'll be "Hooray for dictatorship!"

w00t.

[JaNell]

At least, I'll say that until I take over the world. Then it'll be "Hooray for dictatorship!"

w00t.