Anarchism Versus Government Ruling Paradigm

[James L Walker]

I think the entire paradigm of anarchism versus government centralized ruling really amounts to self organization versus fascist direct rule in which those who excuse themselves through seizing power speak of their special entitlement or privilege of ruling others by managing their lives.

Oppression comes in the form where individuals having their lives managed for them become enslaved by those within power structure at the top.

Anarchists seek individual independence of self directing and ruling themselves through self organization where government supporters think that people should not be able to self organized themselves or that generally most people are unable to effectively in the manner that they like ideally.

The anarchist wants self organization and the ability to self direct themselves without interference where the typical government supporter of any kind respond with denying such desires.

Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

[Flannel Jesus]

You really, really need to work on the redundancies in your writing (note: "really, really" is also a redundancy, but some redundancies can be useful -- that one is useful as an emphasizer).

eg:
self-direct themselves
self-organize themselves
Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

Just sounds better and more intelligent, in the first two examples, to choose ONE instance of self. Choose self-organize, or organize themselves, not both.
In the last example, likewise, choose one: "Can anybody here tell me otherwise?" or "Can anybody here tell me that this isn't the case?"

Anyway, writing critique over---

I'm somewhat of an anarchist myself, and some of your writings actually make you look a bit like a statist sometimes, honestly. The form of anarchist that I would be were I truly dedicated to the whole thing can be described on each of these two pages, which are more or less synonymous: voluntarism / agorism

[Flannel Jesus]

deleted*

[FilmSnob]

You really, really need to work on the redundancies in your writing (note: "really, really" is also a redundancy, but some redundancies can be useful -- that one is useful as an emphasizer).

eg:
self-direct themselves
self-organize themselves
Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

Just sounds better and more intelligent, in the first two examples, to choose ONE instance of self. Choose self-organize, or organize themselves, not both.
In the last example, likewise, choose one: "Can anybody here tell me otherwise?" or "Can anybody here tell me that this isn't the case?"

Anyway, writing critique over---

I'm somewhat of an anarchist myself, and some of your writings actually make you look a bit like a statist sometimes, honestly. The form of anarchist that I would be were I truly dedicated to the whole thing can be described on each of these two pages, which are more or less synonymous: voluntarism / agorism

Come now, clarity should be the only requirement and all of Joker's points are quite clear.

[Polly]

I think the entire paradigm of anarchism versus government centralized ruling really amounts to self organization versus fascist direct rule in which those who excuse themselves through seizing power speak of their special entitlement or privilege of ruling others by managing their lives.

Oppression comes in the form where individuals having their lives managed for them become enslaved by those within power structure at the top.

Anarchists seek individual independence of self directing and ruling themselves through self organization where government supporters think that people should not be able to self organized themselves or that generally most people are unable to effectively in the manner that they like ideally.

The anarchist wants self organization and the ability to self direct themselves without interference where the typical government supporter of any kind respond with denying such desires.

Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

I think an important difference to highlight is that in many cases, the anarchist simply acknowledges that he is fully capable of self-organising and self-directing, and thus rejects the idea of a government as the necessary entity that the statist sees it as. This, I think, is why many entrepreneurs often have ancap/minarchist proclivities. Anarchists are just braver, agorists even more so.

[Flannel Jesus]

Come now, clarity should be the only requirement and all of Joker's points are quite clear.

Come now, Joker said he wants to be a published writer one day. I'm just giving him a hand. If he ever hopes to get published, he won't get away with that stuff then. Better to learn good practices sooner rather than later.

[FilmSnob]

If anybody here can tell Joker otherwise that this isn't the case, I'll post a video of myself singing the USA national anthem.

[FilmSnob]

Come now, clarity should be the only requirement and all of Joker's points are quite clear.

Come now, Joker said he wants to be a published writer one day. I'm just giving him a hand. If he ever hopes to get published, he won't get away with that stuff then. Better to learn good practices sooner rather than later.

That's actually a good point.

[FilmSnob]

Come now, clarity should be the only requirement and all of Joker's points are quite clear.

Come now, Joker said he wants to be a published writer one day. I'm just giving him a hand. If he ever hopes to get published, he won't get away with that stuff then. Better to learn good practices sooner rather than later.

That's actually a good point.

Though it WOULD be cool to see an anarchist manifesto floating around written Joker style.

[Stoic Guardian]

You make it sound like you can't take do anything with any amount of personal freedom, yes there are restrictions in civlization but are they really as bad as you claim for the most part?

The working of any government grow complex and change with time and if one does not investigate it's origins they can quickly forget its purpose an therefore question its justification for being, this is much more obvious when you encounter incompetent or corrupt leaders and government officials/employees.

One can see though, Corruption often come out of a sense of selfishness, in that sense corrupt officials are undermining government, acting in an anarchistic manner if you will.

I support Government and organization because of its (potentially) vastly superior ability for progression and power.

[Stoic Guardian]

In fact the reason why anarchism is weak is because it is for the most part purposeless.

It only has one distinct purpose which is to abolish government and for the most part if you check your history that's the only time it's ever gathered any amount of strength and even then it often fails in it's mission.

Jokers brand of Individualistic anarchism is an even weaker (if a more honest to the idea of anarchism) form of the ideaology.

Government when run efficiantly is powerful and purposeful and that is why it has and will continue to trump anarchism. Combine that with the fact that humans are (for the most part) social beings, it's simply an impotent ideology.

[Stoic Guardian]

Not to mention the fact that most governments have the consent (if not the love) of the people.

[FilmSnob]

Not to mention the fact that most governments have the consent (if not the love) of the people.

I call Shennanigan.

[FilmSnob]

Aslo Stoic, the person that needs Government to achieve their purpose is the weak one, not the other way around.

[Stoic Guardian]

Not to mention the fact that most governments have the consent (if not the love) of the people.

I call Shennanigan.

If a significant number of the people are not in armed rebellion or near armed rebellion, I consider that consent.

[Stoic Guardian]

Aslo Stoic, the person that needs Government to achieve their purpose is the weak one, not the other way around.

Not "need", so much as working together to achieve a goal.

[FilmSnob]

Not "need", so much as working together to achieve a goal.

Sounds kind of like an anarchist utopia to me...

Unless of course they are forcing you to. In that case, it is probably either a racket or a government, if you'll pardon the redundance.

If a significant number of the people are not in armed rebellion or near armed rebellion, I consider that consent.

Every single country in the world has a large part of its population engaging in constant armed rebellion.

[Stoic Guardian]

Every single country in the world has a large part of its population engaging in constant armed rebellion.

Not the same government and not constantly at one place. Clash of interest is "constant" regardless of Government.

[Stoic Guardian]

Every single country in the world has a large part of its population engaging in constant armed rebellion.

Not the same government and not constantly at one place. Clash of interest is "constant" regardless of Government.

[FilmSnob]

Not the same government and not constantly at one place. Clash of interest is "constant" regardless of Government.

Does the phrase "Get off my turf!" ring any bells?

[Stoic Guardian]

No, Why?

[FilmSnob]

No, Why?

Because it is a common utterance amongst armed rebels in the US.

[Stoic Guardian]

No, Why?

Because it is a common utterance amongst armed rebels in the US.

Who?

[uglypeoplefucking]

I think the entire paradigm of anarchism versus government centralized ruling really amounts to self organization versus fascist direct rule in which those who excuse themselves through seizing power speak of their special entitlement or privilege of ruling others by managing their lives.

what it amounts to is individuals in perpetual conflict with one another or groups of people cooperating, however grudgingly. the rest of what you say is just inflammatory rhetoric. complain away - it's your right, but the only reason you can is because you live in a governed society. in an anarchic society you have no rights, you have only the power of guns in conflict with the power of other guns. chaos and perpetual violent power struggles. in an ungoverned society without laws you would certainly lack both the freedom and the resources to say whatever you want on the internet. there never is, was, or will be any magic world where every individual is allowed to do whatever they want or feel like.

Oppression comes in the form where individuals having their lives managed for them become enslaved by those within power structure at the top.

yes, but in the "free" first world (which is where you are, btw) those on top are not in civic government, they are in business - private business. sure, the lines often blur, but that isn't a problem inherent to govt, it's a problem inherent to capitalism.

Anarchists seek individual independence of self directing and ruling themselves through self organization where government supporters think that people should not be able to self organized themselves or that generally most people are unable to effectively in the manner that they like ideally.

it has nothing to do with what i, as a government supporter of a certain type, think - it has everything to do with the natural reality that people have to cooperate to survive - and sustained cooperation is impossible without some kind of leadership structure.

anarchists seek an impossible utopia. the rest is just florid language. if this is not the case, then stop telling me so and show me. historical examples of free, peacful, anarchic societies.

idk, the Congo, maybe? that's sarcasm.

The anarchist wants self organization and the ability to self direct themselves without interference

that is impossible. it's like wanting to walk without gravity. how can everyone simultaniously self-direct without interference?

where the typical government supporter of any kind respond with denying such desires.

the practical realities of humans living together deny those desires - youre blaming the cause (individual interests are always and forever at odds) for the effect (the need for government of individuals and their interests).

Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

what is the case is that anarchy is a myth. again, do not tell me otherwise, SHOW me ...

[victorel21]

I think the entire paradigm of anarchism versus government centralized ruling really amounts to self organization versus fascist direct rule in which those who excuse themselves through seizing power speak of their special entitlement or privilege of ruling others by managing their lives.

Oppression comes in the form where individuals having their lives managed for them become enslaved by those within power structure at the top.

Anarchists seek individual independence of self directing and ruling themselves through self organization where government supporters think that people should not be able to self organized themselves or that generally most people are unable to effectively in the manner that they like ideally.

The anarchist wants self organization and the ability to self direct themselves without interference where the typical government supporter of any kind respond with denying such desires.

Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn't the case?

´´anarchy can only survive if the person lives in isolation´´-me