I’d like to precede this question by saying I seriously doubt if the Government cares. However, if the Government (taken as a whole) did care one way or another, do you think that they would view Anarchists as necessary, in a way? When an individual proposes violent revolution all for the furtherance of literally nothing, because that’s what they have in mind for a Government, doesn’t the relative peacefulness of an established Governmental system seem quite pleasant compared to a war in which you do not know who will shoot at you or who you are supposed to be shooting, loss of creature comforts, and the complete collapse of a monetary system?

Keep it up, anarchists! We need you guys to make the Government appear as stable and sane, at least, by comparison.

According to homeland security all anarchist are possible terrorists. Check out their 2009 manual guide to domestic terrorism.

My manual favorite is when they also list alternative media to regular government controlled venues as having the possibility of harboring terrorism.

Every organization needs a adversary to be successful. That is a no brainer really. Perhaps in some way you are correct.

What does that really prove anyways?

Usually individual anarchists propose violent revolution for their own self fulfilling independence where they don’t really care about the aftermath or consequences of what happens after actions have taken place.

It’s usually the role of government to supply a bunch of grandiose dreams and promises to subservient individuals that it usually has no intentions at all of ever fulfilling its own garnished word later on. The fact that individuals still fall for the promises and delusions of grandeur of government organizations is astounding but not surprising.

What side do you fall on? Everybody has a side.

On the other side we ask that you keep on trying to decieve the populace because some day soon you will run out of lies, deception, or bullshit to keep the machine greased up and running. Entropy and stagnation is a bitch.

When your giant global pipe dream get’s ready to collapse on it’s own weight we will be ready and able to take over what you have constructed.

Governments are always at a state of war. When it isn’t war with other nations it is the silent war of social classism of entire individuals competing against each other in society.

Even domestically there is the silent war of the oppressed and local law enforcement.

If you can afford them.

Such creature comforts of course only come with the price of complete obedience if your lucky to acquire them.

The very tool that the power structure utilizes to enslave people with?

I grow bored with this conversation already. Do you got anything else to discuss?

You can be an anarchist without calling for a violent revolution. You can see anarchy - which is not chaos - as a long term goal that a society gradually opens to.

Joker has only reinforced my love of Order and Government.

you deserve your slavery then.

Hey stoic,

Have you noticed the irony of dulittle whining about slavery while sitting in front of a computer playing on the internet? Oh! The agony of slavery! :laughing:

whats your point. I got a chip on my shoulder that I like to discuss sometimes on this site. if you dont like it you can piss off or step the fuck up and take it like the bitch u are. :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing: dulittle, you are among the top three whiners we’ve ever had on this site. Keep it up! :laughing: :laughing:

wish I could say you were top 3 anything.

Duality - this is not Rant House. Tone it down, or you’ll have a warning to whine about.

Why don’t you say that to those calling others here whiners? Where is your precious equality at here, Faust?

Is it that you only warn those out of ideological bias that you do not agree with?

Pacifist anarchists to me are not real. They’re naive and gullible. If want revolution or rebellion against a system imposed you have to fight for it which always involves violence of some kind.

I am glad that I have reinforced your joy of obedience and submission for all to observe here.

People seek distraction through entertainment. I fail to see how that makes anybody less than a slave.

As usual your petty defamations and arguments are irrelevant.

Government supporters are the first to whine when anarchists speak.

Always whining with your so called necessities for the existence of government.

What else is new?

Do you have anything new or relevant to say here?

What about you Pav? Do you have any smug new government supporting positions in this thread of yours?

Well, he is a whiner. i didn’t tell him not to whine about that - but only to keep it down to a dull roar. I have no idea what his ideology is, and would be surprised if anyone else could describe it to me. I have no position on anarchy, as i think the entire idea is a stupidity and not worth considering seriously.

you missed the point that the whole post was a direct ad hom attack meant to ridicule the integrity of the post content. nice dodge though.


Let me help out here. I’m issue myself a warning: Watch the inflammatory language. Address the issues raised in the OP, not the members posting. I’ve been here too long to not know better.

There. Having placed myself under the lash, let’s get on with it.

Anarchism is a distopia. Instead of dealing with the complexities of governance, it seeks to tear down and destroy and ignores the fact that any government formed after their blood-in-the-streets revolution would be just as restrictive of personal freedoms as the government that was destroyed. Anarchism is akin to a childish tantrum and deserves all the approbation it receives.

He definitely the biggest whiner i’ve encountered on this site.

I submit to follow along a similiar path as the Mamluks, Samurai, Janissaries and Knights.

One should learn how to serve before they can lead.

Submission need not be permanent or destitute.

I think that anything you don’t like can be construed as being whining along with other people here that have similar conservative beliefs. What is his ideology? Who knows? I think it runs on the line of pessimism personally from first hand observation or glance.

A stupidity? The official philosophy professor here finally speaks.

You can do much better than insultive defamations, can’t you?

That’s better.

Government isn’t? :laughing:

What advanced complexities are we speaking about here?

From what I can tell there certainly is alot of complexities built upon heaps of bullshit.

I am curious how you discern between all of it though.

Yes it does. It seeks to liberate itself from the cage and violently so.

That is irrelevant because personal ‘freedoms’ as you call it are already restrictive within the confines of government organization. Nothing would really be changed at all.

The only thing that would change is that a singular or centralized social organization would no longer have the right to tell others what to do and not to do.

The mismanagement and contradictions of government isn’t childish?

What faith you have in the figurehead of government.

That certainly is a bullshit metanarrative you embrace.

Honor, chivalry, and so called virtue is overrated. It is so entirely fictional as to not being real at all like most moral and subservient social codes are.

I choose the path of the assasins, thieves,mobsters, pirates, barbarians, guerillas, and mercenaries the direct opposite of those historical characters you seem to like embracing.

I choose to serve myself.

It is in today’s climate.

i don’t think anarchists are necessary for government… although they might contribute to its expansion

can you imagine a government that exists, simply because there are no other options? I can.

perhaps we should be asking ourselves… does their exist a third option? government, anarchy, and…?

or even better… does it make sense for some form of government to exist, even in the absence of anarchy? I think so.

for example…lets say for settling civil disputes perhaps… not really anything anti-government about a civil dispute necessarily, but the government would exist to resolve the dispute

Without provakable groups like anarchists what would Soros do.

Of course they are needed.

Well, good, then they can try anarchists for treason.

You’ve basically said what I think it proves. The anarchists propse such an extreme an unreasonable alternative to our current system of Government, that most people listening to an anarchist expound upon his ideas, I would think, leads such people to have a higher opinion of the state of affairs in our current Government. In other words, listening to the proposed alternatives serves only to highlight the need for Governance all the greater.

The first problem, obviously, is that they are doing it for themselves and don’t really care about the aftermath or consequences of what happens after actions have taken place. In order to have a chance of achieving a successful anarchy, you must not only highlight the destruction of a supposedly oppressive system, but you would also need to point out what you would consider as positives that could come as a long-term effect of anarchy. You’d probably also have to logically demonstrate that those positives are self-evident and necessary, as well, because if it is truly your intention not to Govern in any way whatsoever, you’d be otherwise unable to effectuate these so-called positives.

The second problem is that you would openly admit that they don’t care what happens. If you’re going to overthrow the Government, then you have to find some way of demonstrating that something other than, “Who gives a fuck,” will take the Government’s place. Basically, preach unity, preach mutual cooperation, highlight unpsoken social agreements, but, if you want to be taken at all seriously, you have to actually demonstrate that anarchy either is, or could ever be, a long-term alternative to Government.

You’re also saying that the Government promises everything, but guarantees and effectuates nothing, and that such is a problem. In the alternative, you are both promising and guaranteeing nothing, with the exception of destruction. Basically, you’re saying, “We’ll have a violent revolution, and I don’t really give a shit what happens after the violent revolution, but boy, howdy, we’ll have one.” However, humans are a very future-oriented animal, it seperates us from the lower animals, does that quality. Well, it seperates some of us, anyway.

How can you take anything over if you’re an anarchist? Secondly, given the historical fact that there have been x countries with x Governments that equal x percentage, and yet sustaining anarachies have been y percentage (significantly lower than x), I’m not sure what pipe dream you’re referring to…

Switzerland is not always in a state of war as it has been neutral since 1815. It also has the highest income-per-adult of any country in the entire world, so it doesn’t seem like Social Classism is a huge deal there.

Well, one of the creature comforts I was referring to was easy access to food and a seemingly unending supply chain of food, all of which anarchy would most likely disturb.