Anarchy: thread # 1,000

[man in the red suit]

well James, I will now try to combat you in beliefs on anarchy. I think that it is chaotic. I am trying to be as least stubborn as I can be. I will listen to what you have to say, but I am quite convinced that anarchy is a chaotic fantasy. It is not only impossible ot achieve but I think that it is unproductive. I believe that there is not enough people who are good natured enough to run themselves. A person is intelligent, people are stupid bafoons. people cannot run themselves. It is true that it might work if you had the right people occupying the anarchist "vilage" but there will always be some loon who will start throwing bricks because he knows he won't be punished. And even if he were punished by an angry lynch mob carying pitch forks, then you would have a primitive government.

That's as much argument as I can spew out right now. Let's here your side, then I will ***** some more if nessecsary.

[man in the red suit]

come on James, I opened this thread for you. Are you going to argue or not?

[Valkyrie]

I can stand in for james, if you like. There are no holes in my theory.

[James]

Sorry, i only just saw it. So thats your beliefs on anarchy?

Yeah go ahead Paris. I really can't be arsed at the moment.

[Anonymous]

How is an angry mob government?

[James]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/


go educate your self

[angry]

I don´t belive in anarchy, ´cause like comrade Marx said, "everything that is real is rattional" and I don´t think a sane person would belive anarchy is rattional today, I mean I understand the french man who created it but the world has changed, sadly to the worse, there would always be some fools that would use it to kill people or some..plus that now we have drugs to deal with..anyone agree with me..?

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from angry on 1:20 am on Aug. 2, 2002
I don´t belive in anarchy, ´cause like comrade Marx said, "everything that is real is rattional" and I don´t think a sane person would belive anarchy is rattional today, I mean I understand the french man who created it but the world has changed, sadly to the worse, there would always be some fools that would use it to kill people or some..plus that now we have drugs to deal with..anyone agree with me..?

oh dear lord. thank you. A fellow comrad with the same ideals. I am not alone. I have help. THANK YOU ANGRY!

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from James on 9:31 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/


go educate your self


I have already educated myself many times. Do not take offense to this, but your web site was more of the same. I saw nothing new in your site. I was however impressed that you included information about social anarchy. There is a difference as you well know. Social anarchy is an improvement, and I don't think it is chaotic but it is simply a fantasy. Tell me how you think you will establish social anarchy, anywhere.

[angry]

no problem MITRS, James, I´d like to ask you how do you think it is possible to establish an ararchihst community, how do you think it would work..?
and pls don´t tell me your website´s url again, I had it in me favourites a long time ago..;)

ps, no offence whatsoever..

[man in the red suit]

Common James, let's get a heated argument going here.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from man in the red suit on 11:50 pm on Aug. 3, 2002
Common James, let's get a heated argument going here.

MitRS: M & M's!!!
James: Starburst!!!!
MitRS: M & M's!!!!
James: Starburst!!!!!
MitRS: M & M's!!!!!
James: Starburst!!!!
etc ad nauseam et infinitum*

Anarchy: the idealistic and moral solution. It lacks practicality though.

[man in the red suit]

lol.. yeah. that would be as intelligent as it would get if we did have one anyway. haha

[man in the red suit]

wait no. I like starburst. We gotta change something here.


Mitrs:starburst!
James:M & Ms
Mitrs: starburst!
James:M & Ms

etc etc

[James]

I have already educated myself many times. Do not take offense to this, but your web site was more of the same. I saw nothing new in your site. I was however impressed that you included information about social anarchy. There is a difference as you well know. Social anarchy is an improvement, and I don't think it is chaotic but it is simply a fantasy. Tell me how you think you will establish social anarchy, anywhere.

haha, that url and "go educate yourself" was actually aimed at funky monk.


Okay, first of all i think we should establish what we all believe to be "the way".

I don't like the idea of one person being in charge, or any people having much "authority" at all. See here for a good essay by Mikhail Bakunin on Authority...

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/...akunin/wia.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/wia.html)

You see i think we are confused as to what anarchy actually is. I can't believe that you read all the FAQ, well if you did in such short time i'm either A) impressed at your reading ability and attention span, or B) feel sorry for you that you have soo much free time.

As the FAQ simply establishes, Anarchy


The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284]

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:

I'll post more laters...

[oki]

GO JAMES!!!!!

[James]

oh...thanks oki

[man in the red suit]

ok. I did not read all of the FAQ so there is no need for yu to be impressed with my reading capabilities or the fact that I am a loser with to much time on my hands(believe me, this is very true). I believe you have a point. Many of us disagree with or misinterpret the meaning of anarchy. I personally, have no problem with your meaning or definition of anarchy. That is of course if I am understanding you correctly. Tell me if I am correct here. You see anarchy as the contrary to a dictatorship. you see anarchy as having more of a people's proletarian utopian government. If I am understanding you, then I see this as social anarchy. Since you are the anarchist expert, I will let you decide if I am correct or not. If you agree that you are describing social anarchy and not "pure" anarchy, then let us continue this debate. If not, let's work out the problems.

[James]

Hey Hey Hey, i'm not expert!

I've hardly looked into how a society would function in the anarcho sense. At the moment i'm looking into the whole "authority" ideas and the what-not. Like that essay ilustrated.

You can ***** about something if you want, doesn't bother me one bit. However, i know that some people will jump to the chance to make you look like a tosser, and they most probably will do so. So beware. :)

[evil chris]

Man In The Red Suit stuns the board with his wisdom when he anounces :
"I am quite convinced that anarchy is a chaotic fantasy. "
But of course like the true philopher he is,he doesn't need to put forward and arguement as to why.

"It is not only impossible ot achieve "

I know before you've said how much you know bout Anarchism so it would be unessessary to point out that in our realtions with people we live most of the tenants of Anarchism now.
So you are obviously trying to mislead people.
Which is rude.

" person is intelligent, people are stupid bafoons. people cannot run themselves."

you gonna shatter the earth with the revelation that God is dead now?

"It is true that it might work if you had the right people"

You just said it counldn't work atall.Please be consitant.Or regonize that you don't understand the theorys of Anarchism and get off your horse.

"because he knows he won't be punished. "

Won't he? Fuck me,i thought it was Anarchist who were ment to be naive and wooly, not the authoritarin Socialists like yourself.

"And even if he were punished by an angry lynch mob carying pitch forks"

This spurious slander desinged to invoke the image of medevil peasents and mob mentality.

"then you would have a primitive government. "

Anarchists do not reject government.
Not even Individualist Anarchists.Anarchists aspouse local self goverment, on a voulutrary partisapary basis and free from coercion.



"everything that is real is rattional"-Karl Marx

Why is Anarchism not rational? Why not back up quote with fa-- Oh no wait, quoting is easier than thinking isn't it.

" mean I understand the french man who created it "

Proudhon did not create Anarchism, he wrote about it.Some Anarchists do not concider him to be very Anarchistic though.

"there would always be some fools that would use it to kill people or some"

EXCUSE ME, Pray, how can you use Anarchism to kill people? I would really like you to qualify this.

"plus that now we have drugs to deal with"

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ!! I think you, personally are in danger of nullifying the Anarchist theory through the power of mindsmashing stupidity!! Are you 3? Do you smoke crack?? Have you been to Oxford?
What do you mean _now_ we have drugs!? We've had drugs since we had plants!
the Human race has been useing recational and creative drugs for thousands of years.Incedently, Humanity has lived according to key tenants of Anarchism for thousands of years.When proudhon was writeing there were few drug laws,anywhere.If he managed to write about Anarchism being murdered to feed someones habbit, then you'd better find an argument that isn;t so ludicrously childish.

MITRS declairs : "I have already educated myself many times"
'Fraid you constantly prove that not to be true.Before you started this topic you should have done some homework.

"Do not take offense to this, but your web site was more of the same. "

It's not his site, it;s the site of the Anarchist FAQ.Yes it is more of the same but you don't seem to have actully read it in the first place.Maybe more of the same is exactly what you need!.

" was however impressed that you included information about social anarchy."

thank fuck for that.
As i 've outlined in _every_ Anarchy debate we've had, i ,and the mebers of this board are talking about Social Anarchy unless we state otherwise.Social Anarchy being the philophy that we can all live in ,statelessly, without the nessessty of Capital and grow as individuals,together blossuming as a race.

"Tell me how you think you will establish social anarchy, anywhere. "

Well i'm not an Anarchist so i can't speak first hand but i can give you the general ideas.
Many Anarchists belive in a global revoultion to liberate all peoples, others belive in a pure evoultionary method of education,because as Malatesta said, Anarchism can only exist when no one needs or wants to inflict coercion apon one another.

[man in the red suit]

well arent you sweet.

[evil chris]

MITRS has a breif moment of clarity.
"You see anarchy as the contrary to a dictatorship. you see anarchy as having more of a people's proletarian utopian government. If I am understanding you, then I see this as social anarchy. "
These moments of clarity may happen an aweful lot more if you read people's post,read decent litriture and maybe branch out into thinking from time to time.

Social Anarchism ( i know you have trouble with names so i helped you out there) is not utopian though.
How can i say that?
Well.....the ideas that make up Anarchism are those of humanity's nature - Mutal Aid, Love,Respect, Ethics, Fraturnatiy.Man is a social animal and will act socialy unless coerced into abandoning these ideas.Though Man never fully looses these ideals.The large number of businessmen in thearpy speaks for this :)
Anarchism has been shown not to be Utopian and practical by it's upriseings.None of which has collapsed on itself into disorder and chaos.The Anarchist communes that have sprung up have been murdered by non-intervention of the alleged democratic nations or by supposed allies colabrateing with the enemy either in an effort to save their own skin or as part of their Mandarin like ploting.Spain being a prime example of this recently that we all know of.

Basically though MITRS, this doesn;t really come down to an debate about poltiucs with you.You have no time for People.You think that humanity are cattle.
I'm intrested as to your motives for becomeing a Socialist.

Respect,
Chris

[angry]

chris,
"Why is Anarchism not rational? Why not back up quote with fa-- Oh no wait, quoting is easier than thinking isn't it. "
Anarchism (though I am not an expert) is based on those two words; an=not, archos=ruler (as said before)
when there is no ruler, there is no government. Because government=ruler/controler, when there isn´t a government, any sane person can tell itself that nothing would function, and therefor anarchism isn´t rattional,
"Anarchists do not reject government",
"For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. "(from the anarchist analising page)
if they don´t support authority they obviously dont support a government.
Have I made meself clear on this point?

""there would always be some fools that would use it to kill people or some"

EXCUSE ME, Pray, how can you use Anarchism to kill people? I would really like you to qualify this."
I have read now on the anarchist page that they look at violence as oppression, but how are they going to punish the "opressor", because they belive "No one has a "right" to rule others." and therefor not punish anyone, ´cause that would be control, and where there is control, there are regulations, right..?? And regulations are normally put forward by somekind of a government or a ruler (wich they do not support), right..? And because of this, I think anyone could get away with murder, according to anarchist belives!

""plus that now we have drugs to deal with"

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ!! I think you, personally are in danger of nullifying the Anarchist theory through the power of mindsmashing stupidity!! Are you 3? Do you smoke crack?? Have you been to Oxford?
What do you mean _now_ we have drugs!? We've had drugs since we had plants!
the Human race has been useing recational and creative drugs for thousands of years.Incedently, Humanity has lived according to key tenants of Anarchism for thousands of years.When proudhon was writeing there were few drug laws,anywhere.If he managed to write about Anarchism being murdered to feed someones habbit, then you'd better find an argument that isn;t so ludicrously childish."

Yeah, I think they had a lot of exstacy and heroin, and they sold a lot of marijuana on street corners in the middle ages right [extreme sarcasm]!
I know they had opium and hasish plant from the beginning, but, they weren´t used like they are beeing know, (by that I mean they weren´t sold on street cornes to kids in the middle ages, or did I read an incorrecthistory book in school..?!?!?) Now we have drugs that are made in labs, that are made to make money and get people high.
I seriously think that you should THINK when you read another mans post! ARG, the fact that you misunderstood me post so extremly bugs me!
When you read that post did you have in mind to bug me, do you have anything against me? I´ll admit maybe I wasn´t backing me thoughts up enough, but now I have so don´t even think about posting some nonsense like that again! I ask you, please, because you cannot imagine how much that irrotated me!
Ohh, yeah, I am not 3, I don´t smoke crack, I think unlike you (just didn´t realise that I would have to explain everything so damn well because of people like you)

[Valkyrie]

I can't tell who is saying what here. you need lines of demarcation please.

ANYWAY.... government=control/ruler???

Wrong! You seem to equate ruler as some all-powerful, omnipotent... hmmm I don't know... God maybe? and their little representatives I guess would be angels then?

[evil chris]

Just before we get down to it, can i make clear that the near legendary Anarchist FAQ is not representive of all Anarchists and only intended as a basic outline of Anarchist Theory.


"when there is no ruler, there is no government"

This is nonsiquitar.Goverment is the running of one's life.Self Goverment and voluntary,particpary synidcates are not only possible but the best route to a true Democracy.

"if they don´t support authority they obviously dont support a government. "

not so.If i wish to learn to fish i will aks jon,who fishes well.He is an authority on fishing and i will listen quetly to him as he teaches me.His authority is ligeitmate in that field.
Authority (note capital) the iligitmate as it relies on coercion. All Anarchists oppose coercion (thats about the only absoulte in the Theory) and therefore Authority.
Many Anarchists subscribe to Local Self Goverments and Synidciates.These are Governmental stucures.

"No one has a "right" to rule others." and therefor not punish anyone, "

This is nonsiquitar.
If someone attacks me then i have the right to self defence.If someone attacks my friends then i have the right to help them.Self defence is no offence.

" know they had opium and hasish plant from the beginning, but, they weren´t used like they are beeing now"

yeahtheyfuckinwere.
where they grew they were used.You didn;t get deales pushin to the kids because it was grown and controled at home.
There were no drug laws in Europe or the US pror to the 18th century but the drugs we know and love were avaible.
This init'self is an argumen for dropping drug laws.
By the by, you think i am actully going to allow some dude to sell crack to my kids? Do you think that if we act as a community we will tolerate that kind of posion?
A little while ago some local groups in London went on the viglianty, standing outside dealer's houses for a while, then moving onto another's.It shit the dealers right up and they had to stop trade for a bit.Till one of them complaind to the pigs and the pigs took their side and threatend to the resisdents.
What does that tell you about a) local solidarity and the power of people and B) who he pigs are _not_ serving.

"or did I read an incorrecthistory book in school.."

you don't actully trust school do you?

"the fact that you misunderstood me post so extremly bugs me! "

think i pretty much got your post, you said "Anarchism is bad because people could kill each other and they'll all become crack whores but i don't really know why"

"´ll admit maybe I wasn´t backing me thoughts up "

Which is exactly why i savaged you.If you post up absurdaites you must expect to get mauled.And i would expect the same from you to me.
How are we supposed to learn anything if our assumptions and ideals are not challenged by others?
Would you rather i "Respected what you said" or some other tripe? Or would you rather have a stimulating debate?

"Ohh, yeah, I am not 3, I don´t smoke crack:

Sorry about that, the "but we have drugs now" comment was the most absurd thing i have ever heard.

Respect
Chris

(Edited by evil chris at 4:26 am on Aug. 5, 2002)

[oki]

people,no rulers is not the same thing as no gouvernment.sure there will be a gouvernment under anarchism.otherwise there will be chaos.thhis gouv.will be an administration,and organising body.it will be the place where people decide what to do in a country.just like now.the difference is that it will have no power to repress you.it will not run the army or police,will not enforce law or anything.all these things will be organised and run by the people themself.

anarchism is not chaos.if you want to call that sosial anarchism,so be it.I call it real anarchism,or syndicalism.

[angry]

OK, before I start I´d like to take care of this for paris, then in me next post I will clear things up with you chris..;) (just a joke)

chris,
"Why is Anarchism not rational? Why not back up quote with fa-- Oh no wait, quoting is easier than thinking isn't it. "

Anarchism (though I am not an expert) is based on those two words; an=not, archos=ruler (as said before)
when there is no ruler, there is no government. Because government=ruler/controler, when there isn´t a government, any sane person can tell itself that nothing would function, and therefor anarchism isn´t rattional,

"Anarchists do not reject government",

"For example, anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it. "(from the anarchist analising page)

if they don´t support authority they obviously dont support a government.
Have I made meself clear on this point?

""there would always be some fools that would use it to kill people or some"
EXCUSE ME, Pray, how can you use Anarchism to kill people? I would really like you to qualify this."

I have read now on the anarchist page that they look at violence as oppression, but how are they going to punish the "opressor", because they belive "No one has a "right" to rule others." and therefor not punish anyone, ´cause that would be control, and where there is control, there are regulations, right..?? And regulations are normally put forward by somekind of a government or a ruler (wich they do not support), right..? And because of this, I think anyone could get away with murder, according to anarchist belives!

""plus that now we have drugs to deal with"
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ!! I think you, personally are in danger of nullifying the Anarchist theory through the power of mindsmashing stupidity!! Are you 3? Do you smoke crack?? Have you been to Oxford?
What do you mean _now_ we have drugs!? We've had drugs since we had plants!
the Human race has been useing recational and creative drugs for thousands of years.Incedently, Humanity has lived according to key tenants of Anarchism for thousands of years.When proudhon was writeing there were few drug laws,anywhere.If he managed to write about Anarchism being murdered to feed someones habbit, then you'd better find an argument that isn;t so ludicrously childish."

Yeah, I think they had a lot of exstacy and heroin, and they sold a lot of marijuana on street corners in the middle ages right [extreme sarcasm]!
I know they had opium and hasish plant from the beginning, but, they weren´t used like they are beeing know, (by that I mean they weren´t sold on street cornes to kids in the middle ages, or did I read an incorrecthistory book in school..?!?!?) Now we have drugs that are made in labs, that are made to make money and get people high.
I seriously think that you should THINK when you read another mans post! ARG, the fact that you misunderstood me post so extremly bugs me!
When you read that post did you have in mind to bug me, do you have anything against me? I´ll admit maybe I wasn´t backing me thoughts up enough, but now I have so don´t even think about posting some nonsense like that again! I ask you, please, because you cannot imagine how much that irrotated me!
Ohh, yeah, I am not 3, I don´t smoke crack, I think unlike you (just didn´t realise that I would have to explain everything so damn well because of people like you)

clear enough now paris..? ;)

"ANYWAY.... government=control/ruler???"

That is not wong, because if you look at it you must see it is the government who makes laws, it is the governmnet who carries out the police, it is the government who sees to that (in most cases) we live in a society wich is taken care of, got me point on that..??

"Wrong! You seem to equate ruler as some all-powerful, omnipotent... hmmm I don't know... God maybe?"

Yes I belive in a strong government, but that is only me,
I look at a government as authority, authority same as ruler..? makes sense doesn´t it..? and as said before anarchists are against authority, have I made meself clear..???

no offence whatsoever..

[angry]

OK, now this goes to you chris,


""when there is no ruler, there is no government"

This is nonsiquitar.Goverment is the running of one's life.Self Goverment and voluntary,particpary synidcates are not only possible but the best route to a true Democracy."

I am sorry about that one, don´t understand what you are saying, english problems :( could you maybe define this in an easier way of speech..? please..

""if they don´t support authority they obviously dont support a government. "

not so.If i wish to learn to fish i will aks jon,who fishes well.He is an authority on fishing and i will listen quetly to him as he teaches me.His authority is ligeitmate in that field.
Authority (note capital) the iligitmate as it relies on coercion. All Anarchists oppose coercion (thats about the only absoulte in the Theory) and therefore Authority.
Many Anarchists subscribe to Local Self Goverments and Synidciates.These are Governmental stucures."

How is Jon authority?? And as I´ve said before, I am going by the homepage of anarchie, if something there isn´t right. And I don´t know it, and you know more than me...if they support local self governments, they must support authority of somekind, for I belive a government is always somekind of authority..(I´ve backed that up quite a few times here)

""No one has a "right" to rule others." and therefor not punish anyone, "

This is nonsiquitar.
If someone attacks me then i have the right to self defence.If someone attacks my friends then i have the right to help them.Self defence is no offence."

That sentance from me was direclty taken from the anarchist webpage.
I know about selfdefense and how to defie it, (I practice karate and there we have to know when we are allowed to use it, wich is in self defense)
you are mistaken if you are not with your friends, and you hear of them beeing beaten up, and you go and search for the guy who did it , and then beat him up, that is not self defense, that is revenge and therefor offence. So basically what you said is that if you are walking alone and someone attacks you you trie to defend yourself, but you can´t, you are saying that you don´t have the right to revenge this or get the one who attackt you befor justice, because if you go attack him with your friends, that is not self defense, and noone can´t do anything, the violence just goes on and on and on...etc

"" know they had opium and hasish plant from the beginning, but, they weren´t used like they are beeing now"

yeahtheyfuckinwere.
where they grew they were used.You didn;t get deales pushin to the kids because it was grown and controled at home.
There were no drug laws in Europe or the US pror to the 18th century but the drugs we know and love were avaible.
This init'self is an argumen for dropping drug laws.
By the by, you think i am actully going to allow some dude to sell crack to my kids? Do you think that if we act as a community we will tolerate that kind of posion?
A little while ago some local groups in London went on the viglianty, standing outside dealer's houses for a while, then moving onto another's.It shit the dealers right up and they had to stop trade for a bit.Till one of them complaind to the pigs and the pigs took their side and threatend to the resisdents.
What does that tell you about a) local solidarity and the power of people and B) who he pigs are _not_ serving. "

in the 18th century there WERE NOT e-pills and LSD, hash was used basically for medical use and some ritual thingies to..(you are allowed to trut me on this one I´ve read quite a lot on this subject,
I am NOT going to argue with you about dropping drug laws, because I know we should not (from expirience)

"
"or did I read an incorrecthistory book in school.."

you don't actully trust school do you?"

that was supposed to be funny, right..???

"
"´ll admit maybe I wasn´t backing me thoughts up "

Which is exactly why i savaged you.If you post up absurdaites you must expect to get mauled.And i would expect the same from you to me.
How are we supposed to learn anything if our assumptions and ideals are not challenged by others?
Would you rather i "Respected what you said" or some other tripe? Or would you rather have a stimulating debate?"

Of course I want to debate on this and I am doing so now, right, I don´t want you to respect what I am saying (but if you do that is fine with me;))
What irrotated me was the three year old and crack questions, I didn´t personally attack you in anyway, so I don´t think I deserved this from you, and I know I didn´t back it up in the first post..I admit it..and of course I can exspect this..but not the personal attacks
Just seemed irrational for me because I know that you are more intelligent then that..(personal attacking me that is)....

respect
Corvus Corax

[Anonymous]

Damn theres an Evil Chris? And i thought i was the Evilest Chris around

Interesting thought but i think there is a confusion of terms regarding Authority. In one sense authority is indeed the most knowledgeable about a subject but it also represents a governing force which saves us the 'stress' of having to work out how to live our lives.

(Edited by Funky Monk at 4:14 pm on Aug. 5, 2002)

[Valkyrie]

"but it also represents a governing force which saves us the 'stress' of having to work out how to live our lives."

---

Right. Exactly. It produces unthinking, uninventive docile subservients.

Authority and rulers -- Is that the best you can think up? Disappointing young comrades. Where is your vision? ~~~ LEAP!

[James]

Can you all use the quote thing, or do something different to the font. Its very hard to read.

[angry]

Paris,

"Authority and rulers -- Is that the best you can think up? Disappointing young comrades. Where is your vision? ~~~ LEAP!"

did that go to me or..?

James, I am sorry but I don´t know how to do the quote thing, can you teach me..?

[Valkyrie]

That is to anyone who is stuck in a dogmatic view that ONE person has enough wisdom and intelligence to be given executive veto in making world-wide decisions about nuclear weapons and ecology that will impact the planet for centuries to come.

[angry]

That is in NO way me opinion, I am against everything such as that!

What is it with people misunderstanding me????
Can I ask what gave you the idea of me supporting that rubbish..?!?!?!??

[evil chris]

"I am sorry about that one, don´t understand what you are saying, english problems could you maybe define this in an easier way of speech..? please.. "

This debate may well be a litle over difficult if your first language isn't English but i will have a go.

"How is Jon authority?"

Because jon knows alot about and is knowlageble about the subject in question.So if i want to know something about ,say, fishing i will listen to him and what he says will carry weight because of his knowalge.
This is legitmate authority and Anarchists have no problem with it.
K?

" am going by the homepage of anarchie,"

NO, For the love of Geoff, No! The Anarchist FAQ is _not_ the "Homepage Of Anarchism"! It is a document giveing a very broad and basic idea of Anarchism in _some_ Anarchists eyes!!
K??
K!

"...if they support local self governments, they must support authority of somekind,"

Yes, many Anarchists do.Ie Legitmate authority.
This really aint hard to puzzle out man.

"and you hear of them beeing beaten up, and you go and search for the guy "

Don't think i suggested mob vigilante actions.Simply that we should (and often do) look out for one another and if indanger we intervien.

"in the 18th century there WERE NOT e-pills and LSD,"

nope, there was not E or Acid, or Heroin of PCP or any of that stuff.But all the herbal and plant routes of these drugs were in common use.
Ever heard of a poet called Byron by the way?

" am NOT going to argue with you about dropping drug laws, because I know we should not (from expirience) "

why? did you get into them bad? Did your firends or relatives.
Just because you or they are creatins ,should you have the right to say what other people can do?
I was an alcholic but i regonise i have no right to enforce my will on people i know who drink.
Whereas if i thought they were going down the same path i did i would be happy to help steer them out, i would not coerce them.

"that was supposed to be funny, right..??? "

no,not in the slightest.

"What irrotated me was the three year old and crack questions, I didn´t personally attack you in anyway, so I don´t think I deserved this from you"

and i apolgise profusely

Respect man,
Chris

P.S. Funky Monk - i piss all over you in the Evil stakes.

[Anonymous]

Yeh, but i have a cape, and fangs, and scary theme music!

[evil chris]

yeah but i have a top hat,handle bar moustache and a silver tipped cane.

AND a lab deep in the heart of my carvenous Gothic mansion.

[Anonymous]

Damn! And the underground lab wa next on my evil shopping list

[angry]

"Because jon knows alot about and is knowlageble about the subject in question.So if i want to know something about ,say, fishing i will listen to him and what he says will carry weight because of his knowalge.
This is legitmate authority and Anarchists have no problem with it.
K?"

OK, that is just a matter of opinion, I for an example look at Jon as a teacher, and I don´t look at teachers as authority...they simply don´t control me..and therefor not authority..

"NO, For the love of Geoff, No! The Anarchist FAQ is _not_ the "Homepage Of Anarchism"! It is a document giveing a very broad and basic idea of Anarchism in _some_ Anarchists eyes!!
K??
K!"

Hmm..maybe you are right on that one, but because of I am not an anarchist meself, I don´t know about any other sourches...if you can send me any more I would be glad to read them through..but the homepage is and must be a basic idea of how anarchism works..I mean it can´t be that every single anarchist has his own idea of anarchism wich he follows, fore that I don´t think makes no sense..there must be some theory that defines anarchism_as_it_IS..

"Don't think i suggested mob vigilante actions.Simply that we should (and often do) look out for one another and if indanger we intervien."

No you didn´t, but what I am saying is taht way you could get away with anything if you "plan" it..are you following me..?

"nope, there was not E or Acid, or Heroin of PCP or any of that stuff.But all the herbal and plant routes of these drugs were in common use.
Ever heard of a poet called Byron by the way?"

No I haven´t heard of him, but you understand me point on that the problem we have now with drugs is bigger and more dangerous...

"why? did you get into them bad? Did your firends or relatives.
Just because you or they are creatins ,should you have the right to say what other people can do?
I was an alcholic but i regonise i have no right to enforce my will on people i know who drink.
Whereas if i thought they were going down the same path i did i would be happy to help steer them out, i would not coerce them. "

Me close relative got in them, they ruin everything, I know that for a fact!
I was not trying to force me belives upon you, not at all, just telling you me opinion..
I meself am in a risk group of becoming an alcaholist, for me closest family has it...why is it that everyone seem to misunderstand me, what did give you the idea that I was trying to force me belives upon you?!??

"no,not in the slightest"

had a good laugh out of that one..;)
you are seriously not telling me that they lie about history, I know they don´t because I like to read history when I am not in school..;)

"and i apolgise profusely"

Apoligies accepted, no hard feelings..

don´t know about you but this is the most fun debate I´ve had on this page for a long time..;)

[James]

Angry, i sent you an PM, telling you how to use all the special stuff - please read and act. Thanks

[angry]

Angry, i sent you an PM, telling you how to use all the special stuff - please read and act. Thanks


sorry about that..;) I´ll start doing it now..

[evil chris]

what special stuff?
I want special stuff!

[evil chris]

"I for an example look at Jon as a teacher, and I don´t look at teachers as authority...they simply don´t control me..and therefor not authority"

that is kinda what i'm trying to convey.
There is Legitmate Authority and Iligitmate Authority.Legitmate Authority is that weight carried by those in the know.They will not attempt to monopolise informtation or expolit you with their understanding.It is simply that they know what they're talking about.

"there must be some theory that defines anarchism_as_it_IS.. "

All Anarchists distrust the State and realise it is unessessary.
All Anarchists oppose Coercion and realise that Humanity cannot be free while we contiune to act and suffer coercion apon each other.
s'about it.Anarchism is non dogmatic and recognises the individuality the mind.

"you following me..? "

nope.

"we have now with drugs is bigger and more dangerous.."

some drugs are nasty and shouldn't be played with.
Most drugs however,rule.

"Me close relative got in them, they ruin everything"

non siquitar.They ruined your relative.

"I meself am in a risk group of becoming an alcaholist"

tosh.You are at risk if you drink alot.Your close family has little to do with it.
Take responsiblity please.

"you are seriously not telling me that they lie about history, I know they don´t because I like to read history when I am not in school.. "

I am seriously telling you that school is not designed to make you an educated individual.I am seriously telling you that they leave out important bits!

[angry]

OK, you won, I am defeated, you have explained anarchism to me and I am pretty impressed (although I think it is unachivable,

"non siquitar.They ruined your relative. "

NO, THEY RUIN EVERYTHING! they ruin the junkies life , they ruin family life, they ruin your social life, they ruin your mental health, they ruin your economic stability, they ruin EVERYTHING, don´t tell me about this, I know from expirience, I am surprised that a smart guy like you seem to be says something like that!

"tosh.You are at risk if you drink alot.Your close family has little to do with it.
Take responsiblity please"

It is genetecly proofed that alcaholism goes through generation within families, me family has a long story of alcaholism and therefor I am in a risk group of becoming an alcaholist, alcaholism is a illness, desease, you should know this if you were an active alcaholist!
and "take responsibility", I don´t know what the heck you are talking about there...

"I am seriously telling you that school is not designed to make you an educated individual.I am seriously telling you that they leave out important bits!" I know they leave out important bits but they basically don´t lie to you in most cases, they just "leave out", I mean you cannot exspect anything more from a cappie government wich controls the school system here..

[Valkyrie]

It's the only way to go to guarantee the continuation of civilization.

[evil chris]

hey Angry, how you doing.My post last time was abit shorter than it should have been coz i've been disconneted from the Internet.I was in a cyber cafe then and i'm in one now.
I'll try and give justice to your post but i am on a time limit.

"OK, you won, I am defeated,"

s'not what i'm after atall man.I don't need to 'win' or 'lose' debates.I'm trying to educate.If you learn something,thats what i'm after.If I learn something then i''ve definatly got what i'm after.
Unfortuantly i haven't gone far enough because you still think Anarchy is unatainable.I will work in this fallicy when i have time.

Drugs : Ruin those who get fucked up on them.Who intern mess the lives up of those around them.And of course, those of you who enjoy the recrational use of drugs.
Yeah some people on some drugs get fucked up.
But why should that effect their use by the rest of us.And on what authority can anyone tell me what i can and cannot put inside my body.
Thats where my head is at on the drugs issue.
Addication is also a sickness and should be treated thereas - with compassion as an illness but with the ulitmate idea that PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBITY OF THEIR ACTION.
If you get fucked up on smack - thats your damn fault.

"It is genetecly proofed that alcaholism goes through generation within families"

i would like to see that evidence please.
But by the by, you can't be an alcholic if you don't injest alchol.Thats what i mean by taking responsibity yourself.

" know they leave out important bits but they basically don´t lie to you in most cases, they just "leave out", "

which is cencorship by omission.Which is,in effect, lying.
The Schooling system is set up to crush you into a nice mould so that you will do as you are told.
The schooling system is somewhat unlikly to give you the tools to fight their methods.
Read some of the work of John Taylor Gatto for a veiw of the schooling system put across with great clarity.


Respect,
Chris

[Black Flag]

''Read some of the work of John Taylor Gatto for a veiw of the schooling system put across with great clarity. ''

Yeah, and here it is!So now you don't even have to look for it....I'm such a nice guy.



Call me Mr. Gatto, please. Twenty-six years ago, having nothing better to do, I tried my hand at schoolteaching. My license certifies me as an instructor of English language and literature, but that isn't what I do at all. What I teach is school, and I win awards doing it.

Teaching means many different things, but six lessons are common to schoolteaching from Harlem to Hollywood. You pay for these lessons in more ways than you can imagine, so you might as well know what they are:

The first lesson I teach is: "Stay in the class where you belong." I don't know who decides that my kids belong there but that's not my business. The children are numbered so that if any get away they can be returned to the right class. Over the years the variety of ways children are numbered has increased dramatically, until it is hard to see the human being under the burden of the numbers each carries. Numbering children is a big and very profitable business, though what the business is designed to accomplish is elusive.

In any case, again, that's not my business. My job is to make the kids like it -- being locked in together, I mean -- or at the minimum, endure it. If things go well, the kids can't imagine themselves anywhere else; they envy and fear the better classes and have contempt for the dumber classes. So the class mostly keeps itself in good marching order. That's the real lesson of any rigged competition like school. You come to know your place.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overall blueprint, I make an effort to urge children to higher levels of test success, promising eventual transfer from the lower-level class as a reward. I insinuate that the day will come when an employer will hire them on the basis of test scores, even though my own experience is that employers are (rightly) indifferent to such things. I never lie outright, but I've come to see that truth and [school]teaching are incompatible.

The lesson of numbered classes is that there is no way out of your class except by magic. Until that happens you must stay where you are put.

The second lesson I teach kids is to turn on and off like a light switch. I demand that they become totally involved in my lessons, jumping up and down in their seats with anticipation, competing vigorously with each other for my favor. But when the bell rings I insist that they drop the work at once and proceed quickly to the next work station. Nothing important is ever finished in my class, nor in any other class I know of.

The lesson of bells is that no work is worth finishing, so why care too deeply about anything? Bells are the secret logic of schooltime; their argument is inexorable; bells destroy past and future, converting every interval into a sameness, as an abstract map makes every living mountain and river the same even though they are not. Bells inoculate each undertaking with indifference.

The third lesson I teach you is to surrender your will to a predestined chain of command. Rights may be granted or withheld, by authority, without appeal. As a schoolteacher I intervene in many personal decisions, issuing a Pass for those I deem legitimate, or initiating a disciplinary confrontation for behavior that threatens my control. My judgments come thick and fast, because individuality is trying constantly to assert itself in my classroom. Individuality is a curse to all systems of classification, a contradiction of class theory.

Here are some common ways it shows up: children sneak away for a private moment in the toilet on the pretext of moving their bowels; they trick me out of a private instant in the hallway on the grounds that they need water. Sometimes free will appears right in front of me in children angry, depressed or exhilarated by things outside my ken. Rights in such things cannot exist for schoolteachers; only privileges, which can be withdrawn, exist.

The fourth lesson I teach is that only I determine what curriculum you will study (rather, I enforce decisions transmitted by the people who pay me). This power lets me separate good kids from bad kids instantly. Good kids do the tasks I appoint with a minimum of conflict and a decent show of enthusiasm. Of the millions of things of value to learn, I decide what few we have time for. The choices are mine. Curiosity has no important place in my work, only conformity.

Bad kids fight against this, of course, trying openly or covertly to make decisions for themselves about what they will learn. How can we allow that and survive as schoolteachers? Fortunately there are procedures to break the will of those who resist.

This is another way I teach the lesson of dependency. Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. This is the most important lesson of all, that we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. It is no exaggeration to say that our entire economy depends upon this lesson being learned. Think of what would fall apart if kids weren't trained in the dependency lesson: The social-service businesses could hardly survive, including the fast-growing counseling industry; commercial entertainment of all sorts, along with television, would wither if people remembered how to make their own fun; the food services, restaurants and prepared-food warehouses would shrink if people returned to making their own meals rather than depending on strangers to cook for them. Much of modern law, medicine, and engineering would go too -- the clothing business as well -- unless a guaranteed supply of helpless people poured out of our schools each year. We've built a way of life that depends on people doing what they are told because they don't know any other way. For God's sake, let's not rock that boat!

In lesson five I teach that your self-respect should depend on an observer's measure of your worth. My kids are constantly evaluated and judged. A monthly report, impressive in its precision, is sent into students' homes to spread approval or to mark exactly -- down to a single percentage point -- how dissatisfied with their children parents should be. Although some people might be surprised how little time or reflection goes into making up these records, the cumulative weight of the objective- seeming documents establishes a profile of defect which compels a child to arrive at a certain decisions about himself and his future based on the casual judgment of strangers.

Self-evaluation -- the staple of every major philosophical system that ever appeared on the planet -- is never a factor in these things. The lesson of report cards, grades, and tests is that children should not trust themselves or their parents, but must rely on the evaluation of certified officials. People need to be told what they are worth.

In lesson six I teach children that they are being watched. I keep each student under constant surveillance and so do my colleagues. There are no private spaces for children; there is no private time. Class change lasts 300 seconds to keep promiscuous fraternization at low levels. Students are encouraged to tattle on each other, even to tattle on their parents. Of course I encourage parents to file their own child's waywardness, too.

I assign "homework" so that this surveillance extends into the household, where students might otherwise use the time to learn something unauthorized, perhaps from a father or mother, or by apprenticing to some wiser person in the neighborhood.

The lesson of constant surveillance is that no one can be trusted, that privacy is not legitimate. Surveillance is an ancient urgency among certain influential thinkers; it was a central prescription set down by Calvin in the Institutes, by Plato in the Republic, by Hobbes, by Comte, by Francis Bacon. All these childless men discovered the same thing: Children must be closely watched if you want to keep a society under central control.

It is the great triumph of schooling that among even the best of my fellow teachers, and among even the best parents, there is only a small number who can imagine a different way to do things. Yet only a very few lifetimes ago things were different in the United States: originality and variety were common currency; our freedom from regimentation made us the miracle of the world; social class boundaries were relatively easy to cross; our citizenry was marvelously confident, inventive, and able to do many things independently, to think for themselves. We were something, all by ourselves, as individuals.

It only takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and math skills well enough that kids can be self-teachers from then on. The cry for "basic skills" practice is a smokescreen behind which schools pre-empt the time of children for twelve years and teach them the six lessons I've just taught you.

We've had a society increasingly under central control in the United States since just before the Civil War: the lives we lead, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the green highway signs we drive by from coast to coast are the products of this central control. So, too, I think, are the epidemics of drugs, suicide, divorce, violence, cruelty, and the hardening of class into caste in the U.S., products of the dehumanization of our lives, the lessening of individual and family importance that central control imposes.

Without a fully active role in community life you cannot develop into a complete human being. Aristotle taught that. Surely he was right; look around you or look in the mirror: that is the demonstration.

"School" is an essential support system for a vision of social engineering that condemns most people to be subordinate stones in a pyramid that narrows to a control point as it ascends. "School" is an artifice which makes such a pyramidal social order seem inevitable (although such a premise is a fundamental betrayal of the American Revolution). In colonial days and through the period of the early Republic we had no schools to speak of. And yet the promise of democracy was beginning to be realized. We turned our backs on this promise by bringing to life the ancient dream of Egypt: compulsory training in subordination for everybody. Compulsory schooling was the secret Plato reluctantly transmitted in the Republic when he laid down the plans for total state control of human life.

The current debate about whether we should have a national curriculum is phony; we already have one, locked up in the six lessons I've told you about and a few more I've spared you. This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis, and no curriculum of content will be sufficient to reverse its bad effects. What is under discussion is a great irrelevancy.

None of this is inevitable, you know. None of it is impregnable to change. We do have a choice in how we bring up young people; there is no right way. There is no "international competition" that compels our existence, difficult as it is to even think about in the face of a constant media barrage of myth to the contrary. In every important material respect our nation is self-sufficient. If we gained a non-material philosophy that found meaning where it is genuinely located -- in families, friends, the passage of seasons, in nature, in simple ceremonies and rituals, in curiosity, generosity, compassion, and service to others, in a decent independence and privacy -- then we would be truly self-sufficient.

How did these awful places, these "schools", come about? As we know them, they are a product of the two "Red Scares" of 1848 and 1919, when powerful interests feared a revolution among our industrial poor, and partly they are the result of the revulsion with which old-line families regarded the waves of Celtic, Slavic, and Latin immigration -- and the Catholic religion -- after 1845. And certainly a third contributing cause can be found in the revulsion with which these same families regarded the free movement of Africans through the society after the Civil War.

Look again at the six lessons of school. This is training for permanent underclasses, people who are to be deprived forever of finding the center of their own special genius. And it is training shaken loose from its original logic: to regulate the poor. Since the 1920s the growth of the well-articulated school bureaucracy, and the less visible growth of a horde of industries that profit from schooling exactly as it is, have enlarged schooling's original grasp to seize the sons and daughters of the middle class.

Is it any wonder Socrates was outraged at the accusation that he took money to teach? Even then, philosophers saw clearly the inevitable direction the professionalization of teaching would take, pre-empting the teaching function that belongs to all in a healthy community; belongs, indeed, most clearly to yourself, since nobody else cares as much about your destiny. Professional teaching tends to another serious error. It makes things that are inherently easy to learn, like reading, writing, and arithmetic, difficult -- by insisting they be taught by pedagogical procedures.

With lessons like the ones I teach day after day, is it any wonder we have the national crisis we face today? Young people indifferent to the adult world and to the future; indifferent to almost everything except the diversion of toys and violence? Rich or poor, schoolchildren cannot concentrate on anything for very long. They have a poor sense of time past and to come; they are mistrustful of intimacy (like the children of divorce they really are); they hate solitude, are cruel, materialistic, dependent, passive, violent, timid in the face of the unexpected, addicted to distraction.

All the peripheral tendencies of childhood are magnified to a grotesque extent by schooling, whose hidden curriculum prevents effective personality development. Indeed, without exploiting the fearfulness, selfishness, and inexperience of children our schools could not survive at all, nor could I as a certified schoolteacher.

"Critical thinking" is a term we hear frequently these days as a form of training which will herald a new day in mass schooling. It certainly will, if it ever happens. No common school that actually dared teach the use of dialectic, heuristic, and other tools of free minds could last a year without being torn to pieces.

Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational. No tinkering will fix it. In one of the great ironies of human affairs, the massive rethinking that schools require would cost so much less than we are spending now that it is not likely to happen. First and foremost, the business I am in is a jobs project and a contract-letting agency. We cannot afford to save money, not even to help children.

At the pass we've come to historically, and after 26 years of teaching, I must conclude that one of the only alternatives on the horizon for most families is to teach their own children at home. Small, de- institutionalized schools are another. Some form of free-market system for public schooling is the likeliest place to look for answers. But the near impossibility of these things for the shattered families of the poor, and for too many on the fringes of the economic middle class, foretell that the disaster of Six-Lesson Schools is likely to continue.

After an adult lifetime spent in teaching school I believe the method of schooling is the only real content it has. Don't be fooled into thinking that good curricula or good equipment or good teachers are the critical determinants of your son and daughter's schooltime. All the pathologies we've considered come about in large measure because the lessons of school prevent children from keeping important appointments with themselves and their families, to learn lessons in self-motivation, perseverance, self-reliance, courage, dignity and love -- and, of course, lessons in service to others, which are among the key lessons of home life.

Thirty years ago these things could still be learned in the time left after school. But television has eaten most of that time, and a combination of television and the stresses peculiar to two-income or single-parent families have swallowed up most of what used to be family time. Our kids have no time left to grow up fully human, and only thin-soil wastelands to do it in.

A future is rushing down upon our culture which will insist that all of us learn the wisdom of non-material experience; this future will demand, as the price of survival, that we follow a pace of natural life economical in material cost. These lessons cannot be learned in schools as they are. School is like starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned. I teach school and win awards doing it. I should know.

''I know they leave out important bits but they basically don´t lie to you in most cases, they just "leave out", I mean you cannot exspect anything more from a cappie government wich controls the school system here.. ''

It's alot deeper than this, as you should now understand.................

[Anonymous]

To all of you that say that anarchy isnt rational: Yes Mankind ois really rational!!! Yes right wingers are really rational, yes along this years we faced very rational stuff! The world isnt rational! When you need someone to control you then you are weak! i dont need any boss! Neither i want to be boss, "Who wants to geet poor? Who wants too get rich? Both things are too painfull, who wants too be ruled? Who wants to rule?" Nietzche

[angry]

I respect your opinions, but what I don´t respect is when someone answers me with a question!
I know that this world seems to be irrational, but it is rational, if you point me out ONE country that has complete "anarchy" and is working fine, I WILL belive that anarchy is rational...think before you post, you never backed up what you said about anarchy beeing rational...I don´t need someone "to control" me! I belive that in society there must be rules, and that "poor/rich" thing, take a look at socialism or communism!

[oki]

black flag:bravo!

[angry]

Chris,


s'not what i'm after atall man.I don't need to 'win' or 'lose' debates.I'm trying to educate.If you learn something,thats what i'm after.If I learn something then i''ve definatly got what i'm after.
Unfortuantly i haven't gone far enough because you still think Anarchy is unatainable.I will work in this fallicy when i have time.

I didn´t exspect you "to be after" that, sry that came out wrong, I am also seeking to learn something, wich I have, anyway that just came out wrong..sry about that...


And on what authority can anyone tell me what i can and cannot put inside my body.

It is not about what YOU can and cannot put inside your body. In some countries there are laws whom make it legal for the junky to use drugs but it is still illegal to sell them. The drug laws are made to protect people from fucking up their lives or others, you CANNOT deny the fact that most crimes are comitted by a person under the influence of some drug.


Addication is also a sickness and should be treated thereas - with compassion as an illness but with the ulitmate idea that PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBITY OF THEIR ACTION.

In a normal society we try to prevent sickness, right? And that is another reason why we have drug laws! People, you say must take responsibility of their actions, I agree wih that, but, a sober person knows the diffrence between right and wrong, a person on drugs doesn´t, so if we wouldn´t have laws that phorbit the use of drugs f.ex. this could happen: A person on drugs committs a crime, the person gets arrested, the person claims she/he was not sober, but she was using a drug there are no laws that phorbit that particular drug, and therefor cannot take responsibility of it´s action, and therefor will get a shorter time in jail/prison. I know this sound like bullshit first when you read it but it is rattional, read it through, and think about this, I think it makes sense when you have given this some thinking.


i would like to see that evidence please.

I will search for it it for you..


I am seriously telling you that school is not designed to make you an educated individual.I am seriously telling you that they leave out important bits!

I don´t agree with you on the first sentence, but I do on the other..(it is what I said before)
I myself am against the school system as it is today, for like we both agree on it leaves out important bits

ps, the "special stuff", was quoting in this "quote" form so it would be easier for james to realise what we we are talking about..;)

[angry]

sry about how that same through, hope you can understand it..

[Black Flag]

I really don't get people who agree with keeping drugs illegal.
Look at it this way:
People are allowed to go out into their bathrooms, grab a bottle of bleech, open it, and drink it. It harms them, but it's still legal to do.
People can take a knife, and cut themselves open. Legally.
But when an individual wants to ingest a drug, it is illegal, and there individual freedom is stopped there simply because of the type of substance he/she is consuming. Simply beacuse it is a substance with alot of social stigma.
The point is, people can harm themselves with all other substances (and objects), and it's fine and legal. But when a person choses to harm themselves with a certain type of substance, illegal drugs, it becomes wrong.
People know the risks when they take a drug, as they know the risks of swallowing bleech!
So let's ban bleech because it can be abused, just like a coco plant(!)

See how silly the anti-drug argument is when you look at it like this?

[Black Flag]

since when was this a drugs debate btw?(lol)

[angry]

you are not very smart are you..?
do you want to make knifes illegal?
if you had read me posts you would have figured that I am saying drug laws are made not only to protect an individual from screwing up his life, but others too!!!
I don´t know what a bleech is, but if you tell me I will tell you the reason why it is legal, if you can´t figure it out by yourself.
you really don´t know anyone who has gotten into drugs bad and fucked up your life and his own and others have you?!?!?!?

ps, this is not a debate about drugs if you would read our posts before posting yourself (wich I strongly reccomend) you would see what and ho we got into this subject (debate about drug laws that is)

[evil chris]

"but what I don´t respect is when someone answers me with a question! "

i find answering with a question useful.It forces people to answer their own questions and the best knowalge,prahaps the only true knowalge is what you find yourself.

"if you point me out ONE country that has complete "anarchy" and is working fine,"

this has been in impossible.When people have liberated themselves in the past, forgine powers and internal statists have been on hand to massacar freedom fighters.
Some examples you might like to look at though were the Paris communes (1871 and 1968 [kinda])
Barcelona in 1936
Seattle in 1919
Parts of Algeria ,um, now
Ukraine 1917 till about '21
The Shop stweards movement in England and the occupation of London.

by the by, you live largely by the tenants of Anarchism every day, in free assocation and Mutal Aid.
The fact that these things are natural to you and all of us show that not only is Anarchism (largly) rational but it is man's natural state.

"I belive that in society there must be rules"

so do i.So do many,is not the majority of (real) Anarchists.

" a look at socialism or communism! "

both are authoritarin, both are coericive.

[evil chris]

"I didn´t exspect you "to be after" that, sry that came out wrong, I am also seeking to learn something, wich I have, anyway that just came out wrong..sry about that... "

cock on man - you rule!

"you CANNOT deny the fact that most crimes are comitted by a person under the influence of some drug. "

i will argue that with the upmost verhmencey!
Unless of cource you would provide some evidence.

"In a normal society we try to prevent sickness, right? And that is another reason why we have drug laws!"

yes we try to prevent sickness.But we don't threaten people with jail ,or in some places, death if they jump in puddles naked and then go and eat some mouldy beef.
We say " if you jump in puddles naked you'll get a cold " and we outline why.
And when we are young we are given a vauge idea of batria theory, telling us why green meat in the best meat to eat.
See?
Education, not threats and coercion.

"I don´t agree with you on the first sentence"

ihaven't got the time for a long debate but
if school is desgined to make you an educated indivudal, why do they set you a curriculam you must follow, coerice you with largely meaningless exams,ridgily timetable you,make it diffcult for you to have real reationships, segratege you from the world and errod your critcal thinking why not empowering you with tools to educate yourself indipendantly?

Respect
Chris

[angry]

Chris,

"this has been in impossible.When people have liberated themselves in the past, forgine powers and internal statists have been on hand to massacar freedom fighters.
Some examples you might like to look at though were the Paris communes (1871 and 1968 [kinda])
Barcelona in 1936
Seattle in 1919
Parts of Algeria ,um, now
Ukraine 1917 till about '21
The Shop stweards movement in England and the occupation of London."

I am not ready I tink to debate on these places, simply because I am not to well lectured on them, but I will try to gather information about those places, and then I will get back to you on them, aight? ;)

"yes we try to prevent sickness.But we don't threaten people with jail ,or in some places, death if they jump in puddles naked and then go and eat some mouldy beef.
We say " if you jump in puddles naked you'll get a cold " and we outline why.And when we are young we are given a vauge idea of batria theory, telling us why green meat in the best meat to eat.
See?
Education, not threats and coercion."


When you fall into a puddle and get cold, you don´t get agressive, you don´t get irrational thoughts about things, you don´t go out and rob a shop for money for "some more cold" do you..? Once again I come into the point where I tell you this is why we have laws on drugs.
Education is rattional in some things, as in cold, it works there, but it is proofed that when kids/people are told they are not allowed to do somehting, they want even MORE to do it, nobody is going to get mad on you when you get cold, nobody bans you to get cold, it is not interesting to get cold, but it is on the other hand interesting to try something that you are banned from doing, f.ex, drugs!
I feel this is going round and round so I suggest we each make a final statment on the drug discussion,
here is mine,
I think we have to have drug laws to protect society!

"ihaven't got the time for a long debate but
if school is desgined to make you an educated indivudal, why do they set you a curriculam you must follow, coerice you with largely meaningless exams,ridgily timetable you,make it diffcult for you to have real reationships, segratege you from the world and errod your critcal thinking why not empowering you with tools to educate yourself indipendantly?"

You are talking to a man who is VERY much against the school system as it is today, so I agree with you on this, but me debate was on that they (in most cases) they don´t basically lie to you, they just skip out (wich is unforgiveable), "they bend the truth" is me way of explaining this, I agree with you with all me heart that the school system as it is today is fucked in most cases (except for maybe mathmatics).

"both are authoritarin, both are coericive."

you misunderstood me on that point, I think, what I was refferring to was that in socialism and communism the basic idea is equality, no-one rich and no-one poor everybody equal!
so there would not be anyone rich or anyone poor...

I respect you,

Corvus Corax

[evil chris]

hey Angry, how are you man.I can't get onto the board from my home computer.I got to be short coz i aint got much time neither.

"I think we have to have drug laws to protect society! "

bollocks.If drug laws were primarily to protect society then alchol would be as strongly controled as Heroin.I causes more crime and injury then any other drug and has killed more than all the rest combined.
I would prefer education in the chemical's effects rather than coercion and threats ,as i outlined before.

There are loads of good books about the Spanish Civl war.Which will also teach you why Communists are pond slime :)
The Paris commune (1871) has a fair amount.Bakunin wrote a fair account.
The Shop Stewards isn't as sexy a revoultionary movment so less books, same with Paris '68, which was actully a bit fucked up so that one is less important and finding something about Algeria at the moment that isn't in French is abit like strikeing gold :s which is very anyoing coz what is going on is hot - even more intresting than Argentina.

respect,
Chris

[James]

okay, don't know if this has been talked about...but...


How would an anarchistic society function? how would it be implemented? Do you think that it can work for real?