Anarchy

[southbiochem]

I may have not explained myself, its not about taking over a whole country, its about communities organizing and self managing, anarchy couldnt be force upon anyone, its about peace and resisting any attempt of coercion. The opressed man isnt a lost article that can be reclaimed, he is an individual that must auto configurate responsably into freedom

Sounds good enough..

mind you, anarchy is quite different than peace.

Resistir los mecanismos de coerción estatales requiere de organización...

Anarchy, true full blown anarchy cannot provide organized resistance, I'm afraid....

but if you do have the means, the land to self-sustain, do it..and don't depend on the State..that much I can agree with

[Festino]

Sounds good enough..

mind you, anarchy is quite different than peace.

Resistir los mecanismos de coerción estatales requiere de organización...

Anarchy, true full blown anarchy cannot provide organized resistance, I'm afraid....

but if you do have the means, the land to self-sustain, do it..and don't depend on the State..that much I can agree with

Anarchy can be peaceful, it is bad guys who need to live off other people, so wars are about taking things away from working people. Anarchist in spain managed to defend quite well. Anarchy isnt synonym to chaos, there can be rules and organization in anarchy and anarchist are quite good at talking and organizing with each other.

My dream is to finish my studies and find like minded people to create a commune, to spread anarchist ideals and to live in a free world

[nfisher1226]

When I said that the strong make themselves kings, that didn't imply kings over an entire nation really. Throughout much of history there were minor kings over city-states, sometimes at peace with their neighbors but often at war with them in the vain hope of "uniting their people". But really they just wanted more influence.

Suppose you managed to get a group of like minded people to live in peace in a commune. One of your children may very well not see things your way (surprise surprise - kids are like that) and take it upon themselves to begin seizing power and influence. There are always those who can be swayed, if not bought, to go along with the strong man in the hope their own lot will be better under the new regime.

We're talking human nature here. Now I'm an optimistic person and truly want to believe the best in people, but history tells a lot of sad tales.

I also take issue with your categorization of the extremists being the only ones who question authority. In my country we have two opposing political parties who at this moment are traveling towards opposite extremes. I'm a centrist, and I question them constantly. Frankly I view them as idiots. I'm not alone in this. I have my own beliefs that are based on all of my life experience and a lot of thought.

Honestly can you really say you're questioning all authority when you're basing your political beliefs on a succession of other people's writings? You are recycling other people's philosophy. It is only those who truly think for themselves who can say they question authority. You need to be able to absorb information while maintaining your ability to think about it critically. It is OK to be influenced by what you read, but it shows a certain weakness of mind to be completely transformed by each new book. I am under the impression that you are somewhat lacking in that ability, and are just grasping for hope in each new (to you) vision of a utopia.

[Festino]

When I said that the strong make themselves kings, that didn't imply kings over an entire nation really. Throughout much of history there were minor kings over city-states, sometimes at peace with their neighbors but often at war with them in the vain hope of "uniting their people". But really they just wanted more influence.

Suppose you managed to get a group of like minded people to live in peace in a commune. One of your children may very well not see things your way (surprise surprise - kids are like that) and take it upon themselves to begin seizing power and influence. There are always those who can be swayed, if not bought, to go along with the strong man in the hope their own lot will be better under the new regime.

We're talking human nature here. Now I'm an optimistic person and truly want to believe the best in people, but history tells a lot of sad tales.

I also take issue with your categorization of the extremists being the only ones who question authority. In my country we have two opposing political parties who at this moment are traveling towards opposite extremes. I'm a centrist, and I question them constantly. Frankly I view them as idiots. I'm not alone in this. I have my own beliefs that are based on all of my life experience and a lot of thought.

Honestly can you really say you're questioning all authority when you're basing your political beliefs on a succession of other people's writings? You are recycling other people's philosophy. It is only those who truly think for themselves who can say they question authority. You need to be able to absorb information while maintaining your ability to think about it critically. It is OK to be influenced by what you read, but it shows a certain weakness of mind to be completely transformed by each new book. I am under the impression that you are somewhat lacking in that ability, and are just grasping for hope in each new (to you) vision of a utopia.

Not really falling for every book i read, it´s just that when i read philosphy or social science i try purposely whats wrong with a theory or economic system, therefore i havent stayed in a single one.

I understand that going to extremes might seem like a desperate search for personality or security, but it is the result of seeing first hand the capitalist system not working.

Also i criticize the authors i read (if not i would still be fascist or something along those lines) in order to achieve a higher understanding, and true love for knowledge.

And of course people can just wake up one day and say "enough of this peace and love" i wouldnt really care,because i wouldnt like to live with people that hate a certain system,if friends or family decide to walk away from an idea i like that´s their problem. Solitude is the great companion of our lives, we are meant to find ourselves alone,we yearn to be alone, because loneliness is always waiting for us. So that doesnt scares me.

The übermensch is a self propelled wheel that turns to create a new set of values, but the übermensch needs man, for man is the bridge between animal and him (and since he needs man, he needs what men have said about the world, in order to have a plataform from wich to study the world)

[partis]

Anarchy in Britain… it would be hell, I'd rather live in a dictatorship. I think if government is good when it does what it actually means "for the people"

You could have something called "anarchy" but in reality people would still be telling over people what to do, people would still want to hurt other people. People will disagree.

Decisions would still have to be made and carried out.

[Tulloni]

Anarchy may work well on a very small scale and it would need to be (ironically) highly organised in order to function correctly. If there were far far fewer people on this planet it may have functioned but being a ridiculously overpopulated, crowded planet (some places more than others) I fear it would be very difficult to implement. Democracy appears to be the best option, but democracy in many countries has become corrupted by greed, arrogance, stupid stuck up politicians who think they know best and have no contact with the real world and greedy oligarchs who exert their influence aggressively and strip assets left, right and centre... I could go on. The only way forward is to remove the cancer that corrupts democracy but as to how this can be achieved when the population is so apathetic I don't know.