|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 23, 2006 19:09:23 GMT -5
But here's the problem, with a 4-5 hour a day work schedule, not as much work gets done. There are very few people of which would be willing to work at night, and most people would be working from 10 in the morning till around 3 in the afternoon. Not nearly enough would get done to supply the population the Earth has. Yeah, of course there is always the thought of having machines do everything, but that is the major point of this, of why I addressed it first. What about the fact that riding a train till the last stop is a hassle? Think of it like this. A man gets on a train to get to work, or shopping. To stay on is idiotic if you have somewhere to go. Money is different. If you had the ability to get 10, 000 right now, but it was at a cost of a multi-millionaire, would you do it? The millionaire would be the government, in your society. You, being the commoner, of course you would try and get the money. It's human nature to be greedy. Look at the rich people in the world now, do you think they're willing to help out everyone they can? If they were, they would have done it already. Instead theyare out buying the most expensive, biggest cars they can, along with houses 7 times as big as what they need. If you go by what people have done in the past, and the present, they won't be just perfect like you said, but instead, be greedy. I'm not discrediting your idea, and I think that is a rather wonderful idea, just that it can't work in a society such as ours. The funny thing is, with everyone doing 4-5 hours of work a day, you could produce more than enough food, clothes, etc. for everyone. The idea of Anarchist-Communism, and all the fine details that make it up are rather complex, and it would be easier for me to direct you towards some literature by Peter Kropotkin, who was a pioneer of Anarchist-Communism, rather than just sit here and try explain it (its ridiculously hot out here in this office!!! :-P). This is perhaps his most well-known work, The Conquest Of Bread. The following is a book he wrote on Mutual-Aid, discussing how it is present in nature, and many of the tendencies of people in our society are results of their environment (ie our society).
|
|
|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 24, 2006 3:05:10 GMT -5
I often struggle with that... I believe in Anarchism, but I feel like I can't fight for it, because the 'legal' methods accomplish nothing. The hippie movement in all its entirety, with all the protests and marches and demonstrations and all that jazz, basically didnt accomplish shit, just ensured that there would never be another youth movement of that scale again; the PR industry wised-up and changed their methods. The other alternative would be direct action, say something drastic like a revolution, which would go against my Faith, because how could I pickup a gun and shoot and kill people and still possibly claim that I believe in and follow Jesus' commandments to love one another as ourselves? However, I do care a lot about what happens in Iraq; I don't ever lose sleep over it, but I staunchly oppose it, and I think a part of having compassion is caring about something that doesnt neccessarily affect you.
|
|
|
Post by Black Wing Angel on Aug 24, 2006 7:44:46 GMT -5
If you don't support laws protecting people whats to say you care either way if they die or not. call me heartless... or an ass... or whatever you want, but I really don't care about what is going on in Iraq... This is one thing that I (me being ONE PERSON) can not change. I can not stop the killing there... and I can not do anything about it... do I like it? no I don't.... but I can't stop it either... what is the point in losing sleep over something that I can not change?? you know what? i completely understand what you're saying....and i feel the same way for the most part. i mean, yes, it's horrible and all that, but i personally am tired of the media coverage, the bin laden tapes, whether they're real or not, and all that other stuff that is really just the same damn thing that's been going on for 3-5 years now....it's just gotten old and i've lost interest in it....
|
|
|
Post by acts77x7 on Aug 24, 2006 7:49:01 GMT -5
In this Christian Anarchy, will people be able to murder each other? If not, then the Law still stands, even if you claim it does not.
|
|
|
Post by TacoShiVers on Aug 24, 2006 12:02:33 GMT -5
In this Christian Anarchy, will people be able to murder each other? If not, then the Law still stands, even if you claim it does not. Are people able to kill each other now? Yes but its against the law, and you are punished if you do so. Under Anarchy theres no law so you can kill people freely.
|
|
~Dookie~
Ammunition Specialist
Ze penguin of DEATH!
Posts: 110
|
Post by ~Dookie~ on Aug 24, 2006 15:14:53 GMT -5
But here's the problem, with a 4-5 hour a day work schedule, not as much work gets done. There are very few people of which would be willing to work at night, and most people would be working from 10 in the morning till around 3 in the afternoon. Not nearly enough would get done to supply the population the Earth has. Yeah, of course there is always the thought of having machines do everything, but that is the major point of this, of why I addressed it first. What about the fact that riding a train till the last stop is a hassle? Think of it like this. A man gets on a train to get to work, or shopping. To stay on is idiotic if you have somewhere to go. Money is different. If you had the ability to get 10, 000 right now, but it was at a cost of a multi-millionaire, would you do it? The millionaire would be the government, in your society. You, being the commoner, of course you would try and get the money. It's human nature to be greedy. Look at the rich people in the world now, do you think they're willing to help out everyone they can? If they were, they would have done it already. Instead theyare out buying the most expensive, biggest cars they can, along with houses 7 times as big as what they need. If you go by what people have done in the past, and the present, they won't be just perfect like you said, but instead, be greedy. I'm not discrediting your idea, and I think that is a rather wonderful idea, just that it can't work in a society such as ours. The funny thing is, with everyone doing 4-5 hours of work a day, you could produce more than enough food, clothes, etc. for everyone. The idea of Anarchist-Communism, and all the fine details that make it up are rather complex, and it would be easier for me to direct you towards some literature by Peter Kropotkin, who was a pioneer of Anarchist-Communism, rather than just sit here and try explain it (its ridiculously hot out here in this office!!! :-P). This is perhaps his most well-known work, The Conquest Of Bread. The following is a book he wrote on Mutual-Aid, discussing how it is present in nature, and many of the tendencies of people in our society are results of their environment (ie our society). Both those links dont work... Aboiut the morality thing.... Without laws, most people that wouldn't normally break the law, would start to. Think about it, some people don't do drugs just because of the shear fact they might get in trouble. With no laws, the world would be as high as a kite! And also, the murdering. I know for a fact every single one fo you has someone you dislike, maybe even hate. Not saying any of you guys are killers, but the killing level will raise significantly. I have one question, how does this theory of a society get ruled. By how many people, and how are they elected?
|
|
|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 24, 2006 16:44:20 GMT -5
Goff gets it; it does come down to morality. There is a famous quote by a man named Ammon Hennacy, which reads "Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?" About the drug thing, many people do drugs BECAUSE its against the law, its seen as a form of rebelliousness, and legalizing it would take away its rebel appeal. Plus, drugs being illegal just means that instead of say the government regulating it like they do alcohol, you get gangs and mobs that traffick it, selling it at a much higher price because its illegal (results in not just addicts put poor ones who kill, steal, etc. to get the money to feed their addiction), and there is all sorts of violence as a result over drugs, purely because they are illegal; just like there was a lot of violence, killing, stealing, etc. during the prohibition, the illegal drug being alcohol. It was the same deal, whenever you get something illegal like that it doesnt make it go away it just puts the market for it into the hands of gangs. Plus, if you legalized drugs, then turned around and used the money that was going to fight drugs and educated people on the hazards and dangers of them, and setup rehab centers it would rid us of the problem entirely, and save us a truckload of money (you all pay to fight drugs through taxes btw). There are many follies that exist in people's heads, like that if there wasnt a law everyone would just kill each other, and that if drugs were legal everyone would be stoned/high 24/7, which is as ridiculous a notion as saying that because alcohol is legal everyone should (following the same reasoning) be drunken alcoholics, and my personal favorite being that if guns were legalized fully (meaning all guns) we would all kill each other. Its all nice little thoughts seeded in your head that keep you fearful and dependent upon the government to "protect" you. Now, for the comment about the "ruling" of this society. There would be no elections, none of that. Just simple, direct voting (hence "direct democracy"). So say a community of a few hundred people get together for a gathering, in which they vote on what to do about issues such as what resources should be distributed where, and how the infastructures of the community should be setup. The idea is that our democracy is in reality false. We are given two choices here in the land of the free; the rich, upper-class democrat, or the rich, upper-class republican, who in reality are not that different at all. One might support abortion, the other might not. What they both have in common is their desire to protect their wealth (famous quote by James Madison, one of the founders of this country and the main constructor of the U.S. Constitution, stating that the purpose of the government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority", which agrees with Karl Marx's observation that government would wither away once class distinctions ceased to exist). That is our idea of freedom and "democracy" here in America. In this type of society, with direct democracy in place, anyone could suggest an action, not just our so-called "representatives" that have already been hand-picked for us by the government, for us to elect. Let's say, that at a community gathering I felt that there was a greater need for public transportation; I could freely suggest that, and have an ensuing vote to decide on my suggestion. I'm not an individualist Anarchist (there are some anarchists that believe any form of organization or power, even if its power of the majority over the minority is evil), I do believe in forms of small and local community organization and direct democracy, and action (in some cases use of force) in order to carry out the wishes of the majority, because I think people are the best judge of whats best for themselves, not a rich government official looking to fatten his wallet. And sorry about those broken links, here's working ones: The Conquest Of Breaddwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.htmlMutual Aiddwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
|
|
|
Post by TacoShiVers on Aug 24, 2006 18:13:31 GMT -5
The fact remains if drugs arent illegal citizens, who normally wouldn't do drugs and wouldn't even have access, are now useing them.
And you said its about Morality, Well guess what a lot of people don't have or care about morality, and when there is no law, the person who normally wouldn't kill, now is going too.
How well is this all working when people start murdering each other and are not faceing any conseqeunces. Horribly.
|
|
|
Post by HXCmetalDRUMMER on Aug 24, 2006 19:43:01 GMT -5
It seems to me Christian and Anarchy together make an oxymoron.
Christian which is a FOLLOWER of Christ.
Anarchy is where everyone one is equal with no rulers what so ever.
God is our ruler.
|
|
|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 25, 2006 4:56:15 GMT -5
The fact remains if drugs arent illegal citizens, who normally wouldn't do drugs and wouldn't even have access, are now useing them. And you said its about Morality, Well guess what a lot of people don't have or care about morality, and when there is no law, the person who normally wouldn't kill, now is going too. How well is this all working when people start murdering each other and are not faceing any conseqeunces. Horribly. I have access to drugs. I have drugs shoved in my face. I do not have much regard for the law. I do not fear arrest. However, I do not do drugs. The Native Americans that lived here, before we slaughtered them, had no government; sure, they had leaders, but there is a significant difference between someone who leads and someone who rules, dominates, etc. It is a really interesting concept actually, that people should not only accept but embrace domination. Not only do people view their oppression as perfectly normal, but they believe it is neccessary for survival, as if humans are not capable of controlling nor governing themselves, that they must be threatened and coerced through state violence. It seems to me Christian and Anarchy together make an oxymoron. Christian which is a FOLLOWER of Christ. Anarchy is where everyone one is equal with no rulers what so ever. God is our ruler. God is in fact God. And yes, all christians would ideally follow Christ's footsteps (though many completely misunderstand much of what he represented). And yes, the ultimate goal of Anarchism is social and economic equality among human beings; do you think that is in opposition to Jesus' command to love one another as ourselves? Also, stating that God is our ruler, but then claiming support to the state would be an oxymoron. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you." -- Matthew 20:25-26
|
|
|
Post by Black Wing Angel on Aug 25, 2006 14:22:31 GMT -5
about the drugs thing, i have access to "legal" drugs like Cigarrettes, everyone around me smokes them, but i don't
so yeah, there are people who'd get high because it's legal, but there are also those of us who wouldn't even if it were..
|
|
|
Post by TacoShiVers on Aug 25, 2006 15:01:48 GMT -5
Dogwoodlover just because YOU wouldn't do drugs proves nothing. You think there are drugs problems now? There would be an EXPLOSION of addicts if all laws against them no longer existed.
Lets put aside Christianity. because normal man is by no means a christian. Normal man is going to KILL. Yes.
The ONLY WAY possbile this thing could work, is if millitary groups were formed to protect each other from the chaos of the random murders.
There would be the evil ones running around rapeing and murdering females of all ages, and men who are friends who band together to simply stay alive. Man will have to murder simply to survive.
If anarchy existed, there still would be a law. The law would be, kill or be killed.
Killing a man would be considered normal.
|
|
|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 25, 2006 17:43:51 GMT -5
Dogwoodlover just because YOU wouldn't do drugs proves nothing. You think there are drugs problems now? There would be an EXPLOSION of addicts if all laws against them no longer existed. Lets put aside Christianity. because normal man is by no means a christian. Normal man is going to KILL. Yes. The ONLY WAY possbile this thing could work, is if millitary groups were formed to protect each other from the chaos of the random murders. There would be the evil ones running around rapeing and murdering females of all ages, and men who are friends who band together to simply stay alive. Man will have to murder simply to survive. If anarchy existed, there still would be a law. The law would be, kill or be killed. Killing a man would be considered normal. You have very little faith in a human being. Much of the behaviors of people in our society are created purely by societal circumstances. The desire to rape, or in a more general term gratify, as a show of being a man, is shoved in men's faces from every angle. You cannot turn on the television and not have it spit in your face. I could go on about the other things but I have to leave soon. Most people have never heard nor realize this happened, but Anarchism has been proven effective and shown to work. It was put into practice in 1939 during the Spanish Civil War. Over 2 million men, women, and children lived together in mutual aid in anarchist collectives during the length of the civil war. Not only were they able to function together as a society, but they were able to also band together and fight both the fascist and communist armies trying to crush them. Eventually, they were smashed and slaughtered by the communists however. You're history books generally don't talk about it because it would show that anarchism actually can work. I wish i could talk more about it but I have to leave. Here's a link on the Spanish Civil War: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/Spanishcivilwar.html
|
|
|
Post by acts77x7 on Aug 25, 2006 17:53:41 GMT -5
Dogwoodlover just because YOU wouldn't do drugs proves nothing. You think there are drugs problems now? There would be an EXPLOSION of addicts if all laws against them no longer existed. Lets put aside Christianity. because normal man is by no means a christian. Normal man is going to KILL. Yes. The ONLY WAY possbile this thing could work, is if millitary groups were formed to protect each other from the chaos of the random murders. There would be the evil ones running around rapeing and murdering females of all ages, and men who are friends who band together to simply stay alive. Man will have to murder simply to survive. If anarchy existed, there still would be a law. The law would be, kill or be killed. Killing a man would be considered normal. You have very little faith in a human being. Much of the behaviors of people in our society are created purely by societal circumstances. The desire to rape, or in a more general term gratify, as a show of being a man, is shoved in men's faces from every angle. You cannot turn on the television and not have it spit in your face. I could go on about the other things but I have to leave soon. Most people have never heard nor realize this happened, but Anarchism has been proven effective and shown to work. It was put into practice in 1939 during the Spanish Civil War. Over 2 million men, women, and children lived together in mutual aid in anarchist collectives during the length of the civil war. Not only were they able to function together as a society, but they were able to also band together and fight both the fascist and communist armies trying to crush them. Eventually, they were smashed and slaughtered by the communists however. You're history books generally don't talk about it because it would show that anarchism actually can work. I wish i could talk more about it but I have to leave. Here's a link on the Spanish Civil War: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/spancivwar/Spanishcivilwar.htmlSorry, buddy, but that example is WAY outdated. Anarchists tried using it in the the seventies to justify the idea as a reality. Recent historical evidence and records have shown that local governments and laws had arisen among small towns and populational clumps.
|
|
|
Post by dogwoodlover on Aug 26, 2006 3:26:09 GMT -5
I would please like to see you produce some proof of that. Anarchism, of all political philosophies, is the most hated, and despised, mainly because it opposes ALL forms of government, meaning that anyone who supports and especially people who are affiliated with the state, (meaning text book writers, historians, politicians, media, etc.) whether they are right or left, will shed a very negative light on anarchism, especially our media, which is controlled by corporations that require the state's protection in order to preserve their existance. However, you might also note that what occured during the French Revolution has been deemed as "anarchism in practice" by these same people and is triumphed as being a failure of it. This ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) is the wikipedia page on the Spanish Revolution, and if I might say so myself, I find wikipedia to be reasonably accurate; generally not considered to be a place where propaganda (hence inaccuracy) is just wrecklessly blasted. The following quote from George Orwell (author of 1984) found on that page should also be noted "I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."
|
|