Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[Zephyrus]

Actually, under a minimal (read: libertarian) state, you wouldn't necessarily have to "look after your own ass". It's not like there wouldn't be a protective agency under such a system.

Where do you draw the line, then?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't do anything, no. I go to college. BUT, at the very least, I'm not bragging about it in a feeble attempt to increase my gravitas in a stupid internet discussion.

 

[seedofvengeance]

So your arguments are correct because you're in the military?

 

[Cythraul]

Where do you draw the line, then?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What line are you talking about?

 

[Zephyrus]

Between freedom and security.

I'm very interested in some of your political theories.

 

[Death Aflame]

Please give us a step-by-step Anarchist Manifesto as you deem realistically feasible.

Please see my preceding posts (including the link to successful anarchist societies) . And don't be unrealistic, obviously I am not an authority on the politics of anarchism, but there are numerous works in many different schools that do exactly this. A decent place to start is with Noam Chomsky.

Finally, there is no single manifesto of anarchism because it is not a movement designed to inspire a revolution (not in its recent form at least). Revolution is a fantasy, this has long since been obvious, and thus anarchists don't desire it.

Guess what, most humans are lazy. They'd rather have a sovereign manage their security than looking after their own asses on some libertarian principle. Get real.

I don't give a fuck about most humans. I don't enforce my political stance on anyone else, they can do what they want. I am merely advocating for a society with like minded individuals. Revolution is a fantasy.

 

[seedofvengeance]

You mean "power" =/= "better" necessarily!? YOU'RE UNAMERICAN.

I do believe they are intertwined, because of the "arms race" that Zeph mentioned. Due to the same reasons that make anarchy unattainable, power is a key component for a quality society to be attainable. Though, the two are not necessarily dependent on one another.

 

[Zephyrus]

I don't give a fuck about most humans. I don't enforce my political stance on anyone else, they can do what they want. I am merely advocating for a society with like minded individuals. Revolution is a fantasy.

So you sit their idealizing a utopia while being fully aware that it will never happen because you see it equally unrealistic to promote such a paradigm shift?

Not giving a fuck about most humans is no way to hope for changing society. Why bother hoping then?

 

[Dak]

I don't do anything, no. I go to college. BUT, at the very least, I'm not bragging about it in a feeble attempt to increase my gravitas in a stupid internet discussion.

So your arguments are correct because you're in the military?

/facepalm

You attacked so I answered. Has nothing to do with verifying my inital information/position (which is still ignored with "OMGZ stop being teh scary") or increasing anything. It was merely to point out you have no leg to stand on with tired ad hominem attacks along the lines of " crAwl bak in j00 cave wit ur tinf0il hat".

 

[Death Aflame]

Uh, your line of thinking is just really fucking far off and completely not realistic at all? I dunno, I'm stumped here, you totally have me beat on the internet.

Real anarchist societies have been maintained rather successfully in the past. Why can they not be models for future ones?

Also, I don't think anarchism would result in a Utopia, like revolution this is merely a deceitful fantasy. I just believe that it would be better than the current Neoliberal state. That isn't an unreasonable position is it?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It's not unreasonable until you realize that it won't fucking work...

 

[Zephyrus]

Real anarchist societies have been maintained rather successfully in the past. Why can they not be models for future ones?

Again, anarchist societies are possible within a small population with abundant resources. Such is not the case today.

Also, I don't think anarchism would result in a Utopia, like revolution this is merely a deceitful fantasy. I just believe that it would be better than the current Neoliberal state. That isn't an unreasonable position is it?

The fact is that revolutions have happened (Locke --> American/French revolutions) and that what we have now is a reality.

 

[Death Aflame]

So you sit their idealizing a utopia while being fully aware that it will never happen because you see it equally unrealistic to promote such a paradigm shift?

Not giving a fuck about most humans is no way to hope for changing society. Why bother hoping then?

Anarchist/Libertarian states are not and never claimed to be utopias, stop using this pejorative as an argument against their (this is the right one, isn't it? Help me out V5) legitimacy.

Anarchist societies are small scale, anti-globalization; essentially the complete opposite of Neoliberal policies of expansion. Hence, these societies can theoretically be created within the shell of the old one.

I don't mind promoting anarchism to those who are interested, I am just saying I am not forcing my position upon them, like say authoritative communism would.

In terms of not giving a fuck about most humans, you took what I said far too literally.

 

[Death Aflame]

Again, anarchist societies are possible within a small population with abundant resources. Such is not the case today.

I don't think such a generalization is necessarily true. There is, afterall, a pseudo-anarchist community in Denmark that still exists to this day.

The fact is that revolutions have happened (Locke --> American/French revolutions) and that what we have now is a reality.

Of course they have happened, but the result is merely a changing of the guard in who holds the power. In all cases, hegemony is maintained.

And hegemony is the primary enemy of anarchism.

 

[Zephyrus]

Anarchist societies are small scale, anti-globalization; essentially the complete opposite of Neoliberal policies of expansion. Hence, these societies can theoretically be created within the shell of the old one.

That would be nice, indeed. Unfortunately, it's too late to retroact globalization. We're way past the point at which corporations transcended nationality, and since the corporations are the entities with the most political sway, there is no hope to challenge that principle by which they prosper.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

In terms of not giving a fuck about most humans, you took what I said far too literally.

lmfao. How can you fucking NOT? Are we supposed to somehow read your mind and know you mean it in another way?

 

[Zephyrus]

I don't think such a generalization is necessarily true. There is, afterall, a pseudo-anarchist community in Denmark that still exists to this day.

That's a small community with abundant resources: exactly what I stated earlier.

Of course they have happened, but the result is merely a changing of the guard in who holds the power. In all cases, hegemony is maintained.

And hegemony is the primary enemy of anarchism.

The fact that there has always been hegemony on a large scale might lend credence to the fact that human nature is inclined to it, I'd say.

 

[Death Aflame]

It's not unreasonable until you realize that it won't fucking work...

But it has worked, as those very real societies have shown.

Also, for Zeph who wants a specific description of realistic anarchist societies, check this link out: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html

I haven't read it all, but it provides probably many more answers for you than I could at this point.

 

[Zephyrus]

But it has worked, as those very real societies have shown.

Also, for Zeph who wants a specific description of realistic anarchist societies, check this link out: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html

I haven't read it all, but it provides probably many more answers for you than I could at this point.

You're completely ignoring what I've stated at least twice before. Anarchism is only possible on a small scale, not in a relatively small area containing millions of people.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

But it has worked, as those very real societies have shown.

Which are...so incredibly motherfucking different from America, Canada, etc. that they really do nothing for your "the entire world should just be anarchy" thing. I think the punks thought this out better than you are, and the dadaists before them. Goddamn.