| | |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Character & Contribution Values, integrity, finding your purpose, living your purpose, serving the greater good, making a difference, changing the world, charity, polarity, lightworkers, darkworkers |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| Perhaps we should give the world's anarchists their own island somewhere and see what happens. Maybe it'll remind us all of why we need our government.
__________________ A truly open mind will seriously consider all points of view, even those with which it strongly disagrees for there may be a grain of truth in even the most ridiculous of opinions. |
| |||
| Quote:
. |
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
|
| |||
| The problem with Anarchists is they need something to hate. If Anarchists ruled, it would be paradoxical!
__________________ I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none. - MACBETH |
| |||
| For me, Anarchism is just the lack of top-down orders from the government. It has it's good qualities and it has its bad qualities. anarchism in my mind fosters community and independence of local communities much better than a highly industrialized government. It allows for the pursuit of the self better than a highly industrialized government because a highly industrialized government changes the person to conform to it and not the other way around. Anarchism would be considered more natural than government and closer to the conditions of nature and Darwinism. That said, it fails in certain areas. Anarchism by definition doesn't do anything on a big scale real well. Anarchism won't make interstates or battleships. There are some things that need to be industrialized to a certain extent for efficiency reasons. Quote:
As a society we need to move closer to anarchism. Our government is way too big and is ineffective due to its industrialization. We would be better off shifting to a more natural and organic method of organization because it would allow for more freedom and for people to fulfill themselves better. |
| |||
| an·ar·chy [ ánnərkee ] noun Definition: 1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control 2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society Hate what? its is simply a call for lack of formal authority, no need to hate anything. |
| |||
| Quote:
Anarchists wouldn't rule! Anarchists are simply against government: a monopoly on force over any given area. You would be free to choose however you want to live, just like choosing a car or a computer. Not everyone has a Dell. Not everyone has a Camry. People have a general misunderstanding of what anarchy really is. Newspaper headlines such as "Descent into anarchy" and such don't help too much. This is what anarchy is. No government. Here's an example of a possible anarchist society, though much is not known about it. Last edited by ticktockclok : 06-14-2007 at 04:19 PM. |
| |||
| People hurt one another.
__________________ A truly open mind will seriously consider all points of view, even those with which it strongly disagrees for there may be a grain of truth in even the most ridiculous of opinions. |
| |||
| Oh yes, bring on this, "anarchy". I will do quite nicely |
| |||
| Indigenous Australians had no formal government or organisations in the way that western culture understands. In their case, it is an extremely successful way to live. Theirs is the oldest continual culture by miles. It has existed for at least 40,000 years, and plenty of evidence points to 100,000 years. They ask the same question as Shamou, for the same reason. How old is present western culture? There must be a way to blend successfull elements of each style of living together, to create a way of life that fosters all on this planet. As I see it, the only stumbling block is actually, honestly choosing it, and believing in it. |
| |||
| I don't see where this came from. He hasn't said anything to justify a comment like that. It's a legitimate question to wonder if more people die from wars and prejudices based on nationalism and imperialism or that would die from people being people. The necessity of a strong government to keep people from unleashing their evil selves is Bush league thinking. Why dwell in the fear. |
| |||
| Quote:
. |
| |||
| Anarchy, as said above, does not scale very well. It is a group mind in the 'tribal' state that can exist with moderate numbers for the life of that 'state' (someone mentioned Australians). To 'go back' would be, to essentially, devolve; when there are numerous possibilities that promote an increased population and an increased awareness of individuality amongst the members of a population (providing the population as a whole with its own awareness). Society at the moment is much like an Ant colony - but, what if every person were to be at their greatest potential? The amazing things that might be because of such an aspiration are hard, even for me, to imagine. While I highly support small, cohesive, and elite groups (because focus and communication is intensive); the whole of humanity is also my father - just as the earth is my mother, of whom I also have the utmost respect for. Of whom deserve Anarchy any less than you would deserve to be kidnapped and tortured for freedom of opinion. Our very existence would seem to rest upon the concepts of War, Anarchy, and Terror. Without them, we would have no contrasting point of view to say, "My side is green.".
__________________ "Speak your mind, even if your voice trembles." |
| |||
| Whilst you demonstrate regularly that a lot of your 'experience' and 'wisdom' is actually confined to 'winkipedia' shamou Last edited by Uplift : 06-15-2007 at 04:57 AM. Reason: spelling |
| |||
| Quote:
You are dwelling on fear. You keep making assumptions about anarchy without exploring as to what it really is. Anarchy is not utopia. Anarchists are not striving for a perfect word. However, they strive for a better world, a free world. Rape and murder will always exist. Does this mean you shouldn't strive to stop them? |
| |||
| Education teaches you how to march, it stifles original thought with the idea that there is an authority greater than your own intelligence. Stop being the University's bitch.
__________________ "Speak your mind, even if your voice trembles." |
| |||
| You can be just as free now, as you could with Anarchy - no one is stopping you. The idea that you need something to be free, IS, fear based thinking.
__________________ "Speak your mind, even if your voice trembles." |
| |||
| Shamou, why do you feel that a planet where all are happy and successful is impossible? Why do you insist on something different? What have you got to lose? Is that how Anthony Robbins tackles things? Only a few weeks ago I listened to one of his latest powertalks, and he's advising a woman, who's just been raped, and who's son is dying of cancer, and who is totally devastated and without hope, to believe beyond all doubt, to be certain beyond all doubt that her son can heal. And not just to believe it, to act like it is a done deal. To believe that no matter what anything is possible, and to convey that message to her son with all her power. To be the parent that he needs, and to give him the hope that he needs. That was his advice to the woman who had just been raped. And yet, here we have a millionaire, a man who by his own assertion 'has got it all' not only telling kids not to believe in a planet where all can foster and be happy and fullfilled, but mocking them in the process. |
| |||
| Quote:
I never really understood any of the self-help stuff about consciousness and what not. I'm not sure if this is related to any of that, but could you please explain a bit more? |


