|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:53 pm
Which government ideology do you support? I am a "born again" anarchist. I am using born again secularly; for those of you who are not prone to notice sarcasm. Would you all like to share your ideology and explain why you believe in it?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:09 pm
I've gotta say, I tend to lean towards communism. Yes, you'll hear me ranting about how it will never work, but I'd still prefer a communist state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:46 pm
I fancy fascism by way of an oligarchy, myself. I fully believe the human race cannot advance if they are allowed to make their own decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:13 am
With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:19 pm
My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:04 am
Cougar Draven My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again. Many anarchists, like myself, realize this. This is why many anarchists look to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The basic idea behind positive anarchy is that spontaneous order will occur. I will quote wikipedia for a good explanation -- " It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system." There is a reason why Karl Marx was right. Every political government philosophy evolves over time. In a republic, people end up giving their rights to the government so much that it becomes totalitarian in nature. It eventually becomes completely totalitarian. The proletariats revolt against the bourgeois or some form a A coup d'état. Then it becomes an anarchy. Once it becomes an anarchy people start coming together in groups for a "common good". It then becomes a democracy. Different circumstances could occur but you get the jist. To maintain true liberty, our society has to be informed of the consequences of evolving to a new state. True liberty without oppression only exists in an anarchist state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:00 pm
My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again. Many anarchists, like myself, realize this. This is why many anarchists look to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The basic idea behind positive anarchy is that spontaneous order will occur. I will quote wikipedia for a good explanation -- " It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system." There is a reason why Karl Marx was right. Every political government philosophy evolves over time. In a republic, people end up giving their rights to the government so much that it becomes totalitarian in nature. It eventually becomes completely totalitarian. The proletariats revolt against the bourgeois or some form a A coup d'état. Then it becomes an anarchy. Once it becomes an anarchy people start coming together in groups for a "common good". It then becomes a democracy. Different circumstances could occur but you get the jist. To maintain true liberty, our society has to be informed of the consequences of evolving to a new state. True liberty without oppression only exists in an anarchist state. It is a general cycle, I agree. I'll just start at democracy, because that's simple enough. From a true democracy to either an oligarchy, republic or a monarchy. From there to a fascist and/or totalitarian state. From there, via said coup, to anarchy, and from there back to true democracy. It's an...interesting revolution. And I still say that liberty without oppression cannot be feasibly sustained for any great length of time, which is why I support a totalitarian state over an anarchistic one. They both are opposites on a political Venn, but a totalitarian state generally moves to the next phase with much less blood spilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:51 am
Cougar Draven My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again. Many anarchists, like myself, realize this. This is why many anarchists look to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The basic idea behind positive anarchy is that spontaneous order will occur. I will quote wikipedia for a good explanation -- " It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system." There is a reason why Karl Marx was right. Every political government philosophy evolves over time. In a republic, people end up giving their rights to the government so much that it becomes totalitarian in nature. It eventually becomes completely totalitarian. The proletariats revolt against the bourgeois or some form a A coup d'état. Then it becomes an anarchy. Once it becomes an anarchy people start coming together in groups for a "common good". It then becomes a democracy. Different circumstances could occur but you get the jist. To maintain true liberty, our society has to be informed of the consequences of evolving to a new state. True liberty without oppression only exists in an anarchist state. It is a general cycle, I agree. I'll just start at democracy, because that's simple enough. From a true democracy to either an oligarchy, republic or a monarchy. From there to a fascist and/or totalitarian state. From there, via said coup, to anarchy, and from there back to true democracy. It's an...interesting revolution. And I still say that liberty without oppression cannot be feasibly sustained for any great length of time, which is why I support a totalitarian state over an anarchistic one. They both are opposites on a political Venn, but a totalitarian state generally moves to the next phase with much less blood spilled. In a totalitarian state, the purpose of the leaders rein could very well not be for the benefit of society. Take Kim Jong-il as a totalitarian leader. His rein would be at his whim. In an anarchist state, social, economic freedom, morals, political express, etc, would all be freely exerted by the society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:57 pm
My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again. Many anarchists, like myself, realize this. This is why many anarchists look to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The basic idea behind positive anarchy is that spontaneous order will occur. I will quote wikipedia for a good explanation -- " It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system." There is a reason why Karl Marx was right. Every political government philosophy evolves over time. In a republic, people end up giving their rights to the government so much that it becomes totalitarian in nature. It eventually becomes completely totalitarian. The proletariats revolt against the bourgeois or some form a A coup d'état. Then it becomes an anarchy. Once it becomes an anarchy people start coming together in groups for a "common good". It then becomes a democracy. Different circumstances could occur but you get the jist. To maintain true liberty, our society has to be informed of the consequences of evolving to a new state. True liberty without oppression only exists in an anarchist state. It is a general cycle, I agree. I'll just start at democracy, because that's simple enough. From a true democracy to either an oligarchy, republic or a monarchy. From there to a fascist and/or totalitarian state. From there, via said coup, to anarchy, and from there back to true democracy. It's an...interesting revolution. And I still say that liberty without oppression cannot be feasibly sustained for any great length of time, which is why I support a totalitarian state over an anarchistic one. They both are opposites on a political Venn, but a totalitarian state generally moves to the next phase with much less blood spilled. In a totalitarian state, the purpose of the leaders rein could very well not be for the benefit of society. Take Kim Jong-il as a totalitarian leader. His rein would be at his whim. In an anarchist state, social, economic freedom, morals, political express, etc, would all be freely exerted by the society. All leading groups are subject to that same scrutiny. Take the monarchies of Henry VIII and his daughter, Elizabeth I, into consideration. I agree that anarchy is the only true form of liberty, but it is unstable by definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:26 pm
Cougar Draven My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience Cougar Draven My Conscience With any institution of there is an inherent loss of individual rights for the "whole". To ensure complete individual liberties without some coercive power interfering in our lives, we have to live in an anarchist state. We are freely allowed to develop our own sense of morals and ethics individually, rather than by a supreme-head power. In our society today, I don't believe we can sustain anarchy. However, the next-best-thing is limiting the powers of the government. Human nature belies the truth. It's fully impossible to sustain complete anarchy, on the basis that most, if not all, would self-organize into small societies, feudalist in nature, and we'd be back at square one again. Many anarchists, like myself, realize this. This is why many anarchists look to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The basic idea behind positive anarchy is that spontaneous order will occur. I will quote wikipedia for a good explanation -- " It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system." There is a reason why Karl Marx was right. Every political government philosophy evolves over time. In a republic, people end up giving their rights to the government so much that it becomes totalitarian in nature. It eventually becomes completely totalitarian. The proletariats revolt against the bourgeois or some form a A coup d'état. Then it becomes an anarchy. Once it becomes an anarchy people start coming together in groups for a "common good". It then becomes a democracy. Different circumstances could occur but you get the jist. To maintain true liberty, our society has to be informed of the consequences of evolving to a new state. True liberty without oppression only exists in an anarchist state. It is a general cycle, I agree. I'll just start at democracy, because that's simple enough. From a true democracy to either an oligarchy, republic or a monarchy. From there to a fascist and/or totalitarian state. From there, via said coup, to anarchy, and from there back to true democracy. It's an...interesting revolution. And I still say that liberty without oppression cannot be feasibly sustained for any great length of time, which is why I support a totalitarian state over an anarchistic one. They both are opposites on a political Venn, but a totalitarian state generally moves to the next phase with much less blood spilled. In a totalitarian state, the purpose of the leaders rein could very well not be for the benefit of society. Take Kim Jong-il as a totalitarian leader. His rein would be at his whim. In an anarchist state, social, economic freedom, morals, political express, etc, would all be freely exerted by the society. All leading groups are subject to that same scrutiny. Take the monarchies of Henry VIII and his daughter, Elizabeth I, into consideration. I agree that anarchy is the only true form of liberty, but it is unstable by definition. Positive anarchy - spontaneous order: "It is also a social theory in which individuals each follow their own self-interest, without a central authority designing a "plan" for everyone, and thereby create an ordered system."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:06 pm
My Conscience Which government ideology do you support? I am a "born again" anarchist. I am using born again secularly; for those of you who are not prone to notice sarcasm. Would you all like to share your ideology and explain why you believe in it? I'm a perpetual Communist. neutral I believe in it because Anarchy of Production is s**t, and I like change with progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:07 pm
writercxvii Yes, you'll hear me ranting about how it will never work. Get out of here while you still can before I argue with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:06 pm
Contra mundus writercxvii Yes, you'll hear me ranting about how it will never work. Get out of here while you still can before I argue with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:42 am
Contra mundus My Conscience Which government ideology do you support? I am a "born again" anarchist. I am using born again secularly; for those of you who are not prone to notice sarcasm. Would you all like to share your ideology and explain why you believe in it? I'm a perpetual Communist. neutral I believe in it because Anarchy of Production is s**t, and I like change with progress. Hey, hey, hey... I would sure like to debate it domokun I know for a fact that I oppose any government body. However, I am still deciding whether I am a Social-Anarchist or a Individualist-Anarchist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:42 am
writercxvii Contra mundus writercxvii Yes, you'll hear me ranting about how it will never work. Get out of here while you still can before I argue with you. They've tried different forms of anarchy and it worked wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
