New Group for anarchist.

I do a days work as well.  Death and taxes are always gonna follow us around.  But it's gonna be interesting talking about it.  Only 4 rifles and 2 hand guns.  Thats not enough fire power my friend.....

I wonder who gets to decide what Freedom is for me......   Seems like a lot of people to me, deciding for me what it is....

I have read Freakonomics. I've read Adam Smith. I've read Karl Marx. I've read Charles Darwin. I've read Bertrand Russell.  Et cet.

It is precisely these "factors" that you write of that builds in me a great distrust of the reasonable competence of people, and people are the wheels of the organ that spins the machinery of government. I grew out of misanthropic pessimism and so no longer hate, pity, or fear useful idiots who cower away from liberty.  

I never thought socialism would work, since it is dependent on the machinations of beuracracy.

I put my faith in capitalism.   

If you disagree with the Declaration of Independence then I suggest you free your mind because writing down to me will not bind mine to hacking people up in a little army. What you are noting, perhaps the Lords  Resistance Army, are petty ghouls roaming the graveyard of colonialism's failures. 

If one want to better understand human nature then one should study the insect. Observe the habits of super collective species like bees ants and termites. Notice how they thrive in a collective so long as there is a single super entity to ensure their survival. 

Personally, I try to think and live above common perceptions. Whether I succeed or fail to do so rests upon my shoulders alone. Disagree if you like, you are free to do so over the Internet: which is an anarchist system of communicating. 

Okay a few thoughts here.

First of all, the United States is considered a Democratic Republic.

Also, to define Anarchism as a "unifying form of society" goes against the definition by itself.  If there was any factor unifying some group, it becomes a form of government.  Anarchy is simply put every man for himself.

In addition, anarchy is a state that cannot truly exist under normal conditions.  The closest example would be when the European countries left their colonies in Africa.  The continent fell into a state of chaos with everyone having a militia.  The people with the most money could maintain the largest territory, have the largest militia, and weild the largest power.

The only way for anarchy to exist and remain is for there to be a large disaster to occur of some sort.  At that point, people's true nature reveals itself and it is utter chaos when people fight for survival against others.  Eventually though groups of people will come together to protect themselves which would then be considered a government. 

To summarize, anarchy is a state that cannot be maintained.  If you claim to be an anarchist, you probably don't know the ramifications of what you are saying.  If anything, you are just another person who disagrees with the government.  Get in line.

"Anarchy seeks personal responsibility and community through adherence to the laws of nature"

Actually, that would be considered either a religious view or even more fundamental, an ideological view.  This would be a theocracy form of government.

"Anarchy seeks personal responsibility and community..."

Dude c'mon.  Even today's anarchists are a bunch of softies. 

Woe.  Woe is me.

So much to answer here.  I will do that a little later.  I have to go to work. But I do have a few thing to say about the laws of nature.  That gives me the right to do a lot of things........  None are necessarily good but they are the laws of nature......   

Poignant. 

Conquistador  

SOVEREIGN.

1. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q. v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.
2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.

SOVEREIGN STATE.

1. One which governs itself independently of any foreign power.

SOVEREIGNTY.

The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. §207.

Well, then, dammit, forget this "personal responsiblity and community" crap, and help me tear this mother' down!

Okay,

I'll start at the top and work my way down.  If someone comes with a gun, then I have the right to defend myself.  Since no one has a society that works then I'll have to use whats at hand.  

As far as thinking for oneself, we all think.  It doesn't make a difference if it came from someone else.  From the time we are old enough to go to school, we are crammed with other people thoughts from the past.  So, I do agree on that point. 

Whether or not we stopped being a functioning republic during the time of Woodrow Wilson's time time is debatable.  But at least you seem to agree we are a Republic and not a Democracy.  Functioning or not.  

You say " As far as justifying war deaths as being death inevitable, I find that to be a very sad and weak argument. Collateral living it would seem."  You may find it weak and sad, but it's a fact borne out by history.  Nothing can change that.  It will always be so.  How you feel about it is up to you. 

I agree, there is no such thing as utopia, so seeking it is a waste of time. I agree with you on that.

Natural Law is as corruptible as any other law when men are involved. Being less corruptible means very little as they are still under mans ability to change his moral outlook day by day.  Who's morals are we going to use?  Who gets to decide in the final analysis?  The Majority, The Wealthy, The Poor, everyone moral are different, maybe why Natural law never worked either.   Jesus is dead, and, I see people saying they follow his precepts who commit the worse offenses in his name as justifications for what they do.  If Jesus were here, he may agree or not.  Something we can only speculate on at this point.

I disagree with governments doing the divisions of peoples.  That was done by people themselves long before government's came into being.  They did it with their own peoples first and then to other tribes, it just expanded from there.  If government continued the practice we have our earliest ancestors to thank for it. They taught us well.  

I would hope you would be more likely to be shot by a Police Officer or bombed by a Solider as that is their function that we gave them to do.  But I don't know if you would be less likely to be done in by an anarchist.  There have been many killings not done by police or soldiers.  How many were done by anarchists, we will never know. 

I never have trusted anyone or any government to take care of my family.  Like you, I trusted me.  Anyone who represents themselves to be something are trying to pull the wool of the masses.  From the lowly salesman to religion, all actors trying to sale everyone a bill of goods of why the should be the best for society.  That's a given.  Yes they want to control.  That's a given.  

Your next statement is so wrong that it makes me laugh.  You cant blame all of troubles on the world to Anglo-American anything.  It started way before that and no where near America.  The philosophies were out way before we every came to this county.  It came from cultures way older than any Anglo-American system.  We brought it with us from our ancestors who learned it from their ancestors.  As far back as time goes.  It's not that it is lackluster research not done.  It due to lack of having the all of it written down and distributed to all men.  The info was never there for the working man of the past, as he was only engaged in the day to day struggle of survival.  Most didn't go to school couldn't read or write.  So how would you expect them to know about all this.  Time marched on and we all became comfortable with what we all have to deal with. The ones who do have access today knowingly would tell you, its a nice dream by it wont work for a multitude of different reasons.  Man found other things to take take the place of the dream which was taught to us by our ancestors.  They were taught that men became Kings through conquest and could have slaves to work in their fields.  That Power was all that mattered, the common ignorant man was a thing to be controlled through ignorance and that they were the better men who should control them by fear.  We have learned by our history, very well.  We still use the lessons today.  In all walks of life.  No system works perfectly, that why they keep changing.  We will never have the society we would like to see.  It's way to late for that.  People are more interested in day to day life and the struggle to survive in today's society as well.  Maybe the lackluster attitude for the thirst of knowledge is the same as our ancestors.  No info is being given out for what they need.  It's being held by those who want to control the masses who want the power to do so.  Anarchist are few in number and unorganized to make a difference in today's real world. So, I expect to see all those actors you mentioned to show up in force to get all the masses to rally round them cause they have a new plan that will save them all and all we have to do is follow them.  It's just a big circle we keep going in every new generation that comes along.  That's the sad part of all this.  We really don't know how to change our path.  Yes we have learned from History.  Just the wrong lessons.   

Well, as far as this next statement, some truth in it.  Yes, some sort of law must be put in place for us to live.  I don't see where its all that peaceful or prosperous.  Businesses closing, Banks being bailed out, Homes being foreclosed on, Education going to hell, 500 people applying for one job.  Not the ideal situations even with all the laws we have in place now.  I have a college degree and my own business, I make good money.  For the both of us , that can change in an instant.  None of us are in control of any of the many mechanisms that run the world.  We do the best we can with the talent we have and hope our future is secure.  But if the world fails tomorrow then we have a new set of priorities to contend with.  What new or old system will we go to in order to make things work for our society.  It reminds me of what history tells me about our depression back in the 30's.  Took a war to bring us out of it, even though President Roosevelt started many programs to get us back on our feet.  In today's economy, it would be a lost cause.  

Yes, men are created equal, for 5 seconds, then the world takes over and makes them unequal till the day they die, then they are equal with all the dead that went before them.  It's the in between time before death, that's complete hogwash.  All men are not equal after that 5 seconds.  Their rights are handed to them and can be taken away at any given time.  The pursuit of happiness is what they are told to be happy about pursuing.  They also have the right to life and liberty, until someone takes it away.  It seems the rights we have can come and go with the pushing of a pen across a piece paper.  What you enjoyed today you may not enjoy tomorrow.  The problem I keep finding in you argument, even though you say it's all embedded in us, there is always a state around to intervene.  The heart of anarchy may be beating, but the state controls it's body making it impotent for changes to occur.  Sorry to say,  nothing can change that.  

Maybe this thread should switch from Anarchist to Anti-Christ?

Probably would be equally fruitful.  Or full of fruit.

Except for @Snakes, of course.  He understands self-deprecating humor.

excellent! 

I really misread the subject first, thinking it was "new group for antichrist" and felt mildly attracted, but anarchy is so 20th century.

So @Snakes actually has The Key to The Executive Washroom, and he didn't event need a You Tube Video to make his point.  Great Job @Snakes!

It behooves us to read his posts more closely, in between belly laughs.  

Private armies, I think is called the Feudal system.

No person seriously believes that anarchy is good. It always sounds like a neat idea to throw around, but anarchy is not consistent with any sane person's goals. Your impulse for personal freedom seems to be misguided. What would you even do if you could have the radical freedom that anarchy supposedly offers? and what exactly is your current government hindering you from doing that you wish to do?

The OP deserves credit for choosing chess.com as his arena for advertising his new anarchist group. I can't help being reminded of Monty Python's Live at the Hollywood Bowl show - "Chess for Anarchists" would have been a nice bridge between "Maraton for incontinents" and "Communist Quiz"!

Hey Pawnsolo, I support anarchy in general (after many measures of preperation are taken to get there safely) but how can any reasonbly thinking anarchist be a anarcho-capitalist?

Where in the world did you get that idea from?

Why deny any one person the opportunity to sow and reap the fruits of their own labor just to protect one that does not? The view of traditional individualistic and communal anarchist are archaically saturated with passe ideological egalitarianism.

As the old saying goes: give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life. Why would a man choose to fish if he is obligated to give up his fish up because a group conscience demands? That such a conscience is no longer manifest in either a corporate or magisterial state, but instead as an autonomous governance of action only alters and does not reduce one mans capacity to subjugate another.    

John Locke identified two issues which need to be addressed through political philosophy. 1. What is the justification of the State? 2. If so justified, what standards can be used to judge the legitimacy of a government? I don't think the goal of an anarchist should be to tear down society, but to uproot any institutions that force subjugation.  And being that mankind is a deeply flawed animal, it would be asinine to assume we can all just get along for the bennefit of each other.  If that was the case we would have already done so long ago.  

So it should be up to the fisherman and not the village to choose to sell or donate the fish. For if it is done so for the betterment of himself, with him being a part of society to do so, then it will in the end also be for the betterment of the social order in which he exists.  Replacing the coercion of monopoly through the State or corporation with coercion of autonomous equals is just a different form of empire; one with a different set of moral abstractions that can still eventually evolve into a Hobbesian nightmare of a centrally forced equality.