JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Perhaps you could enlighten us, or at least me
Anarchy is rooted in the fact that governments have always been the most dangerous to their own people seasoned with the fantasy that people can figure out how to get along without government. Chaos is the reality you get with bad government and/or without government.
 

The Very Real Danger of Politically Sanctioned Violence


I guess it depends on......

What exactly are THE POLITICIANS attempting to accomplish by it. Could it be : Chaos, confusion, destruction of the pillars of our society, more Govt dependence, people control, more votes for their views, new laws for more liberalization, etc...?

Yeah, it's not like they care about the useful idiots. So then.....did it work?

If you ask me.....it certainly appears to have worked.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Anarchy is lack of order or authority, not specifically government.

You're using government as a synonym to order/authority, but they are not the same. Even within families there is order, or a basic expectation of how to comport oneself, what is acceptable and what is not.

Generally in no scenario is absence of order/authority a net positive for people, it leads to reverting to natural law, which is to say the strong take advantage of the weak and all manner of depravity prevails if it physically can.

For the religious, specifically in this example, Christians - biblical doctrine serves as order and authority irrelevant of formal government. For example, someone following the ten commandments doesn't need a government telling them not to murder people.

At the end if the day it doesn't really matter what label is applied to the useless turds who contribute nothing of net benefit to society and ultimately make it more difficult for those that do - they are garbage human beings and history shows that these useful idiots always get slaughtered anyway because even if they succeed in helping usher in a revolution. The authoritarian who used them toward their ends ultimately has no more use for them and gets rid of them.
No, no, yes, no, yes.

Joe
 

The Very Real Danger of Politically Sanctioned Violence


I guess it depends on......

What exactly are THE POLITICIANS attempting to accomplish by it. Could it be : Chaos, confusion, destruction of the pillars of our society, more Govt dependence, people control, more votes for their views, new laws for more liberalization, etc...?

Yeah, it's not like they care about the useful idiots. So then.....did it work?

If you ask me.....it certainly appears to have worked.

Aloha, Mark
QFT

Joe
 

The Very Real Danger of Politically Sanctioned Violence


I guess it depends on......

What exactly are THE POLITICIANS attempting to accomplish by it. Could it be : Chaos, confusion, destruction of the pillars of our society, more Govt dependence, people control, more votes for their views, new laws for more liberalization, etc...?

Yeah, it's not like they care about the useful idiots. So then.....did it work?

If you ask me.....it certainly appears to have worked.

Aloha, Mark
They certainly are not attempting to accomplish anarchy....

Joe
 
Anarchy is a lack of government, chaos is not.
A lack of government us not necessarily bad, chaos is.

Joe
I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying, so can you please help me understand how a lack of government / order is "not necessarily bad"? Can you give an example of a time when lack of government (a) did not involve significant social unrest and violence, and (b) lasted longer than a few months? When there is no government or order, people tend to impose one as quickly as they can... or a larger power sweeps in and takes over. Aristotle said "nature abhors a vacuum", and lack of government / order is exactly that.

Edit:
I guess we should also be sure what definition we are using for anarchy.
  • Literal definition: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
  • Political definition: a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy.
  • International relations theory definition: the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics.
It is possible for individuals to be self-sufficient without any kind of support from a government or social hierarchy, but when we're talking about groups of people, social hierarchies naturally develop based on control of resources, ability to enforce order, and/or support of others in the group.
 
Last Edited:
I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying, so can you please help me understand how a lack of government / order is "not necessarily bad"? Can you give an example of a time when lack of government (a) did not involve significant social unrest and violence, and (b) lasted longer than a few months? When there is no government or order, people tend to impose one as quickly as they can... or a larger power sweeps in and takes over. Aristotle said "nature abhors a vacuum", and lack of government / order is exactly that.

Edit:
I guess we should also be sure what definition we are using for anarchy.
  • Literal definition: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
  • Political definition: a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy.
  • International relations theory definition: the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics.
It is possible for individuals to be self-sufficient without any kind of support from a government or social hierarchy, but when we're talking about groups of people, social hierarchies naturally develop based on control of resources, ability to enforce order, and/or support of others in the group.
Yer over-thinking it.

Joe
 
I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying, so can you please help me understand how a lack of government / order is "not necessarily bad"? Can you give an example of a time when lack of government (a) did not involve significant social unrest and violence, and (b) lasted longer than a few months? When there is no government or order, people tend to impose one as quickly as they can... or a larger power sweeps in and takes over. Aristotle said "nature abhors a vacuum", and lack of government / order is exactly that.

Edit:
I guess we should also be sure what definition we are using for anarchy.
  • Literal definition: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
  • Political definition: a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy.
  • International relations theory definition: the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics.
It is possible for individuals to be self-sufficient without any kind of support from a government or social hierarchy, but when we're talking about groups of people, social hierarchies naturally develop based on control of resources, ability to enforce order, and/or support of others in the group.
I think you're getting lost.
A comparative to now "lack of government" would be a tremendous boon to freedoms, efficiency and productivity.
 
We`ve had glimpses of political violence in America. One group says it's racial justice protests and the other says it's "patriot" group rallys and January 6th insurectionists. I suspect that all of that is pretty tame compared to say, the Rawandan genocide, actions of militias like in Sudan, or other political violence in third world countries. I'm not saying that can't happen here, but society and its institutions would have to be far more broken than they currently are to go much beyond what we've seen in the near future. The folks with real $ in America, whether they're conservative or liberal, can buy security services and politicians and they aren't going to let that bubblegum happen here because it will bubblegum up their income streams and one of the worlds biggest relatively affluent markets.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top