Anarchy

[NightFox]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest.

He was clear as to which definition he was discussing in his opening post, so IMHO you should just thank him for his specificity and cease your efforts to prove that you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Sorry. It's anarchy and you can't tell me what to do. Douche.

Uh-huh, Apparently "IMHO" is an acronym that has managed to elude your extensive research on the means and methods of picking fly shit out of pepper.

 

[bendog]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

I know. I thought the exact same thing when I accidentally turned on the Orange ONE's rally after my netlfix episode of Marco Polo ended.

Good series, one wonders why you want to follow that up with the Trumpian Comedy Act, you should have just quit while you were ahead.

It was an accident. Mrs. Dog stared on in horror. She was still out of sorts this a.m. Thank God Hillary trotted out her "my skin craweled" thing. She makes my skin crawl too, so I know how she feels. LOL

 

[Votto]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

 

[Crixus]

Another thing about an anarchist, when they are getting their ass stomped, they never hesitate to call the cops and beg them to protect them from whoever is correcting their bad behavior.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not at all. You left out the rest of the Definition.
.

Er.. no, he's using ONE definition that is appropriate for the context in which he's using the word, it's not a multi-part definition, it's multiple definitions based on context.

No he is being dishonest.

He was clear as to which definition he was discussing in his opening post, so IMHO you should just thank him for his specificity and cease your efforts to prove that you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Sorry. It's anarchy and you can't tell me what to do. Douche.

Uh-huh, Apparently "IMHO" is an acronym that has managed to elude your extensive research on the means and methods of picking fly shit out of pepper.

For the purposes of this discussion IMHO has been changed to say. "I aM a Homphobic Ocelot" which does not make any sense. Perhaps Gipper has a point. This could be fun. For a while.

 

[whitehall]

"Cooperative and voluntary"? Since when? Leave it to lefties to sugar coat the working definition of anarchy which is "the absence of government and law" in other words chaos.

 

[Crixus]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Looking at US history, the Article of Confederation was the law of the land, but it went broke so they came up with the Constitution.

Put another way, let's say that the government went broke and the land was ruled by a loosely joined group of states. What happens when a centralized power like England or France tried to fight the US again, like in the war of 1812?

The Ukraine is in a similar position. It is not in NATO and trying to remain independent of Putin. What I do know is, if it were not for the NATO members Putin would own them by now and they are more at risk for not being in NATO.

So how does one remain free of such powers if they do not unite to fight them. Then when they unite to fight them, how do they avoid becoming what they are fighting?

There is nothing in an Anarchic society that prevents unifying, to fight a common enemy.

Okay, but that's really not an issue. But what you said being the case, say a majority of anarchist don't like what a smaller group of anarchists are saying and doing how would the majority of anarchist deal with those individuals? Are you advocating anarchy as something that would be nice if people did it right, or literal "political anarchy" and how would desenters be dealt with ?

 

[NightFox]

Another thing about an anarchist, when they are getting their ass stomped, they never hesitate to call the cops and beg them to protect them from whoever is correcting their bad behavior.

Which "anarchist(s)" are you referring to? would it perchance be the ones found on city streets hurling Molotov cocktails at buildings because the gub'mint isn't giving them enough free shit and they want to replace it with one that will? If so those aren't relevant to the OP's topic since they generally speaking aren't philosophical anarchists, they're people that are attempting to foment anarchy (in the chaos sense of the word) to overthrow the current incarnation of the state in order to replace it with another form of the state.

It's the difference between anarchy as a philosophy and anarchy as a tool.

The serious adherents of the various strains of anarchist philosophy that I've encountered generally speaking honor the non-aggression principle so they're unlikely to be found in such situations.

 

[thanatos144]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen. You are spouting nonsense just like when communists cry "But real communism has never been tried!". Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

 

[thanatos144]

This is what anarchy looks like.

 

[NightFox]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

 

[thanatos144]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

 

[NightFox]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

"History" is a broad subject, can you be more specific? like for instance citing some actual examples or would that be too much to hope for?

 

[The Original Tree]

This is what anarchy looks like.

Actually since they were organized and there for a purpose, this is what Communist Agitators Look Like IN Action

 

[USApatriotz]

Anarchy would result in OPEN borders & absolutely DESTROY our society so THAT alone is enough to reject anarchy!!

 

[thanatos144]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

"History" is a broad subject, can you be more specific? like for instance citing some actual examples or would that be too much to hope for?

Where would you like to start???? The Russian revolution or the Wiemar republic? Both had periods of anarchy BEFORE the murderous regimes took over. But hey I am sure just because you guys are doing it your Utopian world will come about.....

 

[thanatos144]

This is what anarchy looks like.

Actually since they were organized and there for a purpose, this is what Communist Agitators Look Like IN Action

That is Antifa.... Self Proclaimed Anarchists. That is what it looks like.... Do you honestly think Anarchy results in peace? Our founders were not so stupid.

 

[fncceo]

Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

Gee... you think there's a reason for that?

If there ever was, it wouldn't be around long enough to be recorded.

 

[NightFox]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

No thank you. I dont want to live in a authoritarians dictatorship and that is what will happen.

Yeah 'cause the institution of the state NEVER results in "authoritarian dictatorships" .

Apparently you missed the fact that "authoritarian dictatorship" and anarchistic society are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy leads to less liberty never more.

...and you know this how? Given that there has never been a philosophically anarchistic society of scale in recorded human history.

History. Learn it.

"History" is a broad subject, can you be more specific? like for instance citing some actual examples or would that be too much to hope for?

Where would you like to start???? The Russian revolution or the Wiemar republic? Both had periods of anarchy BEFORE the murderous regimes took over. .

There's your problem right there, perhaps you should go read the opening post and you'll find that the topic here isn't about anarchy as chaos it's about anarchy as a philosophy based on voluntarism and the absence of state coercion, neither one of your examples qualify.

Thanks for trying.