I think one of my comments isnt showing up. so to sum it up: Than there is the fact that anarchism also emphasizes ........, opposition to war etc.
All these things stem from negating archons. Lets Call anarchy being opposed to forced surpression then. Its a liberation of ones individuality. These things you listed are all things humans would be naturally inclined against>>>>> continue other comment.
It's clearly not a philosophy for you... something you can build principles upon.
Like Stefbot's libertarianism(yeah, you probably think he's a douche- that wouldn't surprise me if you clash with his sheer awesomeness), he's got that shit DOWN- he can go on for hours with articulate spiels about any subject- and his logic is usually rock solid.
Your best video to date, and I've watched all your videos in your Fakesagan days.
I couldn't agree more, Anarchism is nothing more then the negation of authority of any kind, not a bill of wares. Thanks for finally formulating an appropriate definition of Anarchism! I used to dabble in hyphenated anarchy because I found the basic Anarchism definition lacking. Now with this new definition, it finally feels right.
What are you talking about anarchism as a lot more than simply anti-authoritarianism. It's a key part of it, but to act as if that's it's sole foundation is stupid. If you are only interested in defying authority and that's where the struggle ends for you, you need to call yourself anti-authoritarian or anTarchist.
First of all, not all authority is necessarily bad or worthy of negating.
It's illegitimate authority that is the problem. For example, it's pretty clear that is is good for a mother to stop a 5-year old from doing stupid shit. That mother has authority over her kid, that should be obvious to anyone. No sane human being will say that 5-year old has to negate all his mother says because it's authoritarian. The problem with government is that its authority is illegitimate or it fails in demonstrating legitimacy.
Than there is the fact that anarchism also emphasizes anti-capitalism and opposition to wage-labor, syndicalism, opposition to the monetary system, opposition to coercion, opposition to war etc.
Your understanding of anarchism is that of an 15-year old who listened too much punk and is upset with his parents so decides to start wearing lack clothes, the same kind of people you'll hear say "Anarchy and chaos!" or ridiculous crap like that.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You don't even know anything about me man. Where do you base all your ridiculous claims on. I never said it is a healthy thing for a 5 year old to negate the authority of its parent. I am talking about an adult person having the freedom to negate authorities he doesn't recognise. To me anarcy has nothing to do with chaos. Anarchy is the emancipation of the individual and the liberation of the mind. Liberation of the human body from material possessions.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Liberation of a government. Social hierarchies would be based on the free grouping of people. Tell me why if I've always been responsible to carry my own problems, why I should be forced to pay taxes to support the people that refuse to carry their own weight because our weak society caters to them. That should be a personal choice. I don't stay people shouldn't carry each others problems, I'm saying I should get to chose which people I wanna help & which I dont.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH they thought about it objectively and werent constantly fed false propaganda. Even those with intelligence that claim to not be influenced by it still probably are on a subconscious level. I don't even have any sort of TV subscription. I download purely the things I want. youtube throws an add at me I hit the mute button on my keyboard and look the other way. And yes I'm anti capitalist. Being enslaved, working jobs you hate so you can buy shit you dont need
It's fine to be "just anarchist" if you want...the problem is, if all anarchists thought the way you did, there would always be archons. There will always be a need to protect ourselves from people like you. The point of all of this discussion about anarchism is to figure out a way to get to a stateless society. The only way to get rid of rulers is for society to outgrow the need for the rulers. It can only be done through philosophy, not violence. With violence, rulers would return in no time.
If I spend 3 hours building a tower out of playing cards, that is three hours I can never get back. If you then destroy it, you have stolen three hours from me. If I was commissioned for it, you have stolen the commission from me. For me to reproduce it, I need to spend an additional 3 hours working for nothing. Destruction of property is theft and theft. Working for nothing is slavery.
@kendallgr If every square inch surround the block of land you are standing on is private, you can be forcibly confined to a piece of land. Land is finite. The natural resources humans put work into are limited, and if all natural resources are declared as property by those who put work into them, it can forcibly impede everyone else from using them. Watch the documentary called "Sidewalk" and it should illustrate this.
Voluntary payment of every person in the state to pay for a private police force. In other words, taxes. Honestly anarcho-capitalism is just our current society only with a coat of capitalism applied to every thing. We replace our public police with private police whose function is identical to a public police only you don't HAVE to pay for them. There's no cohersion, except for the cohersion of the fact that the private public police won't help those who pay.
@OsirisLord I tend to support a regulated form of capitalism, but I absolutely concede thesmoothterorist's point that property rights are not tantamount to freedom. The very concept of property is that anyone who wants to use a resource is forcibly forbidden from using it without permission from another party. If every square inch surround the block of land you are standing on is private, you can be forcibly confined to a piece of land. What is "voluntary" about that?
WHO'S THE ARTSY ANARCHIST WHO'S THE MAGIC MASOCHIST WHO'S THE PIGGISH POSTULATOR WHO'S THAT ANAL AGITATOR WHO'S THE HEINOUS PLAGIARIST WHO'S THE SEXY SATANIST WHO'S THAT MANIC MASTURBATOR WHO'S THE CRYPTIC CONSTIPATOR WHO IS WHO WHO THE HELL ARE YOU DO YOU LOVE THE TST? TST IS THE SALT IN YOUR WOUND TST THE FIST IN YOUR FACE TST THE THORN IN YOUR SIDE THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE! THE SmoothTerrorist and KMFDM are TOTALLY ANARCHIST ANYONE WHO ADDS ON TO THE DEFINITION IS USING IT FOR HIERARCHY.
"Voluntary taxes" Is a contradiction in terms. You're trying to make it sound ridiculous. You pay for a services. These services will be emergent to satisfy demand. I don't think that's controversial. Your view of how property rights will be enforced is narrow. People who decide not to go to court would be labeled . No one would do business with them. They would not be able to insure their own property. In a word ostracism IMO, but who knows how the collective minds would actually pull this off.
While a negation of theism (atheism) has seemingly endless alternatives, a negation of "hierarchy" seems to automatically imply an alternative quality. Hierarchy, by definition, is a type of inequality. A negation of a specific kind of inequality logically entails equality with respect to that same attribute. (See next comment.)
@streetmagicstyle (2/3) Is a state of humanity with no property rights, no redistribution of wealth, and no hierarchy logically possible? Can an equal distribution of wealth exist without redistribution of wealth? If your answer was no, can an unequal distribution of wealth exist without an unequal distribution of power? I think not. And if an unequal distribution of power exists, then wouldn't hierarchy exist? (See next comment.)
@streetmagicstyle (3/3) Theism and atheism describe beliefs (or lack of beliefs) about metaphysical states of existence. Archism and anarchism describe beliefs about dentological ethics. When a person "believes in" God or "believes in" the existence of a car at a particular location, it is all about what *is*. When a person stated that they "believe in" government, it is a statement about subjective preference: a normative statement of what "ought to" (or "ought not to") be.
@streetmagicstyle More: It seems tougher to support a normative argument about absence of government without proposing at one more preferable alternative, whereas atheism can suffice by poking holes in theism (because it is metaphysical).
Anyways, I could be wrong and I loved that your video got me thinking. In person, I dodge political (or anti-political) talk because most it puts most people to sleep.
@streetmagicstyle I really think you would find Ayn Rand interesting because she is the only one who argued that her system of thought could be in the universal self-interest of everyone, and thus had the best attempt at bridging "is" and "ought" that I have ever seen. I kind of reject her philosophy but it is one hell of a serious, serious attempt at using real, pure reason where it does not seem possible: in the context of politics and ethics.
TheSmoothTerrorist is not anarchist because he either
a)supports an authority
b)he supports his own authority.
There is no such thing as anarchist, Not even the "small a anarchists" are real anarchists. They are just conquerors who use the lie of "freedom" to moralize their authority.
@DaveElectric it does not logically follow that supporting my own authority negates my anarchism. being "without rulers" myself doesn't imply that i can't rule over someone else
however, since i don't desire control over any life but my own i think the point is rather moot
@TheSmoothTerrorist Oh....oh so really you're just a wannabe archon who wants to defeat archons that are against you? That's what I consider myself as well except I don't use the lie called "anarchism" to mask what I really am.
How do you NOT control someone else's life? People need to consume things and take control of resources. Resources are scarce so you must inevitably assert authority on those that disagree with your handling of resources.
@TheSmoothTerrorist Despite your interpretation of Anarchy, nobody will care if I rape your girlfriend in an Anarchist world, even if I decide to kill you to ensure my offspring's survival.. Who are you going to go to for help..? Fellow Anarchists..? THEY WON'T CARE !! In this world of Anarchy you envision, Dog eat Dog would become manifest. The closest we had to Anarchy in the US was the Old West. Look how it turns out when average people want ACTUAL repercussions. Anarchy doesn't last... Ever.
@DaveElectric Simply because it was anarchist by accident, doesn't mean there weren't significant numbers of people who fought to keep it that way, but failed.
@FoxDavidson You're going to have to explain what you mean by "significant numbers who fought to keep it that way". The first self-labled anarchist did not publish books IN EUROPE until halfway through century and not only that there were only two small civil wars in the Wild West. One between 2 vigilante groups and the another between 2 governments.
@FoxDavidson There were no major battles between vigilante groups and governments in the Wild West. Vigilante groups only existed because the government didn't have a formal seat there yet, not because those people rejected the state.There is a huge difference.
@DaveElectric Oooh.. I get you. In order to be an anarchist, you have to first label yourself as one.. Even if you live your life according to the concept, if you don't admit, it doesn't pertain.. Mmkay. No, but seriously, of course there weren't any major battles between vigilantes and government in the old west.. That doesn't mean vigilantes didn't murder or vandalize on significant scales to keep their civilian counterparts deterred from embracing a Due process system.
@FoxDavidson There is a difference between being a frontier individualist and rejecting the state. Those people did not live "according to the concept".There was no idealogical conception of a "stateless society".
Vigilantes didn't murder or vandalize on signficant scales. The crime rate of West was less than the crime rate of the Statist East especially the murder rate. Vigilantess only existed because it was the frontier.
@FoxDavidson You have the whole thing backwards. The people there didn't reject the state. They just thought it was inefficient and needed some extra help to enforce the law in the from of vigilante groups, miner's associations, claims associations, cattle clubs, etc.
@DaveElectric Let's review one comment you made a few hours ago. "TheSmoothTerrorist is not anarchist because he either
a)supports an authority
b)he supports his own authority.
There is no such thing as anarchist, Not even the "small a anarchists" are real anarchists. They are just conquerors who use the lie of "freedom" to moralize their authority." -You have no idea how much I wholeheartedly agree on this premise. However we seem to be arguing over semantics..
@DaveElectric Although I did give you quite a bit of leeway when I allowed you to say that many people in the old west were "Vigilante".. In my opinion, they were Both a mix of Vigilante/Renegade. Most were (Selfish) individuals who wanted to enforce their own agenda of power, without consensual support, and thus didn't need to heed any wrong doings when they overstepped their bounds. Because there wasn't anyone to challenge them. At least, not internally.
@FoxDavidson If the vigilante groups were renegades it seems extremely bizare that the crime rate there would be LESS and not MORE. Their actions would seem like the most obvious thing to record in the statistics.
@DaveElectric Crime rates among the vigilantes when grafted on to a nationwide population scale, is staggering.. Go ahead, crunch the number of 1 murder in 100 with a population of 2,000,000 to a murder of 1 in 500 with a population of 15,000,000. A higher murder rate among a lower population trumps the OVERALL outcome which you seem to have tried to exploit. Sorry, I had to work OT, I'm back.
It was not "1 and 100". It was 1 and 100,000. Huge difference. Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell from 1870-1885 only had 3 murders per year (0.6 per city)
Compare that with the civilized gun control paradises of today which ought to have lower rate.
@DaveElectric In the past, I have made friends with some who actually consider themselves "anarchist". Most of them have no clue as to how Patriotic they actually are. Considering our form of Society was Designed to restrain Federal Government, but still had to be empowered by an educated and knowing people. I.E. when politicians are sell-outs(Personal behavior), it's up to US, to oust them and bring them to justice. Actual Justice. In this day, so many in Government are that. (SO)
zzz... lets grant Wal-Mart a monopoly on a bunch of stuff, and then if they screw it up or become corrupt, it's up to us to oust them.
What an unnecessary hassle. That's what the state is with law, currency, industries it heavily "regulates" (finances, housing, education, medical services), police and defense.
How about avoiding the hassle and just let people choose what to do.
@MGsven God is an Anarchist..?? Then who the fuck did he expect to enforce the 10 commandments you Dumbass..? Selected representatives to enforce those rules among the consent of the populace..? That's called GOVERNMENT.. I seriously have to call you a Dumbass, Twice, for your sheer stupidity.
Ive always considered myself more of a communist( But only if by some miracle we could keep it uncorrupt and for the people ) But im a Juggalo bitches, so i say fuck authority and fuck all this shitty, watered down, unoriginal, mindless, corporate bitches on the radio. I listen to the Pure untapped by the rich bitches underground wicked shit. So
But if you oppose authority, how do you define who is an authority? Is your piano lessons teacher an authority? Is you ninjitsu instructor an authority? Is beating me at chess within the rules of the game an abuse of an authoritarian structure?
@TheSmoothTerrorist Thanks yes, as clear as it is going to be... Do you think it is necessary to circumscribe or delineate a sphere for the legitimate use of violence by individuals?
A perfect example of people disliking the negative image a word has acquired, and deciding to arbitrarily change the meaning of the word. Example: Bob is on the political right; fascism has a negative image; therefore, fascism is actually on the political left; and suddenly, Obama can be both a socialist AND a fascist! Thanks for bringing back the correct definition of anarchy.
I consider myself a minarchist, but true anarchism is pretty impractical at this point in human development. A great goal perhaps, but impractical as of right now.
@snewso I'm glad you do understand what true anarchism is though, as many people who claim to be one do not understand what it means and i agree with you on this.
@Codeeist you want me to "prove" that the terms of political discourse are ill-defined? doesn't the existence of videos like this make that rather self-evident?
@TheSmoothTerrorist I want you to quit saying that you have a problem with authority and then throw around Noam Chomsky's name like his opinion is an authority. You're just flip floppy.
u can no more suppose anarchism from a contemporary perspective,as u could from the world 250 years ago to today,the fundementals have changed.you can continue to make the same mistakes and devolve,you can return to the defalt statist position and revolve or you can adapt and evolve.imho anarchism is not dependent on molding the future,its a natural progression.
What do you think of worker self management? In an imaginary world where everyone said fuck you to management: How do people work together without eventually forming some kind of council? What is your problem with workers' councils? They are just a means to organize and facilitate trade through networking with other industries. It doesn't seem like authority to me. You can't have trade without either democracy or management. Without trade you have primitivism. I like roads and medicine.
there is no secure trade environment ever and you arent a capitalist? enjoy your camera and buying things and selling things i guess you arent an anarchist then lol
@snarfeater No, he's quite an anarchist. He's probably the most anarchist person there is. The only way he could be more anarchist is if he opposed the ownership of your own body.
@fringeelements the dude i bought an amp from on craigsist had a gun but did not kill me and i gave him 250 dollars for the amp where are the archons fake talks about it was in a dark alley its risky but i like having things (capital)
@TheSmoothTerrorist the chemicals in its brain causes me to violently enforce property rights over its body as property so the chemicals in its brain causes me to act as a dictator because the chemical make up owns the brain and body that calls itself me and i freely trade on craigslist in private so there it is capitalism and free market doesn't capitalism mean moneyism or something like that
How can one be an anti-statist and NOT be an anarchist? How can one be an anti-statist, and not an anti-authoritarian? This isn't addressed to you, fakesagan. It's addressed to the "anti-statists".
@Donatellangelo anarchy means "without archy", archy can be whatever you want. You can have property rights, and slavery, without a state. Fakesagan is saying property rights are "archons" and that an anarchist would oppose them. I mostly agree, I just think the whole concept of "anarchism" is a matter of opinion.
@georgiepinkle I made an 18 minute video response. I don't think I'm ignoring his points there. I just pointed out one silly thing he did in that comment you penis nose.
@fringeelements How is it silly? You can be against academic authority and still quote a professor that says something you agree. We don't need childish insults.
@georgiepinkle Well, making an appeal to authority after talking how silly it is to make appeals to authority is a bit silly. Everyone got it but you. Penis nose.
@fringeelements So if Noam Chomsky said 2 + 2 = 4, someone who is against academic authority is not allowed to agree with him going by your implication here.
@fringeelements Yes, and I'm sure it *isn't* just you rhyming off a series of biased and delusional assumptions then drawing a conclusion as if it were a truism.
@fringeelements i think the remarks of his that i referenced (such as "the terms of political discourse are murky and ill-defined" are so factual and self-evident that they are analogous to "2 + 2 = 4"
the only reason i credited him for his remarks was so that i wouldn't be accused of plagiarism
i certainly didn't say "the terms of political discourse are ill-defined because MIT professor emeritus noam chomsky says they are"
Person I dont know, no disrespect, but if you have a question ask me directly. Dont wait for me to stumble upon it.
You say anarchism is impossible because we have order ingrained within all of us. If thats true then why wouldnt anarchism work? wouldnt that be proof that we dont need leaders or hierarchy? because we already naturally have order?
@InvincibleNumanist Humanity had a choice, anarchy or government.Over thousands of years the vast majority of people have chosen government. My argument is simple. Order is ingrained naturally within the universe and as a result people will naturally cleave unto order and hierarchies in general. Humanity is a slave unto itself. Anarchism is a romantic idea that is impossible to implement in society. We don't need leaders but most people desire to have them.
@InvincibleNumanist You seem like an insincere troll at times, Mr. Numanist, I wonder if you have a middle ground view, (mutualism) a synthesis of syndicalism,individualism and free market economics, or if you want to troll all opposition, and Secretly are a Leninist-Marxist, supporting the New world order, for the lulz.
@InvincibleNumanist I'm not making blind assertions. Archaeology shows that people have come together in communion since the dawn of mankind. They collect in groups and then proceed to build civilizations which includes appointing rulers. Most people desire the benefits of governance and therefore are willing to be subjugated.
Here's your evidence. The Akkadian empire, Roman empire, United Nations, European Union, etc.
I'm not the one ignoring archaeology and anthropology.
@ANARCHISTMOOSE People don't desire to be ruled over, the majority of people, just won't fight the current state, because it is too much effort to do anything, and people believe that the state is GOD. YOu are a dipshit if you think Machiavellian tactics are not used by elites, to justify their illegitimate control of humanity, and convince the populace, that it is worth their while to be good, sheep.
@TehAlexJonesChannel I didn't say people desire to be ruled over. I said verbatim,
"Most people desire the benefits of governance and therefore are willing to be subjugated."
The keyword here is willing. I don't believe people desire to be ruled over just for the sake of being ruled over. I believe they desire the benefits of governance. In exchange for these benefits they sacrifice their freedom.
@ANARCHISTMOOSE So basically your arguing STATES EXIST....THROUGHOUT HISTORY, SO.......YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT...This argument is Just as weak as Bill O'Reilly's original meme, Tides go in Tides go out, you can't explain that.
@TehAlexJonesChannel Political entities have existed through history. That's a fact. I claimed that humans have entered into contracts of governance for particular benefits that anarchy cannot provide. Invincible Numanist claimed I was ignoring archaeology and anthropology. I gave him evidence in turn.
"Here's your evidence. The Akkadian empire, Roman empire, United Nations, European Union, etc."
Anarchism is impossible to implement because order is ingrained within all living organisms. Humanity and all other organisms are subject to the rule of the laws of nature. Just picked the name because it sounded cool.
@ANARCHISTMOOSE "Anarchism is impossible to implement because order is ingrained within all living organisms."
You wouldn't "implement" anarchism. I think that's a contradiction.
"Humanity and all other organisms are subject to the rule of the laws of nature."
The laws you're referring to are descriptive of general biological behaviour. We have reasoning faculties other organisms don't have and so are not obliged to follow these laws.
@egokick I didn't say order arises from bottom up. I said that order is ingrained within the universe including organisms. Most humans desire to rule the world, to be at the top of the food chain.The Big Kahuna at the top of the pyramid. Most people don't want to feel subjugated to anything let alone governments.
Really not that interested in the personal disagreement between you two, but I found your explanation of the words interesting, and some of it made a lot of sense. Is Sarahon actually an anarchist at all though?
One big question... I'm not sure that I understand how you can say it's not taking away liberty to smash someone's store apart. I see your technical point, but isn't that like dropping someone into a tank of alligators and saying you didn't kill him, you just dropped him into water?
@TheSmoothTerrorist In both cases, it seems like you would be setting up the conditions where someone would be likely to be pushed into a situation where they lose their livelihood and the types of options they had in life (or worst case scenario, life, home, etc.). If you define liberty as only the ability to live and not be imprisoned, then I suppose you technically are not taking their "liberty", but that seems to be a fairly flimsy distinction when you are forcing it.
@TheSmoothTerrorist What about your car, you dont live in that. What about your taco stand on the corner that you earn your living with and leave there over night. Your property, or no? If not, what options does that leave you to respond to people who damage it?
Interesting video. I don't really know what to call myself anymore, but I've been looking into anarchism more lately. Just out of curiosity, are you against capitalism, or the marketplace as a whole?
As an authoritarian-communist-liberal statist thanks for calling out fringeelements. His vision of anarchism is a corporatist society filled with ethnic cleansings. I think I heard of that somewhere else before.
@TheScrewOnHead perhaps that's why he doesn't call himself an "anarchist" anymore
however, his new title "anti-statist" is also misapplied, in my view. it's obvious that he has designs for a racially homogenous state. whether or not those designs include centralized leadership is irrelevant
All no true Scotsmen fallacies are goalpost moving, but not all goalpost moves are no true Scotsmen fallacies.
Black Boc (the ones vandalizing) are definitely anarchists and have been around for a long time. Any anarchist can form a Black Boc--there is no organization.
hes using the old "go to somalia" argument. even though Somalias living conditions got worse when there was a government and when the government was abolished living conditions improved again... and now that several quasi government factions have risen up again... yep you named it
@InvincibleNumanist one could say the same about true democracy and say Europe rather than Africa. You can do that with anything, so what he said is semantically empty.
I think one of my comments isnt showing up. so to sum it up: Than there is the fact that anarchism also emphasizes ........, opposition to war etc.
All these things stem from negating archons. Lets Call anarchy being opposed to forced surpression then. Its a liberation of ones individuality. These things you listed are all things humans would be naturally inclined against>>>>> continue other comment.
Weyoun26 2 weeks ago
It's clearly not a philosophy for you... something you can build principles upon.
Like Stefbot's libertarianism(yeah, you probably think he's a douche- that wouldn't surprise me if you clash with his sheer awesomeness), he's got that shit DOWN- he can go on for hours with articulate spiels about any subject- and his logic is usually rock solid.
DackIsBack 3 weeks ago
Admit it, you just call yourself an anarchist to justify being such an asshole...
You know it's true. :D
DackIsBack 3 weeks ago
Your best video to date, and I've watched all your videos in your Fakesagan days.
I couldn't agree more, Anarchism is nothing more then the negation of authority of any kind, not a bill of wares. Thanks for finally formulating an appropriate definition of Anarchism! I used to dabble in hyphenated anarchy because I found the basic Anarchism definition lacking. Now with this new definition, it finally feels right.
Weyoun26 1 month ago
@Weyoun26
What are you talking about anarchism as a lot more than simply anti-authoritarianism. It's a key part of it, but to act as if that's it's sole foundation is stupid. If you are only interested in defying authority and that's where the struggle ends for you, you need to call yourself anti-authoritarian or anTarchist.
First of all, not all authority is necessarily bad or worthy of negating.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@Weyoun26
It's illegitimate authority that is the problem. For example, it's pretty clear that is is good for a mother to stop a 5-year old from doing stupid shit. That mother has authority over her kid, that should be obvious to anyone. No sane human being will say that 5-year old has to negate all his mother says because it's authoritarian. The problem with government is that its authority is illegitimate or it fails in demonstrating legitimacy.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@Weyoun26
Than there is the fact that anarchism also emphasizes anti-capitalism and opposition to wage-labor, syndicalism, opposition to the monetary system, opposition to coercion, opposition to war etc.
I think you need to read up on anarchism.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@Weyoun26
Your understanding of anarchism is that of an 15-year old who listened too much punk and is upset with his parents so decides to start wearing lack clothes, the same kind of people you'll hear say "Anarchy and chaos!" or ridiculous crap like that.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH You don't even know anything about me man. Where do you base all your ridiculous claims on. I never said it is a healthy thing for a 5 year old to negate the authority of its parent. I am talking about an adult person having the freedom to negate authorities he doesn't recognise. To me anarcy has nothing to do with chaos. Anarchy is the emancipation of the individual and the liberation of the mind. Liberation of the human body from material possessions.
Weyoun26 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Liberation of a government. Social hierarchies would be based on the free grouping of people. Tell me why if I've always been responsible to carry my own problems, why I should be forced to pay taxes to support the people that refuse to carry their own weight because our weak society caters to them. That should be a personal choice. I don't stay people shouldn't carry each others problems, I'm saying I should get to chose which people I wanna help & which I dont.
Weyoun26 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH they thought about it objectively and werent constantly fed false propaganda. Even those with intelligence that claim to not be influenced by it still probably are on a subconscious level. I don't even have any sort of TV subscription. I download purely the things I want. youtube throws an add at me I hit the mute button on my keyboard and look the other way. And yes I'm anti capitalist. Being enslaved, working jobs you hate so you can buy shit you dont need
Weyoun26 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Like I said, you dont know anything about me!
I do applaud Fakesagan for this video.
Maybe Anarchism is a conceit for him.
Maybe it is for me.
But you should still base your ideology own your own life experiences.
Weyoun26 2 weeks ago
It's fine to be "just anarchist" if you want...the problem is, if all anarchists thought the way you did, there would always be archons. There will always be a need to protect ourselves from people like you. The point of all of this discussion about anarchism is to figure out a way to get to a stateless society. The only way to get rid of rulers is for society to outgrow the need for the rulers. It can only be done through philosophy, not violence. With violence, rulers would return in no time.
munkyusm 1 month ago
Comment removed
munkyusm 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist - 20:15
If I spend 3 hours building a tower out of playing cards, that is three hours I can never get back. If you then destroy it, you have stolen three hours from me. If I was commissioned for it, you have stolen the commission from me. For me to reproduce it, I need to spend an additional 3 hours working for nothing. Destruction of property is theft and theft. Working for nothing is slavery.
kendallgr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kendallgr If every square inch surround the block of land you are standing on is private, you can be forcibly confined to a piece of land. Land is finite. The natural resources humans put work into are limited, and if all natural resources are declared as property by those who put work into them, it can forcibly impede everyone else from using them. Watch the documentary called "Sidewalk" and it should illustrate this.
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
@streetmagicstyle surrounding*
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
Voluntary payment of every person in the state to pay for a private police force. In other words, taxes. Honestly anarcho-capitalism is just our current society only with a coat of capitalism applied to every thing. We replace our public police with private police whose function is identical to a public police only you don't HAVE to pay for them. There's no cohersion, except for the cohersion of the fact that the private public police won't help those who pay.
OsirisLord 1 month ago
@OsirisLord I tend to support a regulated form of capitalism, but I absolutely concede thesmoothterorist's point that property rights are not tantamount to freedom. The very concept of property is that anyone who wants to use a resource is forcibly forbidden from using it without permission from another party. If every square inch surround the block of land you are standing on is private, you can be forcibly confined to a piece of land. What is "voluntary" about that?
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
I find it ironic that an atheist wouldn't be able to understand what anarchy is. Dogma is one of the most common tools used by authoritarians.
ultimategoobah 1 month ago
GiganticSausage 1 month ago
What is your ideology, and how is it less hilarious than Anarcho -capitalism?
drogden 1 month ago
"Voluntary taxes" Is a contradiction in terms. You're trying to make it sound ridiculous. You pay for a services. These services will be emergent to satisfy demand. I don't think that's controversial. Your view of how property rights will be enforced is narrow. People who decide not to go to court would be labeled . No one would do business with them. They would not be able to insure their own property. In a word ostracism IMO, but who knows how the collective minds would actually pull this off.
drogden 1 month ago
While a negation of theism (atheism) has seemingly endless alternatives, a negation of "hierarchy" seems to automatically imply an alternative quality. Hierarchy, by definition, is a type of inequality. A negation of a specific kind of inequality logically entails equality with respect to that same attribute. (See next comment.)
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
@streetmagicstyle (2/3) Is a state of humanity with no property rights, no redistribution of wealth, and no hierarchy logically possible? Can an equal distribution of wealth exist without redistribution of wealth? If your answer was no, can an unequal distribution of wealth exist without an unequal distribution of power? I think not. And if an unequal distribution of power exists, then wouldn't hierarchy exist? (See next comment.)
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
@streetmagicstyle (3/3) Theism and atheism describe beliefs (or lack of beliefs) about metaphysical states of existence. Archism and anarchism describe beliefs about dentological ethics. When a person "believes in" God or "believes in" the existence of a car at a particular location, it is all about what *is*. When a person stated that they "believe in" government, it is a statement about subjective preference: a normative statement of what "ought to" (or "ought not to") be.
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
@streetmagicstyle More: It seems tougher to support a normative argument about absence of government without proposing at one more preferable alternative, whereas atheism can suffice by poking holes in theism (because it is metaphysical).
Anyways, I could be wrong and I loved that your video got me thinking. In person, I dodge political (or anti-political) talk because most it puts most people to sleep.
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
@streetmagicstyle I really think you would find Ayn Rand interesting because she is the only one who argued that her system of thought could be in the universal self-interest of everyone, and thus had the best attempt at bridging "is" and "ought" that I have ever seen. I kind of reject her philosophy but it is one hell of a serious, serious attempt at using real, pure reason where it does not seem possible: in the context of politics and ethics.
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
This was a great video to watch. I love it and it provoked thought. It did leave me wondering a few things.
streetmagicstyle 1 month ago
At the end you said: "It's my video..."
Forgive the question,but after watching the whole video I'm stil confused - do you accept property rights or don't you?
AlexanderReiswich 1 month ago
The only thing I disagree with is I don't think a market is impossible, necessarily, without the incentive of protected property.
Of course that isn't a "part" of anarchy by any stretch it's just a question of sociology.
GiantKukri 1 month ago
"Oh but the Amazing Atheist is a Youtube videologger and he's a fat, ugly, selfish piece of shit."
L O FUCKING L
Forehead2Brick 1 month ago
Seeing as I've read thousands of pages of anarchist literature, a lot, i'd like to think.
And I will, i'm an anti-capitalist.
Nothiean 1 month ago
@Nothiean I've read thousands of pages of scripture and theology, a lot, I'd like to think. And I will, I accept Jesus.
See, I can be cute too!
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements Those two things don't exactly line up. But fuck logic, right?
Nothiean 1 month ago
anarcho capitalists dont believe in voluntary taxation because its a contradiction in terms u dumb fuck.
tonygmilan7 1 month ago
TheSmoothTerrorist is not anarchist because he either
a)supports an authority
b)he supports his own authority.
There is no such thing as anarchist, Not even the "small a anarchists" are real anarchists. They are just conquerors who use the lie of "freedom" to moralize their authority.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric it does not logically follow that supporting my own authority negates my anarchism. being "without rulers" myself doesn't imply that i can't rule over someone else
however, since i don't desire control over any life but my own i think the point is rather moot
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Oh....oh so really you're just a wannabe archon who wants to defeat archons that are against you? That's what I consider myself as well except I don't use the lie called "anarchism" to mask what I really am.
How do you NOT control someone else's life? People need to consume things and take control of resources. Resources are scarce so you must inevitably assert authority on those that disagree with your handling of resources.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric no, i am nothing like you
what part of "i don't desire control over any life but my own" didn't you understand?
as far as resources go, i'll risk further accusations of appeal-to-authority by quoting gandhi...
"earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed"
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist "Need" is just moralized greed.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric very well. in that case, "earth provides enough to satisfy every man's moralized greed but not every man's immoral greed"
happy now, smartass?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist LOL, except there is no universal standard for what is moral greed.There is no value without a valuer.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Despite your interpretation of Anarchy, nobody will care if I rape your girlfriend in an Anarchist world, even if I decide to kill you to ensure my offspring's survival.. Who are you going to go to for help..? Fellow Anarchists..? THEY WON'T CARE !! In this world of Anarchy you envision, Dog eat Dog would become manifest. The closest we had to Anarchy in the US was the Old West. Look how it turns out when average people want ACTUAL repercussions. Anarchy doesn't last... Ever.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson Nobody was trying to achieve anarchy with the Old West......your example is irrelevent.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric It doesn't matter what they were "trying" to achieve in the Old West, the example is legitimate..... Your comment to me is irrelevant.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson Actually is does. You cannot point to a society that was anarchist by accident as proof that it doesn't last.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Simply because it was anarchist by accident, doesn't mean there weren't significant numbers of people who fought to keep it that way, but failed.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson You're going to have to explain what you mean by "significant numbers who fought to keep it that way". The first self-labled anarchist did not publish books IN EUROPE until halfway through century and not only that there were only two small civil wars in the Wild West. One between 2 vigilante groups and the another between 2 governments.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson There were no major battles between vigilante groups and governments in the Wild West. Vigilante groups only existed because the government didn't have a formal seat there yet, not because those people rejected the state.There is a huge difference.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Oooh.. I get you. In order to be an anarchist, you have to first label yourself as one.. Even if you live your life according to the concept, if you don't admit, it doesn't pertain.. Mmkay. No, but seriously, of course there weren't any major battles between vigilantes and government in the old west.. That doesn't mean vigilantes didn't murder or vandalize on significant scales to keep their civilian counterparts deterred from embracing a Due process system.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson There is a difference between being a frontier individualist and rejecting the state. Those people did not live "according to the concept".There was no idealogical conception of a "stateless society".
Vigilantes didn't murder or vandalize on signficant scales. The crime rate of West was less than the crime rate of the Statist East especially the murder rate. Vigilantess only existed because it was the frontier.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson You have the whole thing backwards. The people there didn't reject the state. They just thought it was inefficient and needed some extra help to enforce the law in the from of vigilante groups, miner's associations, claims associations, cattle clubs, etc.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaveElectric Let's review one comment you made a few hours ago. "TheSmoothTerrorist is not anarchist because he either
a)supports an authority
b)he supports his own authority.
There is no such thing as anarchist, Not even the "small a anarchists" are real anarchists. They are just conquerors who use the lie of "freedom" to moralize their authority." -You have no idea how much I wholeheartedly agree on this premise. However we seem to be arguing over semantics..
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Although I did give you quite a bit of leeway when I allowed you to say that many people in the old west were "Vigilante".. In my opinion, they were Both a mix of Vigilante/Renegade. Most were (Selfish) individuals who wanted to enforce their own agenda of power, without consensual support, and thus didn't need to heed any wrong doings when they overstepped their bounds. Because there wasn't anyone to challenge them. At least, not internally.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson The per capita homicide rate was lower in the western territories than in the incorporated states.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson If the vigilante groups were renegades it seems extremely bizare that the crime rate there would be LESS and not MORE. Their actions would seem like the most obvious thing to record in the statistics.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Crime rates among the vigilantes when grafted on to a nationwide population scale, is staggering.. Go ahead, crunch the number of 1 murder in 100 with a population of 2,000,000 to a murder of 1 in 500 with a population of 15,000,000. A higher murder rate among a lower population trumps the OVERALL outcome which you seem to have tried to exploit. Sorry, I had to work OT, I'm back.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
It was not "1 and 100". It was 1 and 100,000. Huge difference. Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell from 1870-1885 only had 3 murders per year (0.6 per city)
Compare that with the civilized gun control paradises of today which ought to have lower rate.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric In the past, I have made friends with some who actually consider themselves "anarchist". Most of them have no clue as to how Patriotic they actually are. Considering our form of Society was Designed to restrain Federal Government, but still had to be empowered by an educated and knowing people. I.E. when politicians are sell-outs(Personal behavior), it's up to US, to oust them and bring them to justice. Actual Justice. In this day, so many in Government are that. (SO)
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
zzz... lets grant Wal-Mart a monopoly on a bunch of stuff, and then if they screw it up or become corrupt, it's up to us to oust them.
What an unnecessary hassle. That's what the state is with law, currency, industries it heavily "regulates" (finances, housing, education, medical services), police and defense.
How about avoiding the hassle and just let people choose what to do.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@DaveElectric That's what "significant numbers who fought to keep it that way" implied.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
I was walkin’ through the city streets
and a man walks up to me and hands me the latest energy drink
Run faster. Jump Higher.
Man, I’m not gonna let you poison me.
I threw it on the ground!
You must think I’m a joke!
I ain’t gonna be part of this system!
Man, pump that garbage in another man’s veins!
SBRslacker00 1 month ago
god is an anarchist, he hads no rulers and he is such a nice guy :P
luckily he doesnt exist
MGsven 1 month ago
@MGsven God is an Anarchist..?? Then who the fuck did he expect to enforce the 10 commandments you Dumbass..? Selected representatives to enforce those rules among the consent of the populace..? That's called GOVERNMENT.. I seriously have to call you a Dumbass, Twice, for your sheer stupidity.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson sorry but the first thing after making those laws was give orders that conflict with them and make a big fucking mess of things
shall not kill 5 minutes later, kill everyone
MGsven 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson who would be god's archon u think?
MGsven 1 month ago
@MGsven You said, God is an Anarchist.. Really..?? Last I checked God fancies himself King. Thus makes him a Monarchist. Good one DB.
FoxDavidson 1 month ago
@FoxDavidson how did we go from talking about "god" with a small "g" to talking about the specific god of the hebrew bible?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist "hebrew bible" that's a good one.
Codeeist 1 month ago
Ive always considered myself more of a communist( But only if by some miracle we could keep it uncorrupt and for the people ) But im a Juggalo bitches, so i say fuck authority and fuck all this shitty, watered down, unoriginal, mindless, corporate bitches on the radio. I listen to the Pure untapped by the rich bitches underground wicked shit. So
WHOOP WHOOP MUTHAFUCKAS
MMFWCL Homies
malidite 1 month ago
@malidite
Great comment.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
You want words to have meanings? That requires some kind of dictionary, which is an authority. YOU AREN'T AN ANARCHIST!! lolz&roflz.
No for real though, I think it's impossible to be 100% anarchist and a social being.
WinslowSagan 1 month ago
@WinslowSagan i agree
my goal, therefor, is to be as anarchist as possible
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Yeah, me too. I want to find the "sweet spot" between "social" and "anarchist".
WinslowSagan 1 month ago
Too bad fakesagan doesnt know what Anarchism is
Nothiean 1 month ago
@Nothiean what do you know about anarchism, noth?
go mourn kim jong-il's death some more, pinko
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
But if you oppose authority, how do you define who is an authority? Is your piano lessons teacher an authority? Is you ninjitsu instructor an authority? Is beating me at chess within the rules of the game an abuse of an authoritarian structure?
laskji 1 month ago
@laskji there's nothing wrong with letting another person guide you towards a concept that you are capable of evaluating for yourself
but when you take something on faith because an "expert" says it is so, you are in error
clear enough?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Thanks yes, as clear as it is going to be... Do you think it is necessary to circumscribe or delineate a sphere for the legitimate use of violence by individuals?
laskji 1 month ago
@laskji i think legitimacy is an illegitimate concept
i know that sounds glib, but i mean it
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist "i think legitimacy is an illegitimate concept"
Yet you think there is actually such a thing as a "need" which is dependent upon a theory of legitamacy/illegitamacy.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Sounds like a freeforall.
laskji 1 month ago
I loved the jab at TheAmazingAtheist. Thumbs up on those grounds.
Ishpeck 1 month ago
A perfect example of people disliking the negative image a word has acquired, and deciding to arbitrarily change the meaning of the word. Example: Bob is on the political right; fascism has a negative image; therefore, fascism is actually on the political left; and suddenly, Obama can be both a socialist AND a fascist! Thanks for bringing back the correct definition of anarchy.
alaskafido 1 month ago
Ownership is a fallacy, possession is truth. Civil rights are a fallacy, liberty is truth.
Belonging is a fallacy, existing is truth. Government is a fallacy, sovereignty is truth.
Obedience is a fallacy, Free Will is truth. etc...
AnarchistMonk 1 month ago
@AnarchistMonk "free will" is an illusion. all of our thoughts and actions are governed by causal determinism
you were destined to leave this youtube comment just as i was destined to refute it
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
I consider myself a minarchist, but true anarchism is pretty impractical at this point in human development. A great goal perhaps, but impractical as of right now.
Ron Paul 2012
snewso 1 month ago
@snewso I'm glad you do understand what true anarchism is though, as many people who claim to be one do not understand what it means and i agree with you on this.
snewso 1 month ago
Me taking everything you have is Violence.
simontimon2 1 month ago 5
@simontimon2 no, me punching you in the face is violence
you came into this world with nothing and you will leave it with nothing
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
"I have a problem with authority"
"As Noam Chomsky points out."
Yeah yeah. Go back to no authority. Prove what Noam Chomsky said and don;t just parrot him. Be that anarchist you are.
Codeeist 1 month ago
@Codeeist you want me to "prove" that the terms of political discourse are ill-defined? doesn't the existence of videos like this make that rather self-evident?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist I want you to quit saying that you have a problem with authority and then throw around Noam Chomsky's name like his opinion is an authority. You're just flip floppy.
Codeeist 1 month ago
u can no more suppose anarchism from a contemporary perspective,as u could from the world 250 years ago to today,the fundementals have changed.you can continue to make the same mistakes and devolve,you can return to the defalt statist position and revolve or you can adapt and evolve.imho anarchism is not dependent on molding the future,its a natural progression.
miserkocho 1 month ago
What do you think of worker self management? In an imaginary world where everyone said fuck you to management: How do people work together without eventually forming some kind of council? What is your problem with workers' councils? They are just a means to organize and facilitate trade through networking with other industries. It doesn't seem like authority to me. You can't have trade without either democracy or management. Without trade you have primitivism. I like roads and medicine.
catbuffalo 1 month ago
@catbuffalo perhaps my infamous "fuck the roads" remark is beginning to come into greater focus?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
So anarchism is just a negation of authority. So, how did you go from there to defend your trantrums againsts another persons livelihood?
maganz 1 month ago
there is no secure trade environment ever and you arent a capitalist? enjoy your camera and buying things and selling things i guess you arent an anarchist then lol
snarfeater 1 month ago
@snarfeater No, he's quite an anarchist. He's probably the most anarchist person there is. The only way he could be more anarchist is if he opposed the ownership of your own body.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements the dude i bought an amp from on craigsist had a gun but did not kill me and i gave him 250 dollars for the amp where are the archons fake talks about it was in a dark alley its risky but i like having things (capital)
snarfeater 1 month ago
@snarfeater yes, i also quote things that academics say so i'm definitely not an anarchist
you got me
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist the chemicals in its brain causes me to violently enforce property rights over its body as property so the chemicals in its brain causes me to act as a dictator because the chemical make up owns the brain and body that calls itself me and i freely trade on craigslist in private so there it is capitalism and free market doesn't capitalism mean moneyism or something like that
snarfeater 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist im not doubting you as an anarchist i typed wrong
snarfeater 1 month ago
How can one be an anti-statist and NOT be an anarchist? How can one be an anti-statist, and not an anti-authoritarian? This isn't addressed to you, fakesagan. It's addressed to the "anti-statists".
Donatellangelo 1 month ago
@Donatellangelo
a lot of anarchists say the state isnt the only archon. so to just reject the state doesnt qualify you as an anarchist.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@Donatellangelo anarchy means "without archy", archy can be whatever you want. You can have property rights, and slavery, without a state. Fakesagan is saying property rights are "archons" and that an anarchist would oppose them. I mostly agree, I just think the whole concept of "anarchism" is a matter of opinion.
fringeelements 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm against authority, including academic authority"
"Noam Chomsky said X, Noam Chomsky said Y"
fringeelements 1 month ago 33
@fringeelements That's not a good summary of what is said in this video. Why are you ignoring his points?
georgiepinkle 1 month ago
@georgiepinkle I made an 18 minute video response. I don't think I'm ignoring his points there. I just pointed out one silly thing he did in that comment you penis nose.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements How is it silly? You can be against academic authority and still quote a professor that says something you agree. We don't need childish insults.
georgiepinkle 1 month ago
@georgiepinkle Well, making an appeal to authority after talking how silly it is to make appeals to authority is a bit silly. Everyone got it but you. Penis nose.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements So if Noam Chomsky said 2 + 2 = 4, someone who is against academic authority is not allowed to agree with him going by your implication here.
LJPpro 1 month ago
@LJPpro
If hed said "2+2 is four because Chomsky said so" then yes
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@LJPpro see numanist. If 2 + 2 = 4, just say it. No need to appeal to authority after having said how silly it is to appeal to authority.
This is so strange. Why am I even having to say this?
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements Agreeing with something another human being says is sometimes just that. No need to bring authority into it.
LJPpro 1 month ago
@fringeelements Yeah, instead of responding to the ideas, attack the individual. No better way of refuting someone.
Arkinight 1 month ago
@Arkinight I made an 18 minute response brah. It simply hasn't been approved.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements i'll get right on that your majesty =)
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@fringeelements Yes, and I'm sure it *isn't* just you rhyming off a series of biased and delusional assumptions then drawing a conclusion as if it were a truism.
Arkinight 1 month ago
@fringeelements i think the remarks of his that i referenced (such as "the terms of political discourse are murky and ill-defined" are so factual and self-evident that they are analogous to "2 + 2 = 4"
the only reason i credited him for his remarks was so that i wouldn't be accused of plagiarism
i certainly didn't say "the terms of political discourse are ill-defined because MIT professor emeritus noam chomsky says they are"
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
Numanist, no disrespect, but what the fuck are you talking about?
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE
Person I dont know, no disrespect, but if you have a question ask me directly. Dont wait for me to stumble upon it.
You say anarchism is impossible because we have order ingrained within all of us. If thats true then why wouldnt anarchism work? wouldnt that be proof that we dont need leaders or hierarchy? because we already naturally have order?
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist Humanity had a choice, anarchy or government.Over thousands of years the vast majority of people have chosen government. My argument is simple. Order is ingrained naturally within the universe and as a result people will naturally cleave unto order and hierarchies in general. Humanity is a slave unto itself. Anarchism is a romantic idea that is impossible to implement in society. We don't need leaders but most people desire to have them.
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE
Well if you ignore archeology and anthrolopology and just make blind assertions then yes I agree.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist You seem like an insincere troll at times, Mr. Numanist, I wonder if you have a middle ground view, (mutualism) a synthesis of syndicalism,individualism and free market economics, or if you want to troll all opposition, and Secretly are a Leninist-Marxist, supporting the New world order, for the lulz.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheSmoothTerrorist
@InvincibleNumanist I'm not making blind assertions. Archaeology shows that people have come together in communion since the dawn of mankind. They collect in groups and then proceed to build civilizations which includes appointing rulers. Most people desire the benefits of governance and therefore are willing to be subjugated.
Here's your evidence. The Akkadian empire, Roman empire, United Nations, European Union, etc.
I'm not the one ignoring archaeology and anthropology.
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE People don't desire to be ruled over, the majority of people, just won't fight the current state, because it is too much effort to do anything, and people believe that the state is GOD. YOu are a dipshit if you think Machiavellian tactics are not used by elites, to justify their illegitimate control of humanity, and convince the populace, that it is worth their while to be good, sheep.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago
@TehAlexJonesChannel I didn't say people desire to be ruled over. I said verbatim,
"Most people desire the benefits of governance and therefore are willing to be subjugated."
The keyword here is willing. I don't believe people desire to be ruled over just for the sake of being ruled over. I believe they desire the benefits of governance. In exchange for these benefits they sacrifice their freedom.
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE So basically your arguing STATES EXIST....THROUGHOUT HISTORY, SO.......YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT...This argument is Just as weak as Bill O'Reilly's original meme, Tides go in Tides go out, you can't explain that.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago
@TehAlexJonesChannel Political entities have existed through history. That's a fact. I claimed that humans have entered into contracts of governance for particular benefits that anarchy cannot provide. Invincible Numanist claimed I was ignoring archaeology and anthropology. I gave him evidence in turn.
"Here's your evidence. The Akkadian empire, Roman empire, United Nations, European Union, etc."
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
This video is very good.
nciviero 1 month ago
Anarchism is impossible to implement because order is ingrained within all living organisms. Humanity and all other organisms are subject to the rule of the laws of nature. Just picked the name because it sounded cool.
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE
if order is ingrained within all living organisms, then anarchism is perfect.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
Comment removed
shlockofgod 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE "Anarchism is impossible to implement because order is ingrained within all living organisms."
You wouldn't "implement" anarchism. I think that's a contradiction.
"Humanity and all other organisms are subject to the rule of the laws of nature."
The laws you're referring to are descriptive of general biological behaviour. We have reasoning faculties other organisms don't have and so are not obliged to follow these laws.
shlockofgod 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE if order arises from bottom up, why would there be a need to have humans impose it on one another from top down?
egokick 1 month ago
@egokick I didn't say order arises from bottom up. I said that order is ingrained within the universe including organisms. Most humans desire to rule the world, to be at the top of the food chain.The Big Kahuna at the top of the pyramid. Most people don't want to feel subjugated to anything let alone governments.
ANARCHISTMOOSE 1 month ago
@ANARCHISTMOOSE i agree completely, though i would substitute the term "hierarchal behavior" in place of the term "order"
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Oh this will be fun. Anticipate a contrary response :)
DeusExAnonymus 1 month ago
Really not that interested in the personal disagreement between you two, but I found your explanation of the words interesting, and some of it made a lot of sense. Is Sarahon actually an anarchist at all though?
One big question... I'm not sure that I understand how you can say it's not taking away liberty to smash someone's store apart. I see your technical point, but isn't that like dropping someone into a tank of alligators and saying you didn't kill him, you just dropped him into water?
Zaunstar 1 month ago
@Zaunstar Sarahon is an anti-statist. Technically they are not anarchists for the reasons fakesagan stated in this video.
paradoarify 1 month ago
@paradoarify Fair enough. Curious to hear fakesagan's take on my question.
Zaunstar 1 month ago
@Zaunstar how is damaging someone's property the same as dropping them in a tank full of alligators?
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist In both cases, it seems like you would be setting up the conditions where someone would be likely to be pushed into a situation where they lose their livelihood and the types of options they had in life (or worst case scenario, life, home, etc.). If you define liberty as only the ability to live and not be imprisoned, then I suppose you technically are not taking their "liberty", but that seems to be a fairly flimsy distinction when you are forcing it.
Zaunstar 1 month ago
If you don't respect private property rights what would be your response to someone smashing a window of your house?
RaddNiner 1 month ago
@RaddNiner i live in my house. nobody lives in a starbucks
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist What about your car, you dont live in that. What about your taco stand on the corner that you earn your living with and leave there over night. Your property, or no? If not, what options does that leave you to respond to people who damage it?
RaddNiner 1 month ago
fair point, shame it took 24mins to explain.
Yozeeeee 1 month ago
Mindless American dribble & babble , go out and get your'e self laid, kind regard's the city of London.
firefox666moll 1 month ago
Interesting video. I don't really know what to call myself anymore, but I've been looking into anarchism more lately. Just out of curiosity, are you against capitalism, or the marketplace as a whole?
RickyMcGinnis 1 month ago
@RickyMcGinnis i am against capitalism and the marketplace as a whole
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
@TheSmoothTerrorist Cool. Thanks for the reply.
RickyMcGinnis 1 month ago
As an authoritarian-communist-liberal statist thanks for calling out fringeelements. His vision of anarchism is a corporatist society filled with ethnic cleansings. I think I heard of that somewhere else before.
TheScrewOnHead 1 month ago
@TheScrewOnHead perhaps that's why he doesn't call himself an "anarchist" anymore
however, his new title "anti-statist" is also misapplied, in my view. it's obvious that he has designs for a racially homogenous state. whether or not those designs include centralized leadership is irrelevant
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
Nice. I'll try to reply after I get over being sick. A lot to cover.
Sarahon06 1 month ago
@Sarahon06 no rush. i'll look forward to your response
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
All no true Scotsmen fallacies are goalpost moving, but not all goalpost moves are no true Scotsmen fallacies.
Black Boc (the ones vandalizing) are definitely anarchists and have been around for a long time. Any anarchist can form a Black Boc--there is no organization.
ExistentialExistent 1 month ago
@ExistentialExistent i appreciate that clarification on the no true scotsman fallacy
TheSmoothTerrorist 1 month ago
To experience true anarchy you need to live in some parts of Africa man
unless you have done that then it is all Fantasy
000whiterabbit 1 month ago
@000whiterabbit did you fall on your head today?
ExistentialExistent 1 month ago
@ExistentialExistent
hes using the old "go to somalia" argument. even though Somalias living conditions got worse when there was a government and when the government was abolished living conditions improved again... and now that several quasi government factions have risen up again... yep you named it
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist yeah, they have Muslim extremists and warlords running the show.
ExistentialExistent 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist one could say the same about true democracy and say Europe rather than Africa. You can do that with anything, so what he said is semantically empty.
ExistentialExistent 1 month ago
What Sarahon (?) is describing sounds more like the Libertarian philosophy, not Anarchy.
FuIIOfFaiI 1 month ago