You also show some pictures which suppose to represent "anarchy". Anarchy never existed so those pictures are obviously not in anarchism. You also say about terrorism etc which is exactly what goverment want their people to believe. Seriously, are you part of goverment or something?
You see, its funny how from all the things that ancient greek said you choose the one quote which requires laws . But even if you take it that way, without law, there can be no freedom, there are laws, and they are called natural laws. Anyways your argument for anarchy is not an argument sorry.
I love this. Anarchy is the cause of Barbarians and War when greed and ignorancy still lives. Sparta was like Anarchy, but war mongers turned it into a Monarchy.
To whom ever that watches this Blog/Video, this is only intended for the Truest of Open Minded Individuals. Never to be taken seriously without further knowledge (understandings) of this Vast Government Structural Systems per State that comprises up of the United States of America. This also includes many Nations (Worldwide) for their own Government Structural Systems.
Our Laws has been misconstrued for decades even by our supposedly White Intelligence that our Four Fathers have left for us.
apokradical: The term anarchy (in the political sense) means 'no rulers.'
So, as long as those samurais are just defensively protecting the property then they can't be said to be ruling over anyone. So, yes that would be consistent with the definition of anarchy.
I was more referring to the collective process of legislation required to appropriate funds for samurais. A community would naturally want protection, so the samurais would eventually become a police force. Next thing you know the community gives money to pay for postmen and road repair... and so it begins.
Its voluntary to live in the community, but compulsory to pay dues if you want the protection the community provides. The ruler being the communitys legal and tax system. Everybody would have to contribute, and some form of representative government will arise to appropriate funds.
apokradical: well the scenario you mention right there isn't even anarchy! You state flat-out that there this is a "ruler": "the community's legal and tax system."
Yes, my argument that since humans are social beings and we'll eventually end up in communities, we will inevitably create a tax or contribution system to pay for the collective needs, and this would be the end of anarchy in that society.
I'm not opposed to anarchism, I just think we know better than to live without laws protecting our negative rights.
anrchy does not solve a thing. There may indeed be a few pockets of towns and different cultures of villiages but with no government protection those people are that the mercy of barbarious raiders. They are that the mercy of would be dictators with charisma and lots of dumb followers seeking more land. Yes we would all return to government. With the same blind voilent eggheads that are in charge today. We need WISDOM in leadership. to secure freedom for masses.
You also show some pictures which suppose to represent "anarchy". Anarchy never existed so those pictures are obviously not in anarchism. You also say about terrorism etc which is exactly what goverment want their people to believe. Seriously, are you part of goverment or something?
hellerase 5 months ago
You see, its funny how from all the things that ancient greek said you choose the one quote which requires laws . But even if you take it that way, without law, there can be no freedom, there are laws, and they are called natural laws. Anyways your argument for anarchy is not an argument sorry.
hellerase 5 months ago
Rockefeller > Rothschilds
kebabrullemums 11 months ago
I love this. Anarchy is the cause of Barbarians and War when greed and ignorancy still lives. Sparta was like Anarchy, but war mongers turned it into a Monarchy.
makemap 1 year ago
@makemap man what are you talking about? Sparta was like anarchy ? Are you kidding me? Do you even know what is anarchy?
hellerase 5 months ago
@hellerase That is when Leaders became Kings. You see when Leaders allow their sons to become the next leader it becomes Imperialism all over again.
makemap 5 months ago
@makemap Anarchy = no leader/ No Kings....
hellerase 5 months ago
democrasi lives threw fear of god.. law is good n can b corupt but so can god unless you put it together
yoboyjean 1 year ago
A great video. It clearly explains the basics of essential political ideologies to people who don't understand politics so well. 5/5
Eeronomi 2 years ago
Oh dear. More propaganda against anarchy. Images of burning cars, danger, etc. All the cliches, not one example of an actual anarchic community.
ouijaboy666 2 years ago
To whom ever that watches this Blog/Video, this is only intended for the Truest of Open Minded Individuals. Never to be taken seriously without further knowledge (understandings) of this Vast Government Structural Systems per State that comprises up of the United States of America. This also includes many Nations (Worldwide) for their own Government Structural Systems.
Our Laws has been misconstrued for decades even by our supposedly White Intelligence that our Four Fathers have left for us.
150Spoke9 2 years ago
wens the last time china attacked a foreign country now thats the kinda law u want a nice friendly 1 viva la china
jelleeee1 2 years ago
@jelleeee1
China, under Mao, attacked Tibet and stole it.
b1gr1g 11 months ago
Power to The A.R.M.!! (American Resistance Movement).
FeralFury6801 2 years ago
God Bless this Christian Republic of the United States of America
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness "Property Rights"
Freedom, Truth, Justice
The Sons of Liberty (1776-2008)
TheSonsOfLiberty1776 3 years ago
Funny how republicans claim to want less gov't but turn face and talk shit on libertarians in the group of anarchists...
Republicans and democrats are flip sides of the same coin.
Time to toss that coin out.
fuckRednecks1969 3 years ago
This is a great video except it repeats that common strawman of anarchy--it claims that there would be no laws.
However, in a free-market society there would be law. It would be competitively provided on the market.
atrickpay11 3 years ago
Who would protect our negative rights without government?
apokradical 3 years ago 2
apokradical: you could protect them yourself. Or you could hire a company to do it.
atrickpay11 3 years ago
So lets say a group of dwellers establish rights to private property and collectively hire a band of samurais to protect them, is that still anarchy?
I don't have a problem with Anarchism, I just see it as an interim phase.
apokradical 3 years ago
apokradical: The term anarchy (in the political sense) means 'no rulers.'
So, as long as those samurais are just defensively protecting the property then they can't be said to be ruling over anyone. So, yes that would be consistent with the definition of anarchy.
atrickpay11 3 years ago
I was more referring to the collective process of legislation required to appropriate funds for samurais. A community would naturally want protection, so the samurais would eventually become a police force. Next thing you know the community gives money to pay for postmen and road repair... and so it begins.
apokradical 3 years ago
apokradical: ya, that's fine if the individuals in a community voluntarily give money to pay for defense, postmen, or road repairs.
There's nobody ruling over another in that scenario.
Q. Why do you view that as an interim phase?
atrickpay11 3 years ago
Its voluntary to live in the community, but compulsory to pay dues if you want the protection the community provides. The ruler being the communitys legal and tax system. Everybody would have to contribute, and some form of representative government will arise to appropriate funds.
Pure anarchism won't last long...
apokradical 3 years ago
apokradical: well the scenario you mention right there isn't even anarchy! You state flat-out that there this is a "ruler": "the community's legal and tax system."
atrickpay11 3 years ago
Yes, my argument that since humans are social beings and we'll eventually end up in communities, we will inevitably create a tax or contribution system to pay for the collective needs, and this would be the end of anarchy in that society.
I'm not opposed to anarchism, I just think we know better than to live without laws protecting our negative rights.
apokradical 3 years ago
apokradical: Collective needs? I think that is a myth. I believe that only individuals can have needs.
And I believe that all individuals needs can be supplied through voluntarism. Freedom works.
atrickpay11 3 years ago
anrchy does not solve a thing. There may indeed be a few pockets of towns and different cultures of villiages but with no government protection those people are that the mercy of barbarious raiders. They are that the mercy of would be dictators with charisma and lots of dumb followers seeking more land. Yes we would all return to government. With the same blind voilent eggheads that are in charge today. We need WISDOM in leadership. to secure freedom for masses.
insanezenmistress 2 years ago
outstanding
EuropeanPride1 3 years ago