Anarchist

Im not saying Anarchy is possible. Im not saying that its like totally impossible. I made this video becuase its MY belife. its MY opinion and the way I think would be best for humans... So.. Stop saying that Im wrong. I dont care if the internet isnt right. ITS WHAT I READ AND CHOSE. its kind of like religion. whichever persons religion and god they worship is the REAL and RIGHT god to them... this is what I have formed from multiple sources.. so.. yeah.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• anarchy

[DjZephy]

0:48 You pronounced autonomous wrongly. But I agree with everything you said. People that associate anarchism with chaos are stupid or brainwashed. People who think anarchy would lead to mass free-for-all murder and looting need to evaluate their own morality. Whoever is reading this, do you have the desire to murder and steal? Neither do 99.99% of people. Why do people blindly accept being ruled and having their money stolen by a threatening, militant, all powerful gang called the government?

[DjZephy]

@nightmare2772 I completely disagree with your theory. If you use violence and force to topple a powerful gang that uses violence and force, then you are a hypocrite. And if you were somehow able to destroy the government's army, that would mean you would have amassed an army of your own. You wouldn't be removing power, you would be transferring it.

[SiouxSyndicate]

Its possible..but its hard tough..love your message.

[hanshallo1]

@craigpsimpson

If I don't consent this, the sovereign has no legitimate power over me! The only power the sovereign has is the power the society gives to it regardless if it is a representational democracy or a dictatorship. And if I choose not giving it the legitimation it has no legitimation to rule/jugde ME! So if this society is a free decision of it's members then you don't need power because all consented the law. Otherwise the legitimation is nothing but brutal force!

[craigpsimpson]

@hanshallo1 The sovereign is legitmate in enforcing the law because the law is consented to by the members of the relevant society. Political power is legitmate by consent, otherwise there is no power.

If you individually do not consent, this does not make the power of the sovereign illigitimate. 

[craigpsimpson]

@hanshallo1 Again, its an analogy, don't read too much into it.

Rules/laws are not unalterable, this is the central principle of the legislative body in a democratic government.

'But anyway the game we're in is no longer state, its capitalism' - This point is an irrelevance. Regardless, capitalism and statehood are far from mutually exclusive.

[hanshallo1]

@craigpsimpson

Yes but if you compare the state to a game, their is a need to believe in the basic-rules and the game means seeing them as unalteralbe. And that's something called civil religion. But anyway the game we're in is no longer state, its capitalism. And the rules of this game seem to be higher rated because because states are players themselve. Btw Rousseaus image of humanity is more interessting then Hobbes although he ends up in brainwashing a dictator.

[hanshallo1]

@craigpsimpson

If the laws, comming from a social contract, conflicts with my points of view why should I sign this contract? And if I don't like the game why can't I play somthing else? And If I'm not part of the game why can executers enforce me to respect the rules? If the contract is based on commen sense there is no reason to break it. And if there is a reason I can either leave contract or try to change it. Where is the legitimization of this forced collective?

[craigpsimpson]

@hanshallo1 .......continued:

A game of cricket is analogous to the functioning of a state in as much as the execution of rules/laws is a requisite. A cheat would prosper in such a game, were it not for the executors of the rules: the umpire. It's a very simple analogy.

Religion is entirely irrelevant, I'm taking about law.

[craigpsimpson]

@hanshallo1 Executing laws does not legitimise them, but the executive remains necessary to ensure the observance of legitimate laws.

I am not defining legislation in terms of its relation to the executive, I am explaining that legislation is empty without guaranteed enforcement.

You're right, dictatorship is permissable in the social contract - this does not make it necessary.

I am fully aware that 'homo homini lupus' is incompatible with anarchism, this is my point.

Continued...

[hanshallo1]

@craigpsimpson

I just wanted to say a law with violence and force as legitimization has no legitimization. So defining a law by executors is defining a civiliation as a dictatorship. And as you confess not all of these philosoph disallow a dictatorship. Also 'Homo homini lupus' is incompatible to anarchism or even democracy. I know that it should be an analogy but for what? Do you think their is a game or a masterplan we fail to fit in? Your kind of religion?

[craigpsimpson]

@hanshallo1 Laws are pointless/empty without executors, because in such a situation they are stripped of their juridical efficacy.

The sovereign I refer to is a term from Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant - it doesn't have to be a dictatorial force.

Cricket was used analogously, and I completely fail to see where religion fits in.