apple-pie-and-police-state asked: Hey, I really like your view on Anarchism. Although I am an advocate of free markets, I really like looking at anarchism from all standpoints and not condemning myself with a single subjective ideology all the time. This is a wonderful way to look at Anarchism and I truly wish Anarchists could come together instead of dividing themselves up into ideological boxes.
Hi there. I appreciate your kind words. As an Anarchist, one tends to get more negative & cynicism than open mindedness.
Anarchism is truly organic, and has many facets. Knowing more about it gives one more options in a free society. For me, the downfall of Anarchists is the damned hypen. Even as a Christian, and someone who is environmentally minded, I don’t label myself as Anarcho-Christian or Green-Anarchist. Those things, for me, are just part of Anarchism as a whole.
I think some people are right fighters. They would rather be right than be whole. In that, they have their reward.
All of my Anarchism posts are tagged as such, as well as my Christian posts. Check the sidebar for links to both of those tags.
Someone recently posted a picture on Facebook that had an amurrika flag. The overlay text said, “IF YOU DON’T LIKE AMERICA, THEN GET OUT! SHARE IF YOU AGREE!” I see it at least once a week from any particular amurrikan on Facebook or otherwise.
Let’s talk about that. First off, America is a continent, not a country. Canada is America. The United States is America. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Columbia, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname, etc - all America. But let’s assume those speaking out are speaking about the United States.
Next - I would venture to bet that the Indians told the white man to get out if they didn’t like the way things were run, yet look how that turned out. A whole race of people were pillaged, raped, robbed, and murdered for their knowledge, tools, and industry, all while being labeled as the “savage” ones. Ironic, to say the least.
Actually the Indians were a very peaceful people, for the most part. They had no real forms of government (although they did have governing bodies, it wasn’t quite the same as you’d know today), they embraced community, they had no prisons or jails filled with people who had committed some minor infraction against another. (Some tribes & sects differed.) They helped travelers that passed through, they fed the ones without food, and sheltered those in the elements. They only became “savage” when others started to take their land, their homes, and their history, and shit on it oh-so-grandly. They’re still scoffed at and laughed at today as less-than.
“Status quo” is Latin, which literally means “state in which”, but in a broader sense means “the existing state or condition”. People that have changed the world chose not to accept the status quo, or their condition. Their convictions, their interests, and their beliefs prompted them to do something to change existing state of being. Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech was longer, and certain encompassed his convictions for freedom, and his stance of God over state, and anti-war. Those seven words have not only changed history, but unfortunately have been taken out of context and used for patriotic men wishing to kill others. Mr. Henry is surely rolling in his grave.
It’s cowardly and immoral to tell anyone to “get out” if they don’t like it. The land is everyone’s. The country belongs to anyone and everyone that chooses to move here and live here and etch out a life for themselves, whether they live in the swamps of Mississippi, or in a high rise in Chicago; whether up in the purple mountains, or where the wind comes sweeping down the plains. Telling someone to “like it or get out” is to say “forget everything you are, and fit in regardless of consequence”. That is deadly speech, and profits only those who blindly salute violence, ignorantly endorse force, and unapologetic cheers on murder in the name of freedom. The status quo, under any government at any time, is wholly and completely unacceptable. God save the cowards who promote conformity.
In closing, if someone disliked it that much, maybe they would move. Others, however, choose to stay, and choose to do something - anything - to change the world around them. Without change, blacks would still be slaves, women would still be unable to own property or a home - of course without government humanity might not have faced any of those struggles to being with.
Maybe one day, humanity can understand all that, and save itself from certain death. Maybe, just maybe, if you don’t like change, you should be the one leaving, as change is inevitable to happen like the wind blowing.
Can I call ya Tom? “Mr. Tucker” seems much too respectful, and reminds me of a self-indulgent & egotistical character on Family Guy. (Wow, that joke writes itself, doesn’t it?)
Tom, I have recently seen & heard your comments to Hal Tanner, when Mr. Tanner asked for a recorded vote on a bill that would shift notification to the public of local government actions to the internet, and away from printed media like newspapers.
Your comment was, “I am the senator, you are the citizen. You need to be quiet.”
I’ll try to be gentle, as your ego is apparently fragile as a 17 year old’s hymen. But let me start with this: You Sir, are a horse’s ass. You, and those like you, are the reason people like me are anarchists. And we are many in number, and unified in our goals. You are the reason people blindly put their feet in the pool of patriotism, splashing up the waves of obedience and immorality.
See Tom, anarchists don’t believe in you, your job, your self-empowered at the expense of citizens, or the sole purpose of government, which is to propagate itself and secure its own livelihood and existence . The people govern themselves freely, without violence, without aggression, and without someone taxing (ie stealing) them in the process. The very problem people have with politicians is that they don’t feel represented (because honestly, how can one person represent 20,000, 50,000, or even 500,000 people?), and they don’t feel heard. Moreover, when arrogance enters the picture, like yours, it stinks worse than dead bodies in the streets of Afghanistan after a drone strike.
It’s easy to tell that you’re one of the good ol’ boys. You think you have the inside track to most things, that there’s a bigger picture, and that the common citizen is clueless to that. Well thank baby Jesus you’re in office to set everyone straight. Thugs like you thrive on that sort of ignorance. You eat it up, and use it for your own benefit, constantly jockeying for position and power.
I’d suggest leaving your keys w/ your secretary (who you may or may not be poking on the side, because - you have no morals anyway), and find a line of work in the third act of your life that is moral and note worthy. Because one day, anarchists will render government, and its workers who are paid with the wages of others, utterly useless & irrelevant. The fact is that you already are all those things, but it just hasn’t sunk into your thick skull yet.
Good day. And get a real job."
I’m actually writing this asshole a letter. Because I’m in that sorta mood. In fact, I’ve been writing it for the past 15 minutes. It won’t be long, but it will be concise. Whether the turd wrangler reads it or not is another story. Eh.
— Charlie Chaplin
“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good.
Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people … The most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity …
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.”"
— J.R.R. Tolkien, letter to his son, 1943 (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien).
In the summer of 1943, Christopher, then aged eighteen, was called up into the Royal Air Force. When this letter was written, he was at a training camp in Manchester. (via thinksquad)
— Albert Camus (via thinksquad)