anarchists suck!!!
XnickX
WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!
john p. copeland
: what the hell is wrong with all you anarchists.
: WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!
from what? the nightmare that all str8 edge hindu beleivin, government
official aspirin, police man wannabee, republican voting (yuck politics),
Sports playin, college aspirin, wouldnt know what real punk was if it bit
me in the ass, "individuals". gladly i will wake up from those nightmares.
and i'll keep my dreams, at least they are something to work for!
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
John Copeland - Jesus died for his OWN sins......NOT MINE!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Kevin Christian Calkins
saying that anarchists suck?!?
"I want anarchy and peace."-CRASS
"Cuz I believe in anarchy!"-THE EXPLOITED"
"I am an anarchist"-THE SEX PISTOLS
just to name a few. Man go back and join the Young Republicans or
something if you want to be a fascist. Punk and anarchism go hand in hand.
Sacto
Patrick Richmond
: your stupid fuckin anarchist bands. why don't you read the lyrics to these
: songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote anarchy,
: and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
: government.
Obviously you need to do a bit more homework. And if you think
that all these "punk" bands do is spout about anarchy in a
non-constructive manner, maybe YOU should read the lyrics. I would
suggest the album Chirst, the Album by Crass. If you still think that
none of these "punk" bands ever offer alternative means better than our
current government, then you're nuts.
tse_di
immediatley set about to try and over organize things. A little ironic.
I remember around 1982 or 83 a bunch of (women and some men) in the
scene began to band together in a movement that ended up being proudly
called (by all sorts of people including those involved)
...Anarcho-Vegetarian Lesbian Witches. I always thought there should be a
band called this but there never was. It managed to pull together all the
"serious" (and often boring/preachy) elements in Punk into one nice tight
package.
Just here to waste your time
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, xni...@aol.com (XnickX) says:
>what the hell is wrong with all you anarchists.
>WAKE UP ALREADY!!!!
wake up to what?
Michael Stutz
XnickX (xni...@aol.com) wrote:
>: your stupid fuckin anarchist bands. why don't you read the lyrics to these
>: songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote anarchy,
>: and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
>: government.
Duh. What do you think the "anarchy" is? That's the alternative they're
talking about. No government.
Wednesday Jones
>
why don't you read the lyrics to these
>songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote
anarchy,
>and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
>government. i don't consider myself a punk because of assholes like you
>
thanks for enlightening me you fucking bonehead. all this time i was
under the mistaken impression that anarchy itself was an alternative
means to a government. perhaps you should call webster's and have them
redefine the word.
fuck, i'm not even an anarchist and i think you're full of shit.
---jones
XnickX
sucks so much, yet all you offer are unrealistic alternatives to an
already fine establishment. what do you think you will actually achieve?
you are nothing but a bunch of radical left-wing pseudo-reformists.
improving the government is the solution getting rid of it isn't. would
you all please tell me what is so wrong with this government. put away
your stupid dusty punk records and actually do something with your life
instead of bitching about this country 24/7/52
Greg Cohee
: your stupid fuckin anarchist bands. why don't you read the lyrics to these
: songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote anarchy,
: and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
: government. i don't consider myself a punk because of assholes like you
all you are doing is putting down anarchy, and you offer no alternative
means which would be better than anarchy.
substitute "they" with "you" and "anarchy" with "government" and you,
XnickX, become jsut like the all-mighty THEY. i asked before, what is
_your_ alternative and why is it so much better than anarchy or the
existing Government?
still wondering...
Angela Martin
: you anarchists are a bunch of spoiled fucks. you think that this country
but before they go ahead and argue their point, why don't you enlighten
us, xnickx and tell all of us just how we could go about improving our
government.
just because you don't agree with the anarchist way of thinking doesn't mean
that that is the wrong way. please tell us what we can do since you seem to
be the all-knowing in cures for our government. what do you have to offer
that anarchists don't have?
but wait, you appear not to think that anything is wrong with our government.
you want to know "just what is so wrong".
please tell us what you find good in our government and why certain areas
don't need reform or elimination.
please don't make such strong statements unless you're gonna back it up
or give your side and reasons why we should see it your way.
the moderator,
angela :>
Jorcas
: you all please tell me what is so wrong with this government. put away
: your stupid dusty punk records and actually do something with your life
: instead of bitching about this country 24/7/52
You mean other than butchering and starving people
all over the world?
Red Spic
"The Solution? ...Revolution!"
Michael N. Rusignuolo
: first of all.
: Jesus couldn't have died for his own sins, because he had no sins. this
: is the exact point that i'm trying to make. you so easily bring up
: issues and make statements that you are completely ignorant about. second
: of all, i really don't think that facism has to do with me hating the idea
: of anarchy. when i think of facism i think of people such as mussolini
: who exercised complete control over their country and its people. if you
: think that believing in a government is facism than go ahead and listen to
: your stupid fuckin anarchist bands. why don't you read the lyrics to these
: songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote anarchy,
: and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
: government. i don't consider myself a punk because of assholes like you
Once again, you are completely ignorant of the scope of the
anarchist movement, or anarchist thought, or anarchist politics. I
agree with you that if all the 'anarchy' people believe in is awkward A's
drawn in a circle or song lyrics, they are just as bad as you.
As to that mindset, that idea of anarchy is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the current system, and, in that, is a valid
poltical statement. It is the thought that the lack of anything has got
to be better than the current system. While it is a simplistic approach
to things, it is still a valid expression of grevances.
Your assumptions about government are amusing. Ever since the
post-Civil War era, the United States has become a country that the
Founding Fathers never wanted. If you honestly don't think that the
government has absolute control of your life, think again. It does not,
as the writers of the Constitution had hoped, just protect you from
infringing on the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others.
If you think that this is not true, explain why it is the government's
responsiblity to tell you how fast to drive, what kinds of sex you are
allowed to have, what things you can ingest, what is 'profane' for mass
media, what you can do to your own property, etc etc etc.
And if you are not punk, or don't like the 'anarchist' strains in
much of punk music, why are you posting here? Just curious.
And just so my years and years of failed Catholic schooling don't
go to waste: Christ was half-man, and had original sin so that his death
could restore the covenant with god.
Hugs and kisses,
Damone
dam...@ios.com OR rus...@iia.org
Foe Lee
who used to say that he wanted to be king of the anarchists.
Does that strike anyone else as silly?
So, do you folks support true anarchy, or some sort of semblance of
it?
Because to acheive true anarchy on Earth, some brilliant mind, or
alien being or soemthing would have to bathe the Earth in some sort
of weapon that totally disrupted the nervous system of every living
thing on the planet. Now if this is a permanent thing, then everybody
dies, and you gt to argue with God or whatever about anarchy, which
would probably suck. If it is only temporary, then after, say, fifteen
seconds or so, ordered thought returns, and true anarchy no longer
exists.
Of course, in those fifteen seconds, enough would go wrong that many
of the governments of the world would fall, so for a period of, say
fifteen minutes, you have a decent semblance of anarchy.
But then, some asshole goes and ruins your anarchists dream by pointing
out that food is a necessary thing, so you form into a mob, or two,
and proceed to loot the ruins, AS A GROUP. So you've got anarchy, but
not as serious as a few minutes ago.
So give that a few days, and then we've got the big group with all the
food and guns, and the little group with shit. The big group either
kills or absorbs the little group, and this new group forms some sort
of government, in order to survive through cooperation.
Of course, you, being an anarchist, ahve gone off into the woods to be
alone, but in order to remain totally anarchist, you refuse to plant
any vegatables, and live off the land. You eat a berry you find on
a tree after watching a deer eat it, and you poison yourself and die.
MEanwhile, the others have slowly began to rebuild civilaztion, such
as it was.
So, to sum up, total anarchy would result in:
A) everbody dead.
or
B) Lotsa people dead. Other people involved in forming new governments
as well as a lot of anarchists dead in the woods under berry trees.
Cool. I LIKE this Anarchy thing.
Later,
Foe.
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, jl...@black.clarku.edu (Foe Lee) says:
>So, do you folks support true anarchy, or some sort of semblance of
>it?
>Because to acheive true anarchy on Earth, some brilliant mind, or
>alien being or soemthing would have to bathe the Earth in some sort
>of weapon that totally disrupted the nervous system of every living
>thing on the planet. Now if this is a permanent thing, then everybody
>as it was.
[...]
>So, to sum up, total anarchy would result in:
>A) everbody dead.
>or
>B) Lotsa people dead. Other people involved in forming new governments
>as well as a lot of anarchists dead in the woods under berry trees.
askl;dfj;as kldf jsadfl;ksjhto;3i4ty al;erk
j;alskjghfd;jkfgh;adjklgy89p4utlkadjfgl;as kdj;asdkljf l;agj;algfh;algkh
al;ghaekl;rjth erl;kjhasdl;kgfj asl;dfkj as;ldfkja;slkdjfgal;skdfj
a;slkdtjaihyawrio;thyl;aktjas;kgfhasl;dgha;eklwrtjgheario;taelkgfhjas dkfhj
asl;dkfghas;dkljgh ao;eruithy
a;kjlrht;aljkgha;skljdhfga;skljhfg
a;'fh'FH'hf;AKFHA;SLKJGHA;SJKLGH;AKLSDGHJ;lakjsf;ljt;h3;lkahjf;lskthyg;okwth;3ioht
3;hj;3klah e;aklgh;akldfgh lksgkl;jehr gtk;j3h4to;i3ht893hl;kajhfg
;aslkfh;askljhdfg ;asjkldfh ;asdklfh ;jklash ;klasjh ;lk ;lk h;lah ;lkajhdf
;ajklwe h;rjklwehfg;awerjkht45uil3gh34j;khtkl;j423h
klt;eagh;eajgh;klejahg;kjdfgh asdm,;hasjk;dfh k;asj ;kjah k;jasdhf ;askjdfh
;jklasdhf ;jklasdfh;k jasdhf;kjashdf ;kjalwsfgh;askljdhg ;jklasdgh;sjklas
Is *that* anarchy?
Duh.
When I was 13 thats why I thought punks sucked, too -- "why would they want
_an_archy?" or "gee when anarchy comes they'll be the first to go, 'cause
everybody HATES them!"
Anarchy is not the loss of structure. Everything has structure. Chaos has
structure. There is an Integrity to Universe. Anarchy is a form of
government, "no-government." It is not wild abandon, it is not "random"
reckless loss of control -- jeez, who'd want that? I could think of
nothing more stupid! Anarchy is society operating at maximum efficiency.
Usenet is anarchy. The Internet is anarchy. There are no "rulers" of
Usenet; no corporations "own" it nor do any governments "control"it
(although many would like to). Usenet is completely democratic; the
"order" of Usenet is that of high intellectual anarchy.
XnickX
brought into the world through the Immaculate Conception have original
sin?(Yes, Mary was born without original sin, too.) Jesus was 100% sin
free. Just because he was part man that doesn't mean that he was
necessarily born with original sin. WHY DON'T YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE
YOU MAKE CLAIMS THAT HAVE NO VERACITY!
XnickX
anarchy:
1. once you have no government, that means that you have no laws. now do
you really think that we as humans are so civilized, that we could live in
absolute peace with each other.
2. once there is no such thing as money anymore, why would people
actually want to produce anything for the community anymore? would any of
you actually produce anything for each other, or would you just be a bunch
of subsistent farmers. sorry but i really can't believe that you would.
3. how would you get everything done. where would you go if your pipes
burst. forget about calling the plumber or going to home depot. there
will be no such things.
4. what about education? do you think that teachers and professors will
just teach every one who comes to them out of the kindness of their heart.
better yet, who will teach the teachers themselves.
5. are all of you ready to actually revert back to pre-technological
days.
what will happen to your music. who will make your instruments. what
will you all make them yourselves.
put your stupid ideas back in the closet.
the sex pistols sang about anarchy, and then milked you all out of money
by releasing 20,000 different versions of anarchy in the U.K
and then megadeth and motley crue did covers of it. YEAH NOW THAT IS
ANARCHY
john p. copeland
: you anarchists are a bunch of spoiled fucks. you think that this country
shut up already!
Angel
In article <3grk9q$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, xni...@aol.com (XnickX)
wrote:
> 1. once you have no government, that means that you have no laws. now do
> you really think that we as humans are so civilized, that we could live in
> absolute peace with each other.
first principle: respect.
i do not steal from you because i respect you and i also know what its like
to be stolen from and i dont' like it. of course, there are many other
things that apply to this situation, like how poeple will have more control
than corporations do, and you'll realize that when you steal something,
you're affecting a person and not some big huge monster.
> 2. once there is no such thing as money anymore, why would people
> actually want to produce anything for the community anymore? would any of
> you actually produce anything for each other, or would you just be a bunch
> of subsistent farmers. sorry but i really can't believe that you would.
poeple would do t his out of necessity anyway. there is no saying there
wn't be money, who knows. one of those thing " You have potatoes? well i
can fix your pipes for some of them" if there were no money.
> 3. how would you get everything done. where would you go if your pipes
> burst. forget about calling the plumber or going to home depot. there
> will be no such things.
believe it or not, there are some things that people like doing. this goes
along with the teaching (as well as the last post):
> 4. what about education? do you think that teachers and professors will
> just teach every one who comes to them out of the kindness of their heart.
> better yet, who will teach the teachers themselves.
check out an idea called FREE SCHOOLS. one exists in chicago right now on a
small scale. there are many book written on the subject. it involves people
teaching because they want to pass on knowledge and help people.
volunterring their time, etc.
> 5. are all of you ready to actually revert back to pre-technological
> days.
> what will happen to your music. who will make your instruments. what
> will you all make them yourselves.
as a classical musician, i know that there are poeplw whose lvoe of music
is shown through making isntrumants. there are people, like the person who
made my instrument, who do it not because they are paye dto do it, but
because they want to do it.
> put your stupid ideas back in the closet.
> the sex pistols sang about anarchy, and then milked you all out of money
> by releasing 20,000 different versions of anarchy in the U.K
> and then megadeth and motley crue did covers of it. YEAH NOW THAT IS
> ANARCHY
anarchy, if you read my last post, which i doubt, was around many many
generations before the sex pistols. if all you know about anarchy is from
punk music, you haven't even scratched the surface.
Wednesday Jones
>> 4. what about education? do you think that teachers and professors
will
>> just teach every one who comes to them out of the kindness of their
heart.
>> better yet, who will teach the teachers themselves.
i think some people would teach out of the kindness of their hearts or
at least for some desire other than a paycheck. last quarter i took a
job teaching english to inmates in a state correctional facility in
london, ohio (it's about 35 miles from columbus where i currently live).
i passed up a job offer from an automotive company (they needed someone
to do editing on a proposal for some "top secret" project they were
working on) that paid more and was permanent. the teaching assignment
was for only one quarter. i took the teaching because it's what i
really wanted to do and several of the people i told about it were quite
envious and said they would have made the same choice. the experience
was incredible and even though i am now unemployed again, i don't
regret the decision in the least.
i'm just answering your question, not trying to tell you how cool i am.
---jones
Angel
(Wednesday Jones) wrote:
> i'm just answering your question, not trying to tell you how cool i am.
>
> ---jones
you don't need to tell ME how cool you are!
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, xni...@aol.com (XnickX) says:
>do you really feel that anrchy would actually work. here is my gripe with
>anarchy:
>1. once you have no government, that means that you have no laws. now do
>you really think that we as humans are so civilized, that we could live in
>absolute peace with each other.
Yes. Why? Because there *are* no laws. Sure I run a red light I get a
ticket its the law but its not the law of Universe. Yes other life forms
have a social "order" like bee colonies etc. and our human "laws" were good
_in their time_ -- but that's the key phrase. We are leaving the old era,
the era of the king who had to rule the people. That old era wasn't bad,
for THEN -- people *had* to get their information in a top-down
heirarchical way. Today, thanks to things like this right here [a virtual,
loving tap on the Usenet tree], we are approaching an age where *all*
humans will have access to *all* information resources. It is certainly
possible.
>2. once there is no such thing as money anymore, why would people
>actually want to produce anything for the community anymore? would any of
>you actually produce anything for each other, or would you just be a bunch
>of subsistent farmers. sorry but i really can't believe that you would.
WHEEEE! This one's easy.
Let me tell you something.
First, I'll ask a question.
Think of the greatest scientific discovery you know. Einstien's
Relativity, Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics, Euler's Geometry, whatever.
Now think of the greatest artistic discovery you know. Kerouac's _Vanity
of Duluoz_, Shakespeare's _Macbeth_, Bach's _Taccata in Fugue_, whatever.
Now. Do you think any of 'em did it for the money?
For the most part, the artists and scientists who've made the greatest
discoveries either never got paid or did so after much ridicule, etc. until
they were finally accepted. Many "greats" were laughed or ignored the
whole while they were alive (example -- Blake). Only mediocre minds do it
"for the money." Top CEOs will tell you that (and why these same CEOs put
all their faith in the narcotic tobacco haze of Capitalism I dunno).
>3. how would you get everything done. where would you go if your pipes
>burst. forget about calling the plumber or going to home depot. there
>will be no such things.
Bullcrap.
The other day I was having trouble with my C compiler on my AIX box; it was
giving me an obscure libc error. What'd I do? Find my mind into
comp.os.aix and yell help. No less then four sysadmin/guru/hackers helped
me out, on their own time. None of them knew me, none were getting paid.
Not only *will* their be such things but they will be ordered like humanity
has never seen before -- we won't have to worry about broad categories like
"plumber" even, but since every human is the world's (no -- Universe's)
expert at being themselves, problems will be able to be tackled in the
most-humanly-known efficient manner.
>4. what about education? do you think that teachers and professors will
>just teach every one who comes to them out of the kindness of their heart.
> better yet, who will teach the teachers themselves.
The best teachers are students; the best students, teachers. Education as
we've known it -- the European-American "schoolhouse" tradition of
specialized knowledge canons -- is dead and gone. Yeah kids haveta go to
school every day and yeah you *can* learn things through school but the
"education system" is more than a joke. It's dead; I don't even consider
it anymore. Our new education is interactive; it is many-to-many; it is a
system of global real-time knowledge spread across millions of computers.
What do you want to learn today? Read the faq. Entering the age of
anarchy will be entering an age of education; humanity will be able to go
from "earning a living" to "learning a living"; from making "killingry" for
money-based warfare to making "livingry" for synergetic advancement of all.
>5. are all of you ready to actually revert back to pre-technological
>days.
Such days do not exist. You're forgetting that Universe is of the highest
technology; our digital computers pale in comparison. Who says we're going
back, anyway?
>put your stupid ideas back in the closet.
No ideas are stupid. "Stupid" is a lack of ideas. To try an idea is to
experiment. To fail or succeed is to learn is to live.
>the sex pistols sang about anarchy, and then milked you all out of money
>by releasing 20,000 different versions of anarchy in the U.K
Ha-ha, love Malcolm McLaren's goddamn fashion shop! "Une jeunesse que
l'avenir inquiete trop souvent"
Ted Hirsch
>The best teachers are students; the best students, teachers. Education as
>we've known it -- the European-American "schoolhouse" tradition of
specialized
>knowledge canons -- is dead and gone. Yeah kids haveta go to school every
day
>and yeah you *can* learn things through school but the "education system"
is
>more than a joke. It's dead; I don't even consider it anymore. Our new
>education is interactive; it is many-to-many; it is a system of global
>real-time knowledge spread across millions of computers. What do you want
to
>learn today? Read the faq. Entering the age of anarchy will be entering
an
>age of education; humanity will be able to go from "earning a living" to
>"learning a living"; from making "killingry" for money-based warfare to
making
>"livingry" for synergetic advancement of all.
the FAQ is possible for you 'cuz you went to school. Democracy is possible
'cuz of the people who go to school. Everything you have, was created by
someone who went to school. The schoolhouse arose 'cuz other things DID
NOT WORK. There is no interactive education.... the large majority of
Americans and Earth-citizens ARE not on the 'Net, and most don't have
computers. There are only a few million 'Netters out there, compared to
BILLIONS of people on the planet.
Being a full-time student, too, is not a way to live. Learning for a
living won't put food on the plate. I go to grad school while I teach,
because I WON'T be able to live without EARNING it. Money is not the basis
of warfare.. power is. If you paid attention in Social Studies you'd know
that. Power is the root of all evil... and all good. Don't be ridiculous!
--
Ted
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ "In every real man a child -
- is hidden that wants to play" +
+ Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) -
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ted Hirsch
>Once again, you are completely ignorant of the scope of the anarchist
movement,
>or anarchist thought, or anarchist politics.
politics???? Duh.. anarchy does not have thought or politics... that's
what makes it anarchy. And, what makes it an unrealistic goal.
I agree with XnickX. We don't have an ideal system, but it's the best in
the world, and we might as work within it to change it. As far as punk
goes, everything that allows it to exist, is within the real of government
and rules.
Do punks really think that anyone in an anarchical society would resist the
urge to shoot off a few rounds and funny looking or bad attitude punks
shouting and screaming about how things suck? In the real world, without
rules, no one would stop to question "is it right" before killing off
anyone with the wrong attitude.
And, lest you think that it's possible, humans are driven by custom, rules,
and tradition. Those things evolved out of our original animal behavior.
It is HUMAN to have rules and laws.
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, t...@pipeline.com (Ted Hirsch) says:
>In alt.punk dam...@ios.com (Michael N. Rusignuolo) said:
>
>
>>Once again, you are completely ignorant of the scope of the anarchist
>movement,
>>or anarchist thought, or anarchist politics.
>
>Your response to XnickX was interesting and hypocritical. Anarchist
>politics???? Duh.. anarchy does not have thought or politics... that's
>what makes it anarchy. And, what makes it an unrealistic goal.
By the existence of the hundreds of anarchist texts, texts of "anarchist
thinking" and texts of "anarchist politics," I would say that you are
wrong. Anarchy has both thought and politics.
aboy
> first of all.
> Jesus couldn't have died for his own sins, because he had no sins. this
> is the exact point that i'm trying to make. you so easily bring up
> issues and make statements that you are completely ignorant about. second
> of all, i really don't think that facism has to do with me hating the idea
> of anarchy. when i think of facism i think of people such as mussolini
> who exercised complete control over their country and its people.
maybe you want to note that FDR modeled his new deal after our little Mussolini.
this is documented, if you dont believe me!!
> if you
> think that believing in a government is facism than go ahead and listen to
> your stupid fuckin anarchist bands.
OK. as long as I have your permission.
> why don't you read the lyrics to these
> songs and try and find a message in them. all they do is promote anarchy,
> and they offer no alternative means which would be better than a
> government.
I take it youre one of those poly sci majors.....
Youre so.....uhhh...... "KNOLIDGEUBLE"
> i don't consider myself a punk because of assholes like you
thank god...
(your god - not mine)
ABOY
god with a lil' G
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, t...@pipeline.com (Ted Hirsch) says:
>As a teacher, I can tell you that you're not speaking the truth. Reading
>the FAQ is possible for you 'cuz you went to school.
No way. Reading the faq is possible for me because I got ahold of a
computer and learned it myself. One of my majors in college was Computer
Science and I dropped it. You know why? It certainly wasn't tough -- I
could've taught any of the csc classes the college had to offer. The
problem was that it was completely irrelevant to computing. There were
maybe four useful courses out of 30. I learned my computer basics by
sitting in front of a computer and figuring it out, by reading books from
the library, and when I got online, I learned from the communities I found
there.
>Everything you have, was created by someone who went to school.
Again, No way. Yes, it's the law in these here 'civilized' countries that
we gotta send our kids ta school -- so yes we all went to school, but your
statement in relevance to our discussion implies that everything I have was
created by someone who learned it in school. Is that what you mean? Or
that they might not have _learned_ it in school, but they got the _basics_
in school and from those basics learned it after school. Do you mean that?
Either way I say it's not true. Do you have any Microsoft products? Their
CEO Bill Gates was a dropout. Not that I support Microsoft, but still.
>The schoolhouse arose 'cuz other things DID
>NOT WORK.
I agree with you completely here. I am saying that its time has come. The
schoolhouse does not work anymore.
>There is no interactive education.... the large majority of
>Americans and Earth-citizens ARE not on the 'Net, and most don't have
>computers. There are only a few million 'Netters out there, compared to
>BILLIONS of people on the planet.
You have a good point -- most of the world is not on the net. Most don't
even know how to use computers. But for those that do, for those lucky
humans on the net, there is a fantastic interactive education going on
right now. It is totally cool -- if I want to learn about _anything_, I
can find a net.resource (or start my own) on that subject and talk with
other people who are really _doing things_ in that area.
>If you paid attention in Social Studies you'd know
>that. Power is the root of all evil... and all good. Don't be ridiculous!
If I paid attention in Social Studies I'd've been taught to believe that
the Mercator projection is what the surface of our planet really looks
like, I'd've been taught that ancient cultures did not know that the earth
was round, I'd've been been taught that _homo_sapiens_sapiens_ consists of
many races. I don't believe in good and evil.
XnickX
he is the richest man in america.
yeah, i'm sure that when he envisioned the idea of windows his first
concern was helping others. i'm sure he did not see it as a one of the
greatest marketing ploys ever.
you anarchists are unreal. without the giant computer manufactures today,
your silly little qualms would never be heard.
another thing: what are you actually doing to acieve this goal of
anarchy. i'm sure you are not going to the extreme that prevoius
anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon did. and you know why. you are
afraid of being imprisoned for your beliefs. you are afraid of being in
jail with criminals. these same criminals who would be roaming free if
their wasn't a government to imprison them. the same criminals who you
think would be "civilized" enough to live in an anarchistic world.
Wednesday Jones
ahhh yes... the crime argument. let's start with two truths about
government:
1. government puts some dangerous criminals in jail
2. government regulates safety regulations in the workplace in this
country
two undeniable truths if you read them WORD FOR WORD. now here's a
statistic for ya:
three times as many people are killed in accidents at work due to safety
measures that _do not_ meet government set guidelines than are murdered.
(i don't have my source handy but i can provide it if you want it)
add to this the number of violent criminals released from prisons to
make room for non-violent petty drug offenders (which make up 60% of the
prison population in the state of ohio) each year and answer this
question:
the government protects us from what now?
---jones
Dennis Mai
: So, to sum up, total anarchy would result in:
: A) everbody dead.
: or
: B) Lotsa people dead. Other people involved in forming new governments
: as well as a lot of anarchists dead in the woods under berry trees.
Please research on the topic before you argue against it.
You obviously know nothing about the "political" theories
of anarchism. Anarchism is simply a political and social
thought which holds that any form of exploitation, whether
it be politically or economicaly, is wrong and harmful to
humanity's existence. True anarchists are against all societies
that are structured hierarchaly (class, status, etc.). True
anarchists believe in individual freedom and egalitarianism.
To learn more, I suggest reading books by Kropotkin (anarcho-communist),
Proudhon (individualist anarchist), Mikhail Bakunin (revolutionary anarchist),
and Emma Goldman (anarcho-feminist).
Dennis
Angel
(Michael Stutz) wrote:
i second that. i also use the many anarchist collectives and anarchist
movemnts as evidence.
ANGUS MCPHEE
TH> Your response to XnickX was interesting and hypocritical. Anarchist
TH> politics???? Duh.. anarchy does not have thought or politics... that's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ted you really are showing your ignorance
please get at least an overview of what anarchy is about before making
such uninformed statements.
Oh by the way in case you get the wrong Idea, I'm not an anarchist, just
don't like revisionisim which seems to be rife when that horrid old
Anarchy word pops up, must say that the uk and us governments have done
a splendid job on it tho.
---
* SLMR 2.1a *
ANGUS MCPHEE
XN> you anarchists are unreal. without the giant computer manufactures today,
XN> your silly little qualms would never be heard.
XN> another thing: what are you actually doing to acieve this goal of
XN> anarchy. i'm sure you are not going to the extreme that prevoius
XN> anarchists like Bakunin and Proudhon did. and you know why. you are
XN> afraid of being imprisoned for your beliefs. you are afraid of being in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well Nick thank you for summing up just how free your country is.
ANGUS MCPHEE
TH> As a teacher, I can tell you that you're not speaking the truth. Reading
TH> the FAQ is possible for you 'cuz you went to school. Democracy is possibl
TH> 'cuz of the people who go to school. Everything you have, was created by
TH> someone who went to school. The schoolhouse arose 'cuz other things DID
TH> NOT WORK. There is no interactive education.... the large majority of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Every week I learn stuff I didn't know before, It worries me somewhat
that you are a teacher yet give no recognition to the amount that is
learned outwith formal education. The skills that I have most use for
(ok apart from reading and writing) in my day to day life and at my work
were not learned at school.
Go to any Employer and ask them whether they value experience or formal
qualifications more.
TH> Being a full-time student, too, is not a way to live. Learning for a
TH> living won't put food on the plate. I go to grad school while I teach,
TH> because I WON'T be able to live without EARNING it. Money is not the basi
TH> of warfare.. power is. If you paid attention in Social Studies you'd know
TH> that. Power is the root of all evil... and all good. Don't be ridiculous
There seems to be an assumption here (on both sides of the argument)
that somehow work and anarchy are mutually exclusive
I quote Bakunin at you "Man cannot be free when he is alone. He can only
be free when he is in community with other free human beings, each of
whom is earning his right to that freedom by work."
JohnPaul Golaski
: XnickX (xni...@aol.com) wrote:
: : you all please tell me what is so wrong with this government. put away
: : your stupid dusty punk records and actually do something with your life
: : instead of bitching about this country 24/7/52
: You mean other than butchering and starving people
: all over the world?
i don't butcher people all over the world.
i think the "actually do something" line means get off you ass instead of
complaining while drinking coffee with your friends.
johnpaul
JohnPaul Golaski
: Jesus was not born with original sin. How could the son of God who was
am i the only one that thinks this is ridiculous (besides the tangent to
the anarchy thread)?
ok, i give in....
QUESTION: education (in this sense) implies knowing FACTS, how can
you argue facts over a bunch of stories?
oh yeah, before i forget...
Paul Bunyon created the grand canyon by dragging his ax. EDUCATE YOURSELF!
john p. copeland
: Cool. I LIKE this Anarchy thing.
: Later,
: Foe.
what you have described in your post suspiciously sounds like what we have
now! hum.......
john p. copeland
: Jesus was not born with original sin. How could the son of God who was
Again.... shut up already! *yawn*
David Cloutman
No, your ignorance of what a real anarchistic society would be is unreal
(as well as your inability to use a shift key).
: jail with criminals. these same criminals who would be roaming free if
: their wasn't a government to imprison them. the same criminals who you
: think would be "civilized" enough to live in an anarchistic world.
In a truly anarchistic socity criminals would not go unpunished. The
primary misunderstanding about that is held by both the general public,
and by many anarchists, is that anarchy means a total abscence of social
control. This is not the case. Anarchy is mearly the abscence of
government (an orginization which derives its origin from society, that
has both the power and authority to enforce social controls), not the
abscence of social controls. Indeed, a society without government would
have more ridgid social controls that one with a government. In an
anarchist sociey bussinesses and families, like it or not, would play an
increased role in maintaining order. Anarchy has existed in this manner
for thousands of years in traditional, non-western societies, and
therefore I think this is a valid argument for this model.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
| <<The kind of man that always thinks that he is| |
| right, that his opinions, his pronouncements,| fel...@ccnet.com |
| are the final word, is usually exposed as | |
| hollow as they come. But a wise man has much |--------------------|
| to learn without loss of dignity.>> | |
| -Sophocles | David Cloutman |
|________________________________________________|____________________|
ANGUS MCPHEE
DC> In a truly anarchistic socity criminals would not go unpunished. The
DC> primary misunderstanding about that is held by both the general public,
DC> and by many anarchists, is that anarchy means a total abscence of social
DC> control. This is not the case. Anarchy is mearly the abscence of
DC> government (an orginization which derives its origin from society, that
DC> has both the power and authority to enforce social controls), not the
DC> abscence of social controls. Indeed, a society without government would
DC> have more ridgid social controls that one with a government. In an
DC> anarchist sociey bussinesses and families, like it or not, would play an
DC> increased role in maintaining order. Anarchy has existed in this manner
DC> for thousands of years in traditional, non-western societies, and
DC> therefore I think this is a valid argument for this model.
can I add that the absence of government and Hierarchael forms of social
organisation Does not imply an absence of organization.
Michael N. Rusignuolo
: you anarchists are a bunch of spoiled fucks. you think that this country
: sucks so much, yet all you offer are unrealistic alternatives to an
: already fine establishment. what do you think you will actually achieve?
: you are nothing but a bunch of radical left-wing pseudo-reformists.
: improving the government is the solution getting rid of it isn't. would
: your stupid dusty punk records and actually do something with your life
: instead of bitching about this country 24/7/52
Hey! Wanna see something cool? Notice how he doesn't answer any
of the logical arguments we put before him. Hee. Isn't that cool? I bet
he can't. But he labels everyone really well. Maybe we can get him a job
at Grand Union with one of those cool pricing guns. He'd be a star.
And xnickx, if that is your real name, we already told you what
to look for and what to read. If you'd like a reading list (you do read,
right?) about what the anarchist solutions would be, I would gladly give
it to you. Unfortunately, xnickx, you seem like the kinda guy who has
already made up your mind.
Xnickx sounds like a bitter defender of the status quo. Xnickx is
probably more pampered than we are. Xnickx probably doesn't really belong
on alt.punk, but is either trolling for flames, or is doing his
self-righeous duty.
As to my old records, I keep them well taken-cared of, thank you
very much. As for my new stuff (you know there is new punk, right
xnickx?), I keep them on these amazing new things called cds. And if I'm
pampered, someone better tell my paycheck.
Damone
dam...@ios.com OR rus...@iia.org
XnickX
i've already read about anarchy. and i don't like it. i've read the
ideas of people such as Bakunin and Proudhon, and i've read and listened
to countless others' thoughts on the subject. yes i do read, and that was
a low attack on me. i am open to all ideas and books on any subject, and
i will probably read them. but that doesn't mean i have to agree with
them. i don't believe in anarchy for 2 basic reasons:
1. I haven't found a person or a book yet that has offered me any reason
to believe in anarchy.
2. Even if I were to believe in anarchy, i would only believe in it in an
unrealistic yet somewhat idealistic way. I would never believe that it
could work. it might be the best thing that could happen, but it will
never happen.
Nate
>And, lest you think that it's possible, humans are driven by custom, rules,
>and tradition. Those things evolved out of our original animal behavior.
>It is HUMAN to have rules and laws.
>--
Therefore, since I am not driven by custom, rules, and tradition, and
I do not want to have rules and laws, I am not human. Right?
Nice conclusion, dumbass.
-nate
Michael N. Rusignuolo
: Jesus was not born with original sin. How could the son of God who was
: brought into the world through the Immaculate Conception have original
: sin?(Yes, Mary was born without original sin, too.) Jesus was 100% sin
: free. Just because he was part man that doesn't mean that he was
: necessarily born with original sin. WHY DON'T YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE
: YOU MAKE CLAIMS THAT HAVE NO VERACITY!
Just cause I love arguing catholic Church dogma with someone so
anal as yourself, xnickx, I'll tell you. Jesus was part man. All man has
original sin, even Mary. That's what BAPTISM is for. What was Mary
BAPTISED for, practice? Ditto Jesus. Jesus had to be part man, and be
part of original sin, for his death to seal the new covenant between god
and man. Straight from the pope's mouth, xnickx. Why don't I educate
myself? Hah. 13 years of catholic school was education enough. I just did
this because it seemed fun to prove you wrong. Take your religious
follow-ups elsewhere.
Damone
dam...@ios.com OR rus...@iia.org
David Cloutman
: 2. Even if I were to believe in anarchy, i would only believe in it in an
: unrealistic yet somewhat idealistic way. I would never believe that it
: could work. it might be the best thing that could happen, but it will
: never happen.
Anarchy can and does exist. It exists in a pure form in many trditional
societies and in a corrupted form in all societies. Anarchy is simply
where the social controls imposed by the government end and where the
social controls imposed by the rest of society begin. This is a point
that traditional anarchistic thought has overlooked, mostly due to it's
misguided attraction to marxism.
David
Michael N. Rusignuolo
: In alt.punk dam...@ios.com (Michael N. Rusignuolo) said:
:
:
: >Once again, you are completely ignorant of the scope of the anarchist
: movement,
: >or anarchist thought, or anarchist politics.
:
: Your response to XnickX was interesting and hypocritical. Anarchist
: politics???? Duh.. anarchy does not have thought or politics... that's
: what makes it anarchy. And, what makes it an unrealistic goal.
Look, you are in the same boat of xnickX. You have no idea of
what anarchist movement is beyond 'destroy everything and have no
government.' There are other strains to the thought, and other concepts
of the movement. Hell, conservative republicans are part anarachist at
heart cause they keep trying to get more and more government out of our
lives. My point is that there is more variety to the thought than just
'destroy all government.' You are generalizing as much as you accuse us
of doing so.
<snip>
: Ted
: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: + "In every real man a child -
: - is hidden that wants to play" +
: + Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) -
: -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This from a man who quotes Nietzsche.
Damone
dam...@ios.com OR rus...@iia.org
Kadath666
mary. i go to catholic school right now and just learned this whole
concept last week..
Patrick Richmond
: TH> the FAQ is possible for you 'cuz you went to school. Democracy is possibl
: TH> 'cuz of the people who go to school. Everything you have, was created by
: TH> someone who went to school. The schoolhouse arose 'cuz other things DID
: TH> NOT WORK. There is no interactive education.... the large majority of
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
school. My father learned how to read before he started grade one.
He was taught how to read by his grandfather, not by a "teacher" and not
in a school.
Richard Loerzel
(Michael Stutz) wrote:
>A great education change has occurred in the 20th
>century -- we have gone from a world where the majority of people were
>illiterate and needed leaders to a world where the majority is literate.
>Our world leaders are no smarter than the people they are supposedly
>"leading"; hence, they aren't needed. We have also gone from a world of
>isolated pockets of cultures and societes to a global village. Nationalism
>is obsolete and unrealistic in today's world; we are of one family.
>
"Nationalism is obsolete" you say. Please explain. Nationalism is still
very, very strong, and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon. How
about the rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia, Ex-Soviet republics (Georgia,
Chechnya, Ukraine), Armenia, Iraq(and it's desire to regain its
pre-imperialist borders), and Palestine? The fall of Soviet communism has
actually reignited suppressed nationalism, and it's only getting worse. "We
are of one family," is easy for you to say, but tell that to a Bosnian
Muslim, or an Israeli, or an Armenian...
And the thing about the majority begin literate: do you really want
"talk-radio populism" running this country? Case in point: the
"three-strike's-your-out" law in the crime bill (that was bolstered by Rush
and other talk radio goofballs). What a great idea: a law based on a
baseball cliche. Why three strikes? Why not four? (I guess "four fouls
you're out" or "two strikes and a pop fly" don't sound very convincing).
Sound's good as a sound-bite on the nightly news, but is it really a
deterant? "Gosh, I already got two strikes against me. Should I committ
another felony? Jeez, I'll have to spend the rest of my life in jail. . .
But wait. All the prisons are already hopelessly overcrowded and they could
never build enough of them to hold everybody, so what the heck, batter up."
If this nation was ruled by the populist majority, most laws would be a
sound bites. Laws would change as fast as popular trends. The only way to
actually make populism work in this country is to put limits on the media
(which opens a whole new can of worms). Sensationalism does not breed good
politics, just knee-jerk, quick-fix, short-sighted solutions to very
difficult problems.
Absolute populism and Anarchy would also lend itself to "mob rule": where a
powerful majority would crush a weaker minority. All this talk about
equality is lip-service. Some of the "states rights" crap that's going on
now is very very frightning. Civil rights laws were enacted for very good
reasons. Some of them, I do have slight problems with(affirmative action),
but for the most part, they have serve their purpose well. For example, if
their was no government and laws where based on social pressures, and you
were the only Muslim family that lived in a town of Catholics, good luck.
You didn't want the school to force Catholicism down your children's
throats, but hey, majority rules. Tough. Live with it. The town decides that
Muslims are evil don't deserve an education. Tough. Covert to catholicism.
It'll make your life easier. Equality: "Some pigs are more equal than
others," you know.
Ah. Freedom. Storm the Bastille.
________________________________________________________________________________
Richard Loerzel "Words are wind; learning is nothing but words;
Office Boy, Daredevil ergo, learning is nothing but wind." - Jonathan Swift
Wednesday Jones
(Richard Loerzel) writes:
>If this nation was ruled by the populist majority, most laws would be a
>sound bites. Laws would change as fast as popular trends. The only way
to
>actually make populism work in this country is to put limits on the
media
>(which opens a whole new can of worms). Sensationalism does not breed
good
>politics, just knee-jerk, quick-fix, short-sighted solutions to very
>difficult problems.
>
>Absolute populism and Anarchy would also lend itself to "mob rule":
where a
>powerful majority would crush a weaker minority. All this talk about
>equality is lip-service. Some of the "states rights" crap that's going
on
>now is very very frightning.
don't equate what the populace wants with what politicians and media
turn into supposedly "popular" campaign platforms. a lot of people
today think this country is leaning toward the right because of the
massive republican sweep in the last election. politicians are saying
"america has spoken and says it wants a return to family values." don't
you believe it! the only thing the american public said in the last
election is the same thing it said in every election since about 1976 or
so and that is "we are apathetic!" or possibly "we don't feel voting
changes a damn thing!" or "we don't like either of the candidates you're
giving us!" because once again, less than 40% of the eligible voters in
this country voted. and even if 100% had voted it still wouldn't
reflect a "popular" opinion as a good percentage of people in this
country (i don't have an exact figure here) can't vote at all for one
reason or another, or are unregistered. i don't think it's really
possible to predict with any certainty what a society would do without a
government around when so many voices go unheard.
---jones
Foe Lee
the absence of any purpose or standard.
satire: (n) The use of mockery, sarcasm, or humour in a literary
work to ridicule or attack human vice.
These definitions are from Webster's, which I garuntee is older and
better researched than you.
Besides, if you'd bothered to read my other post along this thread,
you'd know that I agree wiht the concepts of anarchy, but belive that
the actual practice of it will never work.
Let's look at the past for a few examples. Take the so called Dark
Ages in Europe. This is widely considered to be a historical period
of anarchy on the level with what I think you are talking about.
It is also true that many historians argue that the term "Dark Ages"
is a misnomer because much was accomplished during that time.
However, it was accomplished under small monarchies in turn funded and
backed by the Catholic Church. Not much anarchy there.
Now, let's take Native American societies. These are idyllic cultures
thousands of years older than the governments of Europe, and
conceivably, that sort of lifestyle of peace with self and nature, as
well as eqanimity between peoples is what the end result of an
anarchist "revolution" would be.
But if they're older than European cultures, why did the Europeans
waste them so badly in military and social action.
Communication.
This communication could not have been acheived by the Natives. They
had to rely on word of mouth, and had no form of mass communication,
thus had no way of sharing ideas, or opinions, which, technologically,
made them very very weak, and their ancient culture was destroyed.
Now, as I see it, the only way anarchy would work is if you had some
sort of controlling government to operate things while the rest of the
populace went about their business.
I mean, who's gonna volunteer to run a power plant? Who's going to
build the power plant?
You don't want electricity? OK, where do you get water from?
Lakes? OK, what are going to do about all the pollutants that are in
the water? Filters are no longer made, cuz no one wants to make them
and no one can figure out how to do it naturally.
Education becomes secondary to survival. Abandoned children, and
starving people go violent and ferile.
Humans cannot survive without a system. I'm a big fan of personal
liberty, and things must be done to the system to allow us to do what
we want to ourselves, whenever we want, but the system also keeps us
alive.
Give me your bright view of the future under anarchy.
Foe.
Curtis Duhn
: In a truly anarchistic socity criminals would not go unpunished. The
: primary misunderstanding about that is held by both the general public,
: and by many anarchists, is that anarchy means a total abscence of social
: control. This is not the case. Anarchy is mearly the abscence of
: government (an orginization which derives its origin from society, that
: has both the power and authority to enforce social controls), not the
: abscence of social controls. Indeed, a society without government would
: have more ridgid social controls that one with a government. In an
: anarchist sociey bussinesses and families, like it or not, would play an
: increased role in maintaining order.
Unless we've just been reading different stuff, this is incorrect. In
the most commonly accepted flavors of anarchism (concieved by Godwin,
Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, et al), there would be no "control" in
the common, coercive sense of the word. You use words such as "power"
and "enforce", which are concepts that would be foreign to anarchy.
What you _would_ have is a society where every person would be held
accountable for their actions by their peers. If you do something
that I think is "wrong" it would be my social duty to tell you about
it. We would discuss the point until we reach either consensus or
compromise. It would be a society of such intense, thorough
communication that we would achieve a "mutual awareness" that would
result in a natural social balance much more stable than anything that can be
"enforced."
Each person would act according to his or her on reasoning. Noone
would have any right to "control" you into an action that you deem
inappropriate. If somone disagrees with you they have the
responsibilty of discussing it with you, but in the end your actions
are left entirely up to your own reasoning.
I've only read about 1 1/2 books on the subject, so my perception of
anarchist society may differ from others. Different models of
anarchist society have been forwarded by the prominent anarchist
theorists, so any given view is likely to have contradictions. The
very fact that anarchy has no rules makes it all but impossible to
describe such a society. The best we can do is make an educated guess
at how such a society would or could work.
Andrew Duffy
: In response to the person that said that mary and jesus had sin, you are
: completely wrong. Jesus clearly had no original sin. Look in the bible.
: Mary was also born without original sin. This issue was cleared up in
: 1956, when the pope at that time made a statement using his papal
: infallibility. He issued the doctrine that summed up the Immaculate
: Conception of Mary. It stated that Mary was born without original sin,
: and that she never rejected God in her lifetime.
: Also you said that Mary was baptized. Where in the bible does it state
: that? If you can find it, I would like to know. Jesus' baptism was not
: to cleanse him of original sin, but to prepare him for his public ministry
: that was yet to come.
Oi, it's been a while since I've seen someone say that a papal
declaration cleared everything up...about as long as it's been since I
last went to Mass...And sorry, original sin isn't a biblical concept,
it's Catholic belief. (That's why the concept of the Immaculate
Conception had to be brought in in the first place...If Jesus didn't have
a human dad, he wouldn't have had original sin from there, but his mum
was still human...but hey, wait a minute, the Pope says *nearly 2000
years later* that Mary didn't have original sin either)
But hey, how much knowledge do you expect from someone who is a) on AOL
and b)though a Catholic student, has 666 in their user ID?
Ta for now,
Yet another lapsed Catholic
--
Andrew Duffy |Insert witty comment here
AJD...@IS.Dal.Ca |
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.Ca |
Spleen6101
Actually, aren't there as many (or more) radical right-wingers who dislike
the government enough to be called anarchists also? (If you go too far
right, or if you go too far left, you tend to wind up in the same place.)
Anyway, I'm not an anarchist, but your assertion that the "system we have
now is fine" - I just can't agree with that at all. Government does not
necessarily equal fascism, but putting too much trust in it is certainly a
step in that direction.
Mol.
Jorcas
Communists rule!!!
Red Spic
ANGUS MCPHEE
AD> and b)though a Catholic student, has 666 in their user ID?
heavins how did that get past them?
no wait, are you american?
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, jl...@black.clarku.edu (Foe Lee) says:
>anarchy: (n) Lack of political authority, disorder and confusion;
>the absence of any purpose or standard.
>
>satire: (n) The use of mockery, sarcasm, or humour in a literary
>work to ridicule or attack human vice.
>
>These definitions are from Webster's, which I garuntee is older and
>better researched than you.
certain words out & change the definitions of others, which he did.
>It is also true that many historians argue that the term "Dark Ages"
>is a misnomer because much was accomplished during that time.
>
>However, it was accomplished under small monarchies in turn funded and
>backed by the Catholic Church. Not much anarchy there.
>Now, as I see it, the only way anarchy would work is if you had some
>sort of controlling government to operate things while the rest of the
>populace went about their business.
>I mean, who's gonna volunteer to run a power plant? Who's going to
>build the power plant?
in such things.
>Lakes? OK, what are going to do about all the pollutants that are in
>the water? Filters are no longer made, cuz no one wants to make them
>and no one can figure out how to do it naturally.
to go to work today in this here capitalist world but at 8am the hiways are
awful busy.
Colleen E Soulliere
:
: >anarchy: (n) Lack of political authority, disorder and confusion;
: >the absence of any purpose or standard.
: >
: >satire: (n) The use of mockery, sarcasm, or humour in a literary
: >work to ridicule or attack human vice.
: >
: >These definitions are from Webster's, which I garuntee is older and
: >better researched than you.
Incidently, I got out my Webster's dictionary last night and you'll find,
that if you look a couple entries above anarchy, this is what you'll see:
"anarchism: (n) the political theory that individual freedom should be
absolute and that all government and law is evil. Capitalism and private
property would be abolished and be replaced by voluntary cooperation."
So even Webster can't figure it out. If you insist on moulding yourself
by someone else's rules or standards, you will end up being a big pile of
confused stuff.
Colleen.
Michael Stutz
In a previous article, splee...@aol.com (Spleen6101) says:
>dictionary or a computer service or my mommy....I attained my current
>state of "enlightenment" (or hyper-literacy under the influence of cough
>drops) mostly by talking to my parents. The purpose of school is only to
>learn skills and form habits, to lay some ground rules for dealing with
>life and earning ca$h....it's also fun to get nostalgic over Please Excuse
>My Dear Aunt Sally, but....okay, forget it.
You got it, baby -- just remember to learn what you can while in school &
that theres lots more to it (more than anyone'll ever know) & "earning
ca$h," while right now necessary to survive is *not* in the longrun a Good
Thing(tm), 'cause it puts you vs. me -- which mightve been the way to go at
a certain stage but nows the time for you AND me, where 1 + 1 makes 3,
_synergetically_ . . .
Jorcas
: Not really. What's the point of overthrowing the state if you only want
: to take it over?--Let's destroy it.
Now you talking!!!
Red Spic