Kind of reminds me of this band I was in a couple years back. We were booked to play this hipster library in L.A. (Yes, these things exist) and our band's singer/leader is stammering his intros and not playing to whatever crowd is actually there, the guitars are out of tune even though we spent hours preparing and tuning, and the drums are drowning out the rest of the instruments.

God, the acoustics in that place, and the look on the face of the person who booked us. Horror. Utter horror. I was wearing an Iron Maiden shirt with hair down to my tits, a look of insanity, me-against-the-world on my face.

Someone in the audience was like, "What the fuck is this shit?"

But I'm not Bill Burr and I' NOT in any mood to admit my faults, I just came back from 2 drinks over my limit at a bar around the corner, and I'm fucking done with hipsters. Suddenly our FOLK band goes into overdrive and becomes a punk band. I start smashing the drums with my sticks faster and faster, letting the rest of the band catch up, "Fuuuuuck you. You want some rock n' roll? Here's some fucking rock n' roll." Our singer is timid at first, but the guitarist is an anarchist and looks at me like, "YEAH! Let's do this!" Adrenaline and alcohol made it so I didn't even need to know what I was doing any more. We just played the same songs except faster and angrier.

People are disgusted by the sound and the entire place empties.

Later on as we're packing up, the guy I told to fuck off comes up to us with his pals and starts harassing us. Turns out, he was the guitarist of the band that was on before us. And everyone loved this guy. I stared at him and just said, "Fuck you." And he immediately replied, "No, fuck you!" I don't remember how many fucks were given but it was quite the juvenile display. We just packed up and left with "fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck" in our wake.

As we're walking to the van our band leader says, "Well, that went okay I think, you know given the circumstances, I think that showed off our energy."

Back to the Future.

Married with Children.

The Simpsons.

Ferris Buehler's anarchist ideology towards his and Cameron's upper class parents. Handing over the car keys to the lower class joy riders.

The Goonies going on adventures to prevent a golf course from overtaking their upper class lifestyle.

Was Mikey about to become middle class?! Holy shit. The Goonies is about retaining your social position in order to fund misadventure. And the rise of the middle class Hispanic family! i.e. Rosalita discovering the jewels in the marble bag.

Everything from the '80s involving a family was about -- Anyone? Anyone? -- Voodoo Economics.

Them just out of the '70s, 1980s sensibilities. Jump the river with your cop motor and FIX that cigarette lighter. I need to watch Stripes now so I can watch the sexy military police have sex with the military fuck ups. Then I'll fast forward the decade and watch Ferris Buehler not go to school.

Film in the 80s taught me about anarchy and it taught me well. Oh wait, film as media is inherently anarchistic. Aw, fuck it. Society must just stink.

Just quoting this bit. Sure, there's 'privileges' that high-traffic members deserve. I don't believe helping with routine maintenance stuff that helps the site's overall quality without creating any real risk should be in that category.

I also don't believe the ability to downvote a comment or a video should be a privilege that requires a tremendous amount of membership time to earn either. I can understand getting past probation (which in itself is a bit of work) before opening that option up. But it's likely that anyone getting past that barrier is not your 11-year-old foul-mouthed teabagging anarchist-wannabe Call of Duty player who has apparently slept with your mother.

When it comes to voting, shouldn't everyone have the same voice?

If you want to get upvoted around here you need a video of cops beating up a nun or something to do with animal farts.

Don't let the phrase 'quality video' confuse you because quality has nothing to do with what gets votes here. If you have a video that fits their leftist or anarchist agenda, bring it on.

@bcglorf
not the first to call me a bad anarchist.
i posted my flavor,which is only a link to basic definition.
it is the closest thing that even remotely comes close to my politics.

but i get your points and understand why my position may appear contradictory.a persons politics is rarely as simple as what can be conveyed on a comment thread.

always love your input bc!

@Spacedog79
i know right! this dude is sooo pissed off!
i would call his tone more condescending and scolding though.he has some issues.
gotta love his passion though!

you misunderstand,which may be my fault.
anarchy=no rulers
it does not mean=no government (for some anarchists it may mean that,but not all),nor does it mean=no police or military or public schools and i do not believe i stated anything of the sort.

i also stated that while the anarchist prefers direct democracy,he/she will be ok with representative,as long as they represent..which they dont.

so the anarchist sees this non-representative government and sees it for the vile,corrupted beast it is and states that it should be killed.preferably from orbit.

please understand i am not trying to sway you to my way of thinking or convince you of anything other than to point out that anarchy is not a single,one trick pony.

ok,consider this:you are walking down the street and an important text come in with a pdf attached.you are given information and told that in two days you will be expected to vote on the matter.

just an idea how direct democracy can work.

this discussion is really fascinating me.
i call out hard-liner libertarians for not even acknowledging the massive corrupt influence of the corporation,because it is an intellectually dishonest argument to NOT point out the destructive influences of the monied elite.

i find it just as intellectually dishonest to not address/criticize and question the government.

one does not preclude the other.
we can argue which one gave birth to the other but i dont think anybody can deny that what america has now is NOT a representative democracy but rather a plutocracy.

so just as i dont understand how a hardline libertarian can ignore the power and influence of a corporation and call it "capitalism" (hint:its not),i equally cannot understand the defense of a government that threw its citizens overboard 40 years ago.

i refuse to defend moral bankruptcy,on any level.
i refuse to buy into the "its not perfect but its the best we have"
no..it is not.we can do better and what we have now is far from the best.
best intentions maybe....but not the best..

newt brought up a big point that i was unaware.
this is my flavor of anarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

which to some anarchists makes me a "bad" anarchist,whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

@ChaosEngine

i think you fell into the same trap that bc did i.e:only one flavor of anarchy and that simply is an untruth.

i also think you are aware that on some issues we are in total agreement.

what i find most interesting is that latter part of your comment actually makes an argument FOR an anarchal system.all the things you listed that you hate,well..im right there with ya and so is the majority of not just your and my respective countries,but globally!

anarchy has worked but usually on smaller scales and there are certain criteria that most people are unwilling to meet.
for anarchy to work there must be:
an informed citizenry.
and a citizenry that participates.

which is a tall order here in america.

another problem is that societies will build structures that will become institutions that will become sensitive to corruption.that governments will eventually become bloated beasts that seek to only perpetuate its own continued existence,at the cost of the people and the virtues they have tried to uphold.

this we see playing out all over america and europe.

the anarchist realizes that the TRUE power in a society is NOT the government but rather the very people in that society.if that government no longer serves the people then it must be dismantled,on morals grounds alone this is the right thing to do.

in an anarchal society the corporation could not and would not exist.they would go back to being temporary business alliances in order to complete an assigned project and then disbursed.

in an anarchal society the federal reserve would lose its charter.

in an anarchal society,if a company wanted to move its plant over-seas and would leave thousands un-employed,effectively destroying that community.they would first have to seek permission from that township and/or sell the plant to the town in order to change base of operations.

in an anarchal system,there would be no war on drugs.no criminalizing the poor.no war on terror or wars of aggression.

in an anarchal system there would be no surveillance state,nor system of controlled indoctrination because that would be anathema to the very goals of an anarchic system.

look,the argument is always,and i mean always:power vs powerlessness.

anarchy is about power to the people in its purest form.
and i hold zero illusions that it may be remotely perfect but if i have to choose..i will always choose YOU over some wealthy elite power broker.

Well, I disagree on a few points.
With no enforcement, enough people (it doesn't take that many) would spend the day robbing, raping, and causing mayhem that the rest of us would be relatively paralyzed, either by fear or by the requirement to constantly 'police' those bad actors.
Even with reasoned laws (which we no longer have) a relatively large force is required to enforce them, but much smaller and less dangerous a force than we have today.
As I recall, the country was split, but slightly a majority in favor of going to Iraq (or wherever they were told we should go) and a slight minority keeping quiet so they didn't seem 'anti American' or 'pro-terrorist'. Maybe that's wrong, but it's how I remember it.
The issue with anarchism is it means something different to nearly everyone. That means deciding what 'rules' are required for society to work will be near impossible, just setting up the system to decide goes against the plan.
I think with no government to stop them, we would see more wars of aggression (by warlords, it's happened in nearly every power vacuum), more abusive corporate power (although not welfare, true enough, but they'll get that money a different, worse way), and no voting to vote out the fed (although it would not exist in an anarchistic 'society' to be voted in or out). Currency would either go back to regional, or gold (not a bad idea).
Once again, I must say finance reform could go a long way towards having representation for the people.
Wait, in a true anarchistic system, no one votes, and there's no system to collect, count, and certainly not one to follow through with any 'votes', so how would individuals 'vote' anything 'in' or 'out'? It sounds like you really want representative government, not anarchy, you just want it to represent 'us' and not 'them' (them being special interests with deep pockets). If that's correct, I, and I think many others, are right there with you. We need to be organized to force reform, because the 'representatives' have no incentive to do it themselves.

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

I used to think like this, but then I finished high school.

Seriously, anarchy is a lovely ideal. Everyone lives in peace and harmony and no-one is tramping anyone elses rights. When a job needs doing, we find someone willing to do it and compensate them (preferably with a barter system or something).

One minor problem though..

IT

DOESN'T

FUCKING

WORK.

We don't live in some kind of post-scarcity utopia. I wish we did, but that is simply not the reality of human society or history. Anarchists and libertarians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them loves government and simply can't wait to pour their hard earned money in a military industrial complex.

I don't know anyone like that. I don't like my government, and I sure as hell don't like yours. I don't mind paying for hospitals and roads and welfare (and yeah, I don't even really give a fuck about "welfare queens" or "dole bludgers" or other mythical right wing beasties), but I fucking hate the idea that my money goes to fund the pointless "war on drugs" or on mass surveillance.

But I recognise that for all its ills, the system (for the most part) works. People today have a higher standard of living, live longer, and have more rights than at any other time in history. Some of that is down to science; some of it is because of private innovation and some of it is simply that we have changed the way our societies run through elections, etc.

What I do know is that when government becomes beholden to private interests (lobbyists in the USA) shit goes bad. But the solution to that is not to allow powerful people even more leeway to fuck over the weak.

"anarchy simply means =without rulers,it does NOT mean no rules."

I keep hearing Anarchists railing against this. More frequently these days the same claims are being made by Libertarians.

I'm afraid I can't find the intellectual honesty in such claims though. The base argument is that there be no rulers, and also there for no men using force to ensure rules are followed.

If there is to be no system of enforcement for 'rules' then how is that any different than simply having no rules? Without any measure or means of enforcement of rules, for all intents and purposes there are no rules. If there is any enforcement of rules, then there is at some level a ruler and enforcers.

If you want your arguments taken seriously you need to first start by taking our own position seriously as well and at least making it logical consistent. To start from the contradiction of rules without rulers is empty.

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love

The Teabaggers (I won't let them hide from the shameful name THEY chose when they started, thinking they were being clever before realizing what it meant) infected BOTH the Republican party and the Libertarian party, which represented the libertarian philosophy...at one time rationally, now anarchisticly.
There are instances where owners/CEO's have gone to jail for what their companies did at their direction. I'm not a case lawyer, so I can't site which one's exactly, and they are far too few, but it is why we have 'club fed'. True enough, there's far too little liability for the people in charge, but that's a different point, and the complete opposite point of view from 'we need no regulation'. That seems now like you're saying 'we need stronger regulations that hold people criminally accountable for companies actions.' I hope you can see that's NOT libertarian (big or little L) and not what you've been saying...at least not as I've heard it.
You seem to simply be advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater because they both still smell. I suggest washing filthy children in showers.

@blankfist

"Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments. "

I'm not the one who just posted a video about a guy who was unable to demonstrate his point rationally and had more than a couple meltdowns where he attacked the other guy with an ever raising voice and emotionally charged insults. Which is funny because he's responding to another video. It's not like the guy was there, yet he got so unhinged.

so you're nitpicking that I didn't detail each specific logical fallacy? the summary wasn't enough? If you honestly want to know, say so and I'll review the video again and point them out. But I don't think you really care. Once again, you're criticizing the existing system when you SHOULD be demonstrating how a non-statist system (or lack of a system as it were) would be better...but you arent...so it just leads me to believe that you latched on my lack of details on the fallacies as a distraction mechanism. so really who's being emotional here hrm?

but wait, you criticize my lack of detail, but when asked to demonstrate an anarchist worldview in action and how it's better than a statist one...suddenly you can't provide details...interesting the hypocrisy there

try again though.