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.

You can educate yourself and rise up against the machine or use mass riot/ murder/ chaos and end up with anarchy, which is worse.

Educate yourself is preferred.

Really, sailing anarchy? Are they're bringing their own wind to show the system the can't be controlled by anyone? Rebels with flatulence?

The pilots still believe in the Empire as a force (no pun intended) for civilization and protection from anarchy...

...and the officers have seen behind the curtain.

So it occurred to me, as I watched this, that although this makes perfect sense and it's pretty much how I see things as well, does everyone think like this.
I've seen the people who claim that morality comes from religion, and that without religion, we wouldn't know right from wrong.

So, that's when I wondered:
Are there people who actually don't know right from wrong? Are they missing that piece in their brains that limit their comprehension of empathy. That feeling when they are doing something wrong. There are no thoughts of doubt, no pangs of guilt. No recognition that they are hurting others, even if just emotionally.

And, if so, are these the people that need a God? Are all those god fearing people good members of the community just because they "fear a God"
Without a god to tell them, would they end up being the most unruly people on the planet? Is it religion that is keeping them at bay? Is chaos and anarchy the result of no religion? Not because we need it, but because without a GOD, certain people (currently religious) would have no compass, and would they feel free to randomly hurt, kill, steal and otherwise be the lowest of humanity?

Just some thoughts....

During Carter's single term in office, Iran became a fundamentalist terror state, Saddam began his coup that led to the Iran-Iraq war-Hostage crisis?? Hello?? He gave the Sandinista cash for their fun-in-the-sun-OH-He gave away the Panama Canal, right? Claimed that the Soviets were no longer a 'threat' and they marched right on into Afghanistan. He set-up foreign policy for the next wave of presidential failures and shills for the assholes who really run the show, you know them by their smell, the richest gadjillionaires in the world, who have stolen humanity's hope for anything but anarchy or global fascism and world-government control and surveillance-state, in the form of what the world is fast-becoming. Yeah, the old peanut farmer was was a real piece of work.

Wake up people, the United States presidency has been a ruse for close to fifty years.

As you wrote " As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy" shows your lack of understanding of political systems.

You can 100% government control on 1 side and 0 government power at the other end

At the 100% you would have labels such as Communism
Socialism,Fascism and such. At 0 would be Anarchy


Our government is in the middle but sliding towards more and more government control and morphing into some for of Oligarchy by buying votes via socialist programs promised by the left.
Then the pudendum swing back and the republicans buy votes by promising to "undue" what the left has done.

Either way the people loose because nothing get totally undone. More and more government control ensues.



1 Yes I would like there to be ZERO dollars donations by corporations and people. Since the government owns public airways and grants them via FCC, hence ABC, CBS, NBC etc let these station allot public time for equal debate for ALL parties and persons. TAKE the money out of politics.

2 I do agree what you indicated by the Republicans and did this week was reprehensible. A passing a trillion + bill and and worse the extra "shit" to help banks and such. But to be fair to republicans , Democrats over screw corporations and republicans attempt to unscrew them.

3 school lunches - Government should not be in regulating school lunch- it should be a local thing. Republicans are just undoing Michelle Obama failed school lunch program. Just more finger pointing points for bloggers to use.

4 Federal government controls the laws in DC Its their little kingdom. They can re ban pot all day long.

Generally speaking there are 5 types of government:
Monarchy - rule by one - never truly exits
Oligarchy - ruled by few - most governments today
Democracy- rule by majority - Majority rule is a failed system.
Republic- rule by law - Law limits Government powers
Anarchy - every man for himself- Always short lived due to power vacuum.


You say " America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism" Well they are basically neighbors in the political spectrum which would be some form of Oligarchy. Neither necessary serve the people freely.


Both Democrats and Republicans are sliding headlong towards Oligarchy. One party is just trying to get there quicker than the other party.


Both parities have utterly failed its people. There is only 1 party that desires to steer this country back towards a Republic and that is the TEA party. They get stronger and stronger every time their party fail its constituents. Were not all right wing lynching nuts. That's just a myth promoted by left wing media to color you thinking to stay on the Democrat plantation.
Truth of the matter is that four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents. Go to a rally and see for you self.

"The rich keep you fed enough that you bark at the intruders." - Some youtuber.

Yes he's a little out of his depth and he's so desperate to try and get people to understand that he's hurrying and nervous. Well, he's a comedian, he isn't used to public speaking, he knows how to make people laugh not convince them in an argument. But he's out there, putting his neck on the line when he doesn't even NEED to - because as the tabloids (controlled by who?) enjoy pointing out he's rich. At least he got rich through his ability to make people laugh, rather than tricking people into voting for him because he'd act in their best interests then selling their decisions to the highest bidder.

We are seeing politicians scrambling for ANYTHING they can to hold power and keep making money for a little longer. That anything is immigration and they're quite happy to let people convince themselves its the immigrants. Even if we are slightly overcrowded for our infrastructure in Britain, we wouldn't be if the money in the system was active and being used to build and be productive instead of sitting in the pockets of people who have everything they want and 8 figure bank balances. These people in charge keep telling us they're going to tackle all these problems, but they never do anything to close the loopholes being used by all the huge corporations who have been paying NO TAX WHATSOEVER during the times of extreme wealth and growth. Is it any wonder our countries are in a dire condition? Our tax system has been starved of hundreds of billions, possibly trillions, who really knows!? And why weren't they closed? Just look at the links between big business and and politics, the only reason we aren't all saying "what the fuck is going on?" is because they can distract people through their control over the media and their convincing oratory skill into going "it's your neighbour.. it's his fault. was he born here? why is he using your hospital?", meanwhile we lose out of BILLIONS because the post office was sold off on the sly! Only to be told next election THAT WE ARE SHORT ON OUR FUCKING BUDGET. You're ok with that happening?! Why is it ok for them to keep coming back having lost our money and asking for more, but if it was a man who came directly to our door to collect our money in exchange for services, we'd tell him to piss off? It's EASIER to blame someone who looks and speaks differently rather than the clever bastard with a gleam in his eye sitting in the pub silver tonguing his constituents.

We are not fucking short on productivity - how many people do you know that think they have a lot of spare time and freedom from work? But that productivity is not being directed appropriately, and if you don't believe that then you need to get outside and talk to people who are less fortunate than you... benefit of the doubt, maybe you just haven't had to see it. But all the money that went on bonuses could be going into improving schools, police, hospitals, public transport and roads and god knows what else. A bunch of people would go without a brand new range rover sport or yacht or champagne holiday for 30... in contrast, thousands less people would die - think of the old people dying in the cold each winter? or hospital beds and treatments for those with cancer or anything that the NHS can't afford to treat? All the freshly educated nurses and doctors thanks to our universities being given cash to improve their facilities and training.

The theory behind all this was trickle-down-wealth, the money will be distributed through society by paying those at the top a lot of money. It CLEARLY does not work, and anyone who suggests otherwise would surely be considered insane. It's not working, we see it not working, so why aren't we fixing it or getting angry and making those in charge fix it?

If Brand is advocating anarchy (and i'd like to know your argument for saying that, i could stand to be convinced), it's because he's exasperated at our inaction and wants to try and stir people to act. We're currently at the other extreme - watching it happen. People are criticising the crowd for being too into brand, too "leftist" or some nonsense. But those are the people that are having their lives drained by these leeches at the top, of course they're only going to come and cheer if someone is going to say what needs to be said. Any other night, it's just drones debating different ways to stack the odds against everyone.

Edited: Tried to make it nicer, more readable, sorry for the long post but he's really really got a great point and i can't understand why we are all ignoring what's going on. We seem to accept that big business WILL get away with not paying billions in tax like that's fine.. but it's not, we can change it, we just have to stop fucking ignoring it and hold these twats to account like Brand is trying to do. It's not like he's suggesting some wild and risky change, he's just saying STOP LETTING AND HELPING PEOPLE STEAL MONEY FROM US. They won't, and watch Farage go bright red when brand talks about his scandals and rich business partners. If they won't, we need to get rid of them. You may not like his demeanour but he is expressing democratic and egalitarian points.

"Russell Brand destroys Nigel Farage on immigration"???
I can only assume you are joking. Brand was WAY out of his depth. In fact, much as I dislike the pseudo revolutionary, vainglorious half wit, I actually felt sorry for him. He was put firmly in his place by one astute person; "If you think you can, why don't you stand (for election)?" His response; " Mate, I'm frightened I'd become one of them." So, he doesn't even have confidence in his own childish rhetoric. He calls for anarchy just as long as he is not at the helm. He should put up, or shut up. Oh, and his call for people not to vote is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things I have heard in a while.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

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.

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.

Who tells Enron or Blackwater they have to disburse? Who enforces this?

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.

Again, what's stopping them? In fact, what stops a company from cutting down a massive forest or polluting a river?

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

Maybe, but it would simply be replaced by something even worse.

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.

And that's why I believe in a representative democracy. To me there are only a few ways the world can work:
- there's what I would call historical anarchy, where there was nothing to stop groups of the powerful banding together to oppress the weak. This has been the default position for most of human history.
- there's small scale communal anarchy, where people live in small communities. It's possible for this to work, but some bright spark usually figures out that these people are easy pickings for oppression (see above). Even if that doesn't happen, it's incredibly limiting. All of our greatest achievements only happen with cooperation on a large scale. If we're ever to get off this rock and see what's out there, it's not going to happen with hippie communes.
- representative democracy. It's ugly, inefficient, susceptible to corruption, open to pointless "moral crusades" and can be heartless and bureaucratic. And it's still the best system we have....

Churchill really wasn't kidding when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

@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.