spraci.info

I can't support anarchy as a political system, but I agree that our system is broken. I think it could be fixed either with bi-partisan compromise, or with eliminating political parties. Additionally, it would require tweaks to laws and perhaps even the constitution, because the government is currently rigged to favor the wealthy. It can be fixed, but only if we play to cooperate instead of to win.
@V.O. Diedlaff I agree with your statement about anarchy. Chaos isn't good. But in terms of fixing the US political system (I assume you're talking about that?) A two party system ain't going to work anymore. Methinks the US needs to be split up, because at this point in time it's not an "United" anything. IMHO California and most of the western states should be a separate country, along with most of the US eastern states. Both of those examples are far different from the mid western and south in terms of politics. I mean where do you think most of the private militias come from??
I agree with your statement about anarchy. Chaos isn't good.
Maybe we should all learn the very basics of anarchism first before discussing about it.
@V. O. Diedlaff
I can’t support anarchy as a political system, but I agree that our system is broken.
why?
For some, I'm sure, the country is working fine, but I'm concerned that Americans have fewer opportunities to be heard and to get ahead. Since the 1980s, those earning the most have seen their incomes sky rocket while wages for the other 80 percent have remained stagnant. I go into detail on this subject in "We Can Fix It: Reclaiming the American Dream." It's 150 pages including bibliography and citations. The eBook version is free from Smashwords, B&N, Apple, etc. It can also be purchased in print or for Kindle on Amazon.
OK @Kim Jong Double Fuck enlighten us ...
Start with wikipedia.
Smartass. plonk
@V.O. Diedlaff I agree with your statement about anarchy. Chaos isn’t good.
anarchism isn't the opposite of chaos. what you mean is agony. anarchism is order through arrangment between people.

and anarchism happened on this earth more than times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism <-- you had one job
Of course words mean different things to different people and depending upon the context in which the word is used. In my primitive mind, an anarchist is a guy in a dark trench coat throwing a Molotov cocktail. The Wiki definition treats anarchy differently than another I saw. It treats anarchy as an ideal, whereas in my mind it's an absence of ideals. But that's neither here nor there, what I'm against is chaos. I don't believe in an Ayn Rand world of self-interested individuals, or that an unregulated market will always be guided by an invisible hand causing it to do the right thing. Some things need to be limited; murder, for instance needs to be punished lest it become an acceptable practice. Markets need to be regulated lest they result in bursting bubbles that threaten to take down world economies.
On the other hand, if politics keep going the way they've been going I might buy myself a dark trench coat and throw something.
In my primitive mind, an anarchist is a guy in a dark trench coat throwing a Molotov cocktail.
Everything you write sounds like you still didn't bother looking up what Anarchism even means. Please do.
@V. O. Diedlaff
Of course words mean different things to different people and depending upon the context in which the word is used. In my primitive mind, an anarchist is a guy in a dark trench coat throwing a Molotov cocktail.
no, no trenchcoat, no cocktail. only cubra libre (joke :-) ) you have definitly a wrong image in your head.
The Wiki definition treats anarchy differently than another I saw. It treats anarchy as an ideal, whereas in my mind it’s an absence of ideals.
the word anarchy is more a philosophy word. an anarchism is a lived form that should come as close as possible to anarchy. there are some example that was reality in the past. for example the spanish civil war (1936-39) or the machnowitschina movement (a part of the ukraine 1918-21) and so on.
in spain a huge area of this land was organised in anarchist ways. in one and a have... Show more...
I did and I stand by what I wrote. It’s one of those words that takes on multiple meanings.
yes, but than you are definitly wrong. in all ways.
You're right. I didn't look up "anarchism." I looked up "anarchy" instead, failing to notice the difference. I was wrong. I think perhaps under ideal conditions society could function without a hierarchical structure, but I don't see how it could function without regulations. However, I believe that you're on to something. In his book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, historian Walter Sheidel discusses human capacity for both cooperation and hierarchy. When societies move from hunting and gathering to herding and farming, they begin accumulating surpluses -- these surpluses give rise to property and property gives rise to systems like capitalism. We will soon have a highly automated society freeing workers to do something else. I wonder what they'll do. Will they create self-actualizing jobs or be starved to death by those owning the AIs and robots?
I think perhaps under ideal conditions society could function without a hierarchical structure, but I don’t see how it could function without regulations.
the regulations, rules or whatever give the humans to eachother on eye-level. and when you don't have an interest in making money you have to regulate something.
you have to regulate something.
you don't have to regulate something. meidiot