Leftist retreat? Or anarchist training ground?

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.
User avatar
Atar
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Holland

Leftist retreat? Or anarchist training ground?

Post by Atar » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:41 pm

Hello!

Its been some time since I visited ePlaya. I've changed a lot in the ways of my perception regarding the democratic world. You could say I neigh towards anarchism right now, though still not completely.
Anyways, I would like you to answer a few questions in your own honest opinion. They are both related and unrelated to BM.
Its these questions that have been bugging me for some time now. Please answer in the order if possible:

1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?

For me:
1) Yes, I do. In my opinion its all about personal boundries. What authorities are in place, handle within their reach and apointed tasks. They don't hold a hand over your head and try and promote creative thinking (at least, that is the spirit of it). This excludes official US Law Enforcement Officers ofcourse.
2) Wouldn't know about this. I live in Holland :P
3) I have not... I have seen a tendence towards it, but never any true anarchistic experiment being put forth.
4) Again, I do live in such a country. I'd like to learn about your opinion about this.
5) Hell no. Anarchy is not about chaos and/or disregarding all rules. Though I admire his act as a person I thank Goodness that noone got hurt besides himself.


Highest regards,
Bram. Dutch guy and 2 time burner. Hoping to return someday.

-----
If ignorance is bliss, then knock that smile off my face.

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:42 pm

1) No. Maybe it was at one time in a small scale, but most people agree anarchy works in the small scale, especially for a short time, so it's not much of an experiment.
2) Yes and no. I don't really have a party that represents me very well. I'd say I'd be a moderate Libertarian, if anything, but the actual party platform is nuts IMO
3) Yes, I guess. People like to follow though so there is always some sort of "rulership".
4) Yep. I think the Libertarians had a good idea to migrate to a couple states to try to get some seats.
5) No. If it was, someone probably would have shot him. He didn't have to deal with an anarchic system.
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

User avatar
TomServo
Posts: 6160
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:17 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Black Rock City Assholes Union Local 668
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Post by TomServo » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:25 pm

1. Not on purpose, but yes.
2. No
3. Hell yes, but anarchy isn't necessarily "without" leaders.
4. We do don't we? wish the Libertarians got more press
5. Paul Addis is a nihilist. and an idiot, in my opinion

Read a book, Temporary Autonomous Zone, by fuck can't remember his name Hakim Bey?? Spoke in detail, about temporary communities as anarchy. And about the concept of "Poetic Terrorism." If I knew about Burning Man then, I would have thought the event was what he was referring to.
anything worth doing is worth overdoing..

User avatar
gyre
Posts: 15457
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Post by gyre » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:14 am

I go to burning man because I don't live in Holland.
Maybe I'll do something about that.

User avatar
Atar
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Holland

Post by Atar » Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:35 am

Eh? Holland isn't the best either! :roll: Privacy infringements are ten times worst than whats going on over on your side of the ocean.
Burning with inspiration! [size=134])'([/size]

User avatar
gyre
Posts: 15457
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Post by gyre » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:51 am

Are you sure it's worse there?
Maybe they are just sneakier about it here?

It's very disheartening to hear.
Seems very contrary to the spirit of Nederlanders.

User avatar
mdmf007
Moderator
Posts: 5323
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:32 pm
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: ESD
Location: my computer

Post by mdmf007 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:02 am

1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
Not on purpose. It may seem like that; but i feel it is a side-effect and not a planned component

2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
Nope - BM takes a week, and I vote by mail. As an active member in my party, I do not feel like BM distracts me.

3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
There will always be Alpha people. IMHO there is never a true consensus - and people can be swayed, or pressured into voting a certain way. It does happen though

4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
I would like to see party politics dissapear. I believe thi is the first election for Pres in histroy that has run 24 months. Paricularly the race for the DNC nomination. If I did not know better, you would have thought that Hillary, and Obama were running for the office and not just the nomination.

The amount of money spent this year alone just on the nomination exceeds the money spent in any other election throught he primary!! Funny thing is is that the two of them are closer than apart in their ideas, thoughts, theories, beliefs.


5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?
I think Pauls actions were a stunt run amok at best and Arson at worst.

User avatar
Ron
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:21 pm

Re: Leftist retreat? Or anarchist training ground?

Post by Ron » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:20 am

Atar wrote:....

1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?

....
1) Nope.
2) Nope.
3) Nope.
4) Yes, and nope. Most folk in the U.S. can't be bothered to think past their political mythologies and until we get an involved electorate that has lost it's disdain of intellectualism we don't have much of a chance for systematic improvement in our political system.
5) Nope.


Ron

User avatar
Ugly Dougly
Posts: 17193
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
Burning Since: 1996
Location: เชียงใหม่

Post by Ugly Dougly » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:55 am

1) Experiment? That implies that the anachy has not been perfected.
2) These are my people.
3) It's true anarchy out there right now, in July, without any people. When the crowds arrive, there will only be a pretense of anarchy.
4) We have several parties every week. You just don't get invited to any of them.
5) Addis? Is that some variety of small fly with a tragically short life-span?

User avatar
chiefdanfox
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Oakland, CA
Contact:

Post by chiefdanfox » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:04 am

1. No. I think it is more of a large group camp out. Anarchy is in the realm of political theory. The Rodney King riots in LA were closer to achieving an anarchistic state.
2. No.
3. No. "think of camps that work..." If this is anarchy, then perhaps so is habitat for humanity, or a group of volunteers handing out food at Christmas.
4. Yes. Use an opt out tax on driver's licenses and ID cards. You pay a substantial tax/fine if you do not register to vote, and if you fail to cast votes in elections. All ballots would have a "decline to vote" option to allow folks like our JW friends to stay in line with their religious beliefs. But that box would be checked by the individual and delivered in absentia or cast at a polling place. Voting should be compulsory. Vote or pay through the nose.
5. No.

User avatar
Bob
Posts: 6748
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Bob » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:14 am

No, nein, nada, non, nyet.

Try working for Burning Man -- I'd imagine it's like the Red Light District in Amsterdam, except the customers only have sex with each other, and the pimps keep the whores busy sweeping the streets.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

hunter S
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Playa San Jore MX.
Contact:

Post by hunter S » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:49 am

1.No
2.No
3.No
4.Yes,yes
5.No

I like yes & no Questions!
Objects behind you may appeare larger than reality!

User avatar
ragabashpup
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Suck It!

Post by ragabashpup » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:53 am

1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
No I don't. It's really well organized and I don't think it fits into what true anarchy is.
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
Of course not.
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
Nope
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
All the partys are really the same anyway.
5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?
No I don't think it was. I think it was just a poor deranged soul trying to do what he felt was right. I don't think it was anarchy just insanity.

oFZo
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:25 am
Location: All over Yurp

Post by oFZo » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:03 pm

No, no, no, yes just like yourself, no.
Too many puppies
with guns in their hands.

User avatar
Dork
Posts: 2065
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:01 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: Leftist retreat? Or anarchist training ground?

Post by Dork » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:45 pm

1) It's an attempt at creating utopia, which started out in near anarchy. It has slowly and steadily moved away from this since.
2) I am at least as politically active since I started attending as I was before.
3) If the camp is big enough leaders and rules tend to emerge, official or not. Just like Burning Man itself.
4) I care more about what motivates candidates than how many different banners they carry. 8 parties all owned by the same masters are no better than 2.
5) Anarchy, arson, protest, art, madness, call it what you like.

lurker
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Post by lurker » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:53 am

1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
Since it exists within a non-anarchic society it can't be. Does it strip away a lot of the useless laws and mores we fetter ourselves with? Absolutely. Call it as much anarchy as we can get.
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
Favor for parties? That's not anarchic--that's looking for a collar that doesn't chafe too much.
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
Consensus is not anarchy. Consensus is democracy. A 'true' anarchic setting is a camp comprised of individuals doing what they want. When group action occurs it occurs because the people in that group all WANT to do the group action. Any group action that occurs because the action NEEDS to happen is, by definition, not anarchic(the need becomes the 'arch', if you will).

A lot of camps come close, but need is always an undercurrent.
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
No. Two idiot political parties do enough damage. We need non-aligned people getting in and working to deliver more freedom, more liberty. BRC shows that A LOT of our laws are hindrances. Cleverly disguised intrusions into our freedoms designed to limit us

Look at the present energy crisis. It's designed to villagise us--and it comes along with a whole lot of propaganda about how 'local is better'(think of the recent tomato scare--just one thing among many). A villagised population is easier to control.

And what happens when they've priced transportation so far out of the reach of the people that BM becomes an American-only event? Well, the ultra-rich will still be able to attend from abroad, but what'll happen to BRC?

We've taken so many strides towards a real global society--and now they want us to help them hack our legs off.
5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?
Yes. Too bad it wasn't followed but a similar retaliatory one. But the State thinks we're too stupid to have justice in our hands and we all waddle along, nodding in agreement.

Now, I've gotta say something about anarchy. When I use the term, I don't attach things to it, like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism. I use the term in it's pure form--which means I am a sovereign state, all to myself--and so are you. I work for MY interests, needs, and wants--not yours. I do not expect you to aquiesce to my demands unless it is in your best interests, or serves your purposes.

I don't think humanity is ready for such a thing right now--and not just because so many who are NOT anarchists hide behind the word.

True anarchy requires a complete eradication of need and the eradication of most want. At that point all human interaction becomes a function of desire rather than being channeled by human need.

The problem, of course is getting there.

Right now I call myself a 'rational anarchist'. I obey the laws I can't flout and look constantly for ways of elevating humanity beyond them(well, I look for ways of elevating MYSELF beyond them, if people want to do the same thing, that's up to them)

Anarchy can ONLY be personal, individual. Anyone who says otherwise isn't an anarchist--they're people who think they'll be holding the leash.
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

User avatar
thirt33n
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:13 pm
Burning Since: 2002
Camp Name: Playa Name "Crux"
Location: north

Post by thirt33n » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:08 pm

Atar wrote:Eh? Holland isn't the best either! :roll: Privacy infringements are ten times worst than whats going on over on your side of the ocean.

uh,....nice avatar. are you my brother? :?
blow.

User avatar
TomServo
Posts: 6160
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:17 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Black Rock City Assholes Union Local 668
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Post by TomServo » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:25 pm

are we confusing anarchy with chaos? anarcho-syndicalism was fairly organized..didn't produce the greatest results, but it wasn't chaos. Nihilism is chaos. Not to knock chaos..the universe is chaos..but get our terms right.

unfortunately, it's not a safe world for anarchy. maybe someday.

anarchist...originally labeled social libertarian
anything worth doing is worth overdoing..

User avatar
Atar
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:14 pm
Location: Holland

Post by Atar » Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 am

I am going to try and speak my thing through answering one post...
lurker wrote:
1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
Since it exists within a non-anarchic society it can't be. Does it strip away a lot of the useless laws and mores we fetter ourselves with? Absolutely. Call it as much anarchy as we can get.
Agreed. Though Burningman in its roots looked a lot less like it does now it goes about with less rules and regulations than normal society.
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting time to your political party of favor?
Favor for parties? That's not anarchic--that's looking for a collar that doesn't chafe too much.
To explain my questions: I was looking for some answers in the views of the 'regular' burner (as far as you could say there is one). I have spoken to many burners while I was in the US and most if not all were in some form involved in or had an opinion about politics. Hence the somewhat democratic aimed question.
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM? Think of camps that work by consensus without central leadership or related ideas.
Consensus is not anarchy. Consensus is democracy. A 'true' anarchic setting is a camp comprised of individuals doing what they want. When group action occurs it occurs because the people in that group all WANT to do the group action. Any group action that occurs because the action NEEDS to happen is, by definition, not anarchic(the need becomes the 'arch', if you will).

A lot of camps come close, but need is always an undercurrent.
No. 'Most votes count.' is democratic. I dare say there has been any Democratic vote in history where there was a complete consensus. If a group, party or setting (for instance a livinggroup) cannot come to a consensus it might or (in my opinion) should break apart so that within two smaller groups so that there can be consensus within these groups. Then from a new and more informed point of view these two groups can try again to reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone is on the same line always, it means giving and giving. An atomosphere you can feel at burningman often.
Anarchism (at least for me) means doing what is best for the public, without infringing on their freedoms. The goverment that governs best is the goverment that governs less.
I would like to hear about how you came to the conclusion of anarchism being a 'fight for your own right', aka chaos, thing.
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple (more than bi) party based goverment? And if so: Would you see any way of getting this done in the US?
No. Two idiot political parties do enough damage. We need non-aligned people getting in and working to deliver more freedom, more liberty. BRC shows that A LOT of our laws are hindrances. Cleverly disguised intrusions into our freedoms designed to limit us
Again, see the answer to #2 ;) I cannot agree more though.

Look at the present energy crisis. It's designed to villagise us--and it comes along with a whole lot of propaganda about how 'local is better'(think of the recent tomato scare--just one thing among many). A villagised population is easier to control.

And what happens when they've priced transportation so far out of the reach of the people that BM becomes an American-only event? Well, the ultra-rich will still be able to attend from abroad, but what'll happen to BRC?
It would become more what it is now. An escape from regular society. Though the aftertaste would be even more sour once you return.

We've taken so many strides towards a real global society--and now they want us to help them hack our legs off.
I would welcome an oil drought with open arms. It would mean, at least for a while, that transportion of goods was out of the question. If you want food, you are going to have to grow it localy. People would have to become more involved in the production of their own food and drink. Cowmilk would quickly become a less used product as dairyproperty would have to become farmland for produce. Whole industries would slowly shrink or die out (airplanes, truckdrivers, etc).
In this drought, people would be forced to think about what happens when there is no more gas to be had on our earth.
In other words: Fuck global society. Go local.

5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?
Yes. Too bad it wasn't followed but a similar retaliatory one. But the State thinks we're too stupid to have justice in our hands and we all waddle along, nodding in agreement.

Now, I've gotta say something about anarchy. When I use the term, I don't attach things to it, like anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism. I use the term in it's pure form--which means I am a sovereign state, all to myself--and so are you. I work for MY interests, needs, and wants--not yours. I do not expect you to aquiesce to my demands unless it is in your best interests, or serves your purposes.
Could you explain how you came to this conclusion? Because it looks like you've read and/or talked about it a lot. But to me it seems you still hold an 'outsider' point of view on anarchy. Also know as chaos. 'Self first' sounds very capitalistic to me, or derived from those standards at the least (I am not saying that you are, ofourse, a capitalist).
I don't think humanity is ready for such a thing right now--and not just because so many who are NOT anarchists hide behind the word.
I'd have to agree. But as with everything, you can only do your part. Doing your part doesn't mean you cannot reach a big audience though.
True anarchy requires a complete eradication of need and the eradication of most want. At that point all human interaction becomes a function of desire rather than being channeled by human need.

The problem, of course is getting there.

Right now I call myself a 'rational anarchist'. I obey the laws I can't flout and look constantly for ways of elevating humanity beyond them(well, I look for ways of elevating MYSELF beyond them, if people want to do the same thing, that's up to them)

Anarchy can ONLY be personal, individual. Anyone who says otherwise isn't an anarchist--they're people who think they'll be holding the leash.
Like I said before, I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion :mrgreen:

Regards,
Atar
Burning with inspiration! [size=134])'([/size]

User avatar
Ugly Dougly
Posts: 17193
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
Burning Since: 1996
Location: เชียงใหม่

Post by Ugly Dougly » Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:57 am

This terrorist training facility must be bombed flat!

Oh, it is flat, never mind...

User avatar
Simon of the Playa
Posts: 19277
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
Location: Rochester, Nevada.

Post by Simon of the Playa » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:33 am

Lets just tell it like it is, and spill the fucking beans.....why the fuck not?



D.A.R.P.A Petri Dish.


there, i said it.
Frida Be You & Me

User avatar
Ugly Dougly
Posts: 17193
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
Burning Since: 1996
Location: เชียงใหม่

Post by Ugly Dougly » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:41 pm

You know, when we exodus, we all pass through the same point, where they run microwaves over our genetic material.

User avatar
Simon of the Playa
Posts: 19277
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
Location: Rochester, Nevada.

Post by Simon of the Playa » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:12 pm

they are simply scanning for bacon, and nothing else.
Frida Be You & Me

User avatar
chiefdanfox
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Oakland, CA
Contact:

Post by chiefdanfox » Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:14 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:This terrorist training facility must be bombed flat!

Oh, it is flat, never mind...
there is always room for improvement:
Image

User avatar
ZaphodBurner
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:05 pm
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: The Green Hour 2012 - 9:00 & D
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Leftist retreat? Or anarchist training ground?

Post by ZaphodBurner » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:13 pm

Atar wrote:Hello!


1) Do you concider BM an experiment in anarchy?
2) Does Burningman distract you from gathering votes for/or devoting
3) Have you found any true anarchistic settings at BM?
4) Would you like to live in a country with a multiple
5) In your perception, is Paul Addis' act in last years burn an act of true Anarchism?
1) No. It's an experiment in free expression. There are rules.

2) No. At Burning Man, I'm on vacation. Unlike most politicians, I work for a living.

3) No. There is no such thing as true anarchy within the limitations of human social structure, regardless of race, religion, government or civilization. Expecting humans to live in peaceful anarchy is like expecting bees to hive without a queen or wolves to pack without an Alpha. If they did, they wouldn't be bees, wolves, or humans.

4) I do live in a country with multiple parties; we have greens, libertarians, etc. They're just not as popular yet.

5) Paul Addis is an asshole, and he's likely experiencing anarchy every time he tries to use the prison shower. His act was a childish gesture of true selfishness and arrogance; destruction of community property and violation of community spirit.

Leftist retreat? Fuck leftists. I'm there for the art, the fire, and that immutable landscape that reminds me that father sun and mother earth don't give half a damn if you die. THAT'S anarchy.

-c
"The Red Baron is smart.. He never spends the whole night dancing and drinking root beer.. "-The WWI Flying Ace

lurker
Posts: 607
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Post by lurker » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:32 pm

Atar, I hope my answer answers
Agreed. Though Burningman in its roots looked a lot less like it does now it goes about with less rules and regulations than normal society.
Sadly, BRCs more regulated nature seems to be more a function od feared litigiousness from citizens than any actual law enforcement issue. But yes, it has changed. We deal with the changes and wait for the pendulum to swing--or be forced--back.
No. 'Most votes count.' is democratic. I dare say there has been any Democratic vote in history where there was a complete consensus.


Consensus is a better form, in some cases, of democracy, but it's still democracy. It works well until counterproductive ideas are allowed into the consensus to hold the group together. Having worked extensively in consensus based systems, I like it--but I also know that it invariably leads to the split you describe. And that split tends to lead to periods of authoritarianism.
If a group, party or setting (for instance a livinggroup) cannot come to a consensus it might or (in my opinion) should break apart so that within two smaller groups so that there can be consensus within these groups. Then from a new and more informed point of view these two groups can try again to reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone is on the same line always, it means giving and giving. An atomosphere you can feel at burningman often.
Consensus is an amalgam stance. It combines various ideas to form one that the group agrees on. This can be great. Or awful.
Anarchism (at least for me) means doing what is best for the public,
Then your definition of anarchy is radically different from mine. An archy, no(an) overarching system(archy--or 'public'). In an anarchy there can be things that exist, processes that would benefit 'everyone', but there is no compulsion to carry them out. Nothing can enforce the public good because the 'public' as a viable frame of reference has ceased to exist.

The public has become a group of disparate sovereign individuals who can, and should, act in their own best interests
without infringing on their freedoms.
It is not possible to compell without infringing on freedoms.
The goverment that governs best is the goverment that governs less.
Yes.
I would like to hear about how you came to the conclusion of anarchism being a 'fight for your own right', aka chaos, thing.
Well, I don't think I advocated any fighting for rights--particularly in an anarchic system. Because you don't have any in an anarchy. But, as we go, I'll try to elaborate.
I would welcome an oil drought with open arms. It would mean, at least for a while, that transportion of goods was out of the question. If you want food, you are going to have to grow it localy.
Each year, at Christmas we get, in our stockings, and orange, a tangering, and an apple--usually a big Fuji or some other exotic. It's a tradition I've maintained from my childhood--it's one that's long in our family--and in many. Do you know why? Because, at one time, these were luxury items. Strange and rare treats from distant places
People would have to become more involved in the production of their own food and drink.
At one time we all struggled to have enough to eat. We lived lives that revolved around making sure we didn't die of starvation over the winter. We worked hard and lived short, brutish lives.

Leisure was the ultimate luxury and it led to art and science. Before leisure, before we stopped worrying about the gnawing in our stomachs, we scrabbled in the dirt
Cowmilk would quickly become a less used product as dairyproperty would have to become farmland for produce.
Cowsmilk, and other rich protein sources helped in our quest for lives beyond toil. Without modern farming techniques we cannot grow enough food to feed everyone.
Whole industries would slowly shrink or die out (airplanes, truckdrivers, etc).
And so would people. Millions--maybe billions will die.
In this drought, people would be forced to think about what happens when there is no more gas to be had on our earth
In this drought the strong will take what they need from the week. Humanitarianism will die to keep the generator running one more day--to stave off the darkness one more night. In your drought there will be war. Massive war.
In other words: Fuck global society. Go local.
We can't anymore. It's just not possible.
Could you explain how you came to this conclusion? Because it looks like you've read and/or talked about it a lot. But to me it seems you still hold an 'outsider' point of view on anarchy. Also know as chaos. 'Self first' sounds very capitalistic to me, or derived from those standards at the least (I am not saying that you are, ofourse, a capitalist).
I am a rational anarchist. Rational enough to understand that 'capitalism' is merely a word for the natural process that happens when you want something someone else has and don't want to kill them for it. Children, all unschooled, do it on the playground, or in the lunchroom--they trade something they can part with for something they want--and walk away wealthier. 'Capital'--money--is merely those same playground trades made with a 'coupon' that can be traded for whatever you want.

People who use 'capitalism' as a dirty word merely want you to function under their personal 'ism'. But most of their 'isms' don't work--they want to replace something that happens naturally in humans with something that doesn't. Sharing.

Sharing has to be taught. It has to be made clear to children that sharing pays off--that it works out to be in their best interests to share.

And 'their interests' is the key. Let's call it enlightened self interest, okay?

As an anarchist I want MY life to be the best it can be. So how do I go about that? By doing things and being in situations where I am happy. Now 'anarchy' has all that 'no rules' crap tied to it so a lot of people think this means that I take what I want, and do what I want without regard to others. But being that kind of asshole would leave a whole lot of unhappy(and in an anarchy possibly murderous) people in my wake. That would make my life unhappy. So, instead, I treat others the way I expect them to treat me. I do good things for people around me expecting the same in return. As long as things work out like that I'm happy.

And if they don't, justice is mine to mete out. Even here though, I consider what form that can take while maintaining my overall happiness. Can I kill the offender? Sure!--in an anarchy. But does the offense merit it? And can I defend my position from the offenders friends?

Anarchy isn't easy.

The basic thing is that nothing is compelled.

The problem--and hence all my caveats--is that there are far too many people who are not ready to be free of government compulsion. The trick is to teach them while weaning them from their need.

Now, you said I seem to come from an 'outsider' point of view. And I do. Because I'm an anarchist. I can't--by definition--BE an insider. There's nothing to be inside. See, the problem you're having is that the term 'anarchist' has been co-opted by people who are, at heart, leftists. They tack on some anarchic buzzwords but still think things like a 'public' are a real thing worthy of consideration. 'Public' means 'state'--however small you might reduce that states population. 'Public' means rules. And you can't have rules and be an anarchist--at best you have guidelines--extermely local and flexible--that make it possible to live without your neighbors killing you.

Rules are compulsion. With compulsion there can be no anarchy.

Humans are not ready--mentally or technologically(and technology is a must for anarchy to succeed) for anarchy yet.

But I've got time.

One last note, I single out those I feel are actually on the left side of the political spectrum when I point out those who would use the term without acting on the proper meaning of the word, but there are a few on the right side who do this as well--their version of anarchy exists to let them set up kingdoms where they make the rules. They are just as statist as those on the left.

Those who get called 'anarcho--capitalists' are usually laissez faire capitalists rather than anarchists at all. But, it is possible to be a 'capitalist' while being an anarchist. Capitalism can be reduced to barter--it needs no political system whatsoever. It falls well within the framework of loose guidelines that allow you to live a happy life without doing things that make your neighbors want to kill you.
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

User avatar
TomServo
Posts: 6160
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:17 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Black Rock City Assholes Union Local 668
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Post by TomServo » Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:04 am

chiefdanfox Daisy Cutter? Impressive little bombs
anything worth doing is worth overdoing..

User avatar
chiefdanfox
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Oakland, CA
Contact:

Post by chiefdanfox » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:34 am

TS,
Nope. This was the "Sedan" experiment. Civilian use of nukes for mining, from "Operation Plowshare". 104 kilotons. Ahh, the early sixties, America's heyday. I still remember Fred Flintstone pimping Winston cigarettes at the Drive-in movies.
Check out the crater:
http://www.wikimapia.org/4649/

User avatar
gyre
Posts: 15457
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: ΦάÏ

Post by gyre » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:15 am

The USSR made extensive civilian use of nuclear 'devices', changing river courses and so on.

The most entertaining use has to be the hydrogen test that was underestimated and wiped out the entire upper military of Russia.
This was successfully kept secret for many years.

They also appear to have had a massive accidental explosion that contaminated an area to this day.
I am not aware of details.

User avatar
Simon of the Playa
Posts: 19277
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
Location: Rochester, Nevada.

Post by Simon of the Playa » Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:28 pm

They also appear to have had a massive accidental explosion that contaminated an area to this day.
I am not aware of details.
yes, the name is "Detroit".
Frida Be You & Me

Post Reply

Return to “Philosophical Center”