My question is simply, is violence ever justified? I don't have time to put my thoughts on this now but I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks (I'm not singling you out 'Coatl, it's just your quote got me thinking!)

If someone is trying to kill me, I'm gonna do my best to make sure that doesn't happen. And in the case of a government becoming a totalitarianistic organization, then I think it can be justified.

The mosquitoes are out in force and I murder them with reckless abandon although they know not what they do. I have no remorse for wiping out their lives and I justify it by the potential pain and disease that they represent to me.

⠀

QFT

And dont hit women because you have a small penis. This causes elves in hyperspace to cry.

Violence is only justifiable when met with violence. If somebody tried to come to my house and take my Peyote and put me in a cage (jail), I would attempt to defend myself and my home. Simple.

If the government began to make information illegal (making books or websites illegal) I would lead protests, but hope nobody inside got hurt.

One thing I do NOT think is justifiable is war. War is when groups of human beings kill other groups of human being on a large scale. War is not justifiable in all but the most extreme situation (such as the annihilation of the entire human race by aliens or something along those lines).

I would not consider dismantling the government by burning down all the necessary buildings violent. If some of the politicians died in the process... well that sucks, but they should have thought of that before they rose to a position of power.

If the mob decided to build a gallows and start hanging all the politicians, I would disagree with that.

Think about this... there's only 9,900 cops in L.A. There's 13 MILLION PEOPLE IN JUST THE METROPOLITAN AREA.... most of them are probably disgruntled already. I think the window of opportunity to grasp complete control of the population is closing fast, but making information illegal would be a milestone for them, to say the least.

That being said, it is probably safe to say anyone who's posted in this thread is now on the government's list of suspected terrorists.

This makes a lot of sense...turn yourself from a peaceful botanical grower, into a murderer & terrorist, that would solve lots-o-stuff!!
This would also do great things for the way the powers-that-be (and average, uneducated folks) view the psychedelics community as a whole!!
Thanks for backing up all of their propaganda & lies!!

BTW, I'm guessing that if you really did any of those things, you would probably have a real drug-war on your hands.

Governments do not need to be sticking their collective noses in private citizens personal lives & preferences, but doing away with Gov't altogether, would also mean no one to take care of the roads you drive on everyday. No one to maintain & regulate the communications networks that we rely on to use this web forum.
And most importantly, without the powers that be looming over humans, unfortunately the shitty, selfish, violent types would take over & enslave the rest of us peaceful, equality-minded people without much resistance.
History has proven this, over & over again.
It's just too bad that history has also proven how most governments eventually become separated from the general public they where created to serve & elevate themselves above the common citizen. Drunk with power & untested, they tend to eventually think they know better about everything for everybody under their control & this is just not necessary, or even feasible in practice!!

Wow, got a bit carried away there, but it just rubs me the wrong way when I hear people talking about destroying government stability for the sake of their personal interests.
That is the basic root of terrorism right there, just need to follow through with it to gain the label.

This is also the same thing that ends up bringing down most governments, Just in reverse.
Governing for the lobbyists, who pay them under the table to buy votes etc...
Instead of doing what needs to be done for the good of the general public, like they where hired to do.


WS

Only for the defense of the self or others. I agree that War is wrong in all but the most dire circumstances.

Do you guys think that WWII against Nazi Germany counts as one of these instances? They where basically aiming to take over all of europe(and maybe even the entire world?) and exterminate an entire ethnic group.

Even in these circumstance I do not know if I could bring myself to kill another human being but I can understand why others would feel so inclined. I just don't have it in me to do so and would only be able to if my life was directly threatened and that is only because it is a purely instinctual response and not a moral question. This for me is a complicated question.

This makes a lot of sense...turn yourself from a peaceful botanical grower, into a murderer & terrorist, that would solve lots-o-stuff!!

Ya in truth I would probably go peacefully so I could make a case for the entheogenic community and the religious use of entheogens.... but in prinipal I'd like to put a boot up there ass.



Yes, I believe WWII was justifiable.

BTW, I am an anarchist.

Anarchy gotta be the most useless belief system ever. People cannot help but harm one another when there is no leadership present so ditch anarchy. It will never work, so don't think about it. Move on to something useful. Apply yourself to something that will matter at some point or sometime. You might be able to control yourself but most people can't. move on, please, for the love of humanity, move on from anarchy

WOW..



You honestly think that America couldn't maintain roads without Washington?

REALLY?????

I agree that there would have to be some sort of organization amongst ourselves (call that a gov`t if you want, but when limited gov`t works without people in seats of POWER, that is indistinguishable from social anarchy).

but the powers-that-be???? ..... so we need religious, neurotic, psychotic, power mongering people in Washington to take care of the roads?

I seriously hope not.

I have a long time friend who has worked on roads his whole life. If the paycheck stopped coming, but his mortgage disappeared, I have no doubt that he would still go to work. He loves to build roads!! When I see him and his work buddies... They are positively thrilled at the sense of accomplishment!!!

As for networking, all the people who love computers... and programming... and improving networking capabilities.. would they all quit doing what they love if the Federal government were dismantled?

I think not.



LUDICROUS.

People are already harming each other, its called violent crime, it exists in every society, and obviously it is unpreventable.... people get pissed at each other and sometimes hurt or kill one another, the police DO NOT stop this from happening, they just clean up the mess, or in most cases complicate things.

To think that large amounts of people would aspire to becoming serial killers because badges and police cruisers disappear is outrageous. MOST people are 100% capable of behaving rationally. YOU AND 95% OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATE IN ANARCHY EVERY DAY!!!! I believe in the MOST LIMITED GOVERNMENT possible... but mostly anarchy. In the absence of FEAR mongering governments, and FEAR mongering churches and religions, and with food and shelter, the general public behaves 100% rationally. It is FEAR and SCARCITY of needs that causes crime.



This is an absurd statement. According to WS you are a murderer if someone breaks into your home, meaning you harm, and you kill them; and you are terrorist if you march on Washington for infringing on your rights.... if you do those things it hurts the psychedelic communities reputation.

ummmm.... WHAT?



Not if those peaceful, equally-minded people have guns to defend themselves, which is a main facet of anarchy.

Coatl`, you hit the nail on the head, glad there's a fellow anarchist here.

Anarchy is cloud-cuckoo-land. Throughout history the stateless times have been lawless in the worst sense of the word... marauding tribes and endless war. It only ever 'works' when a group of friendly, intellectual, idealist types form a little commune together. Obviously we don't know how even these communities would deal with crime as the modern ones have always been founded within a state. The not so modern ones, well then you have blood feuds etc like you still get in Pakistan and the Phillipines in the remote areas where there is barely any state presence. I've never met an anarchist who could give me a convincing argument- to me they're just pissed off by how society's running right now so they outright reject the whole thing entirely without any realistic thought to whether it would actually work or not.

The film 'Time of the Gypsies' sums up anarchy for me:
http://www.youtube.com/w...p;index=0&playnext=1
The next part is always in the little box to the right. Predation and slavery. That's why I'm a minarchist- the state is essential. We just need to tweak the system a little to make it more just.

You have the right to defend yourself against someone who is actually attacking you or someone else. That is the only time that violence is justified. And that doesn't mean when a paranoid state decides that another state is out to get them (or pretends they think that because really they want their oil). It means if someone in front of you has their fist/knife/bullet/missile coming at you.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think when writing things like ter or ism, or ch ild ab use, etc, it's good to make some deliberate grammatical mistakes so it doesn't show up on google searches- we don't want that sort of attention here. There must be people whose job it is to seek out that kind of thing and we want as little of those types finding their way here as possible.

I will do that.

I'd call my ideal form of society an anarchistic socialistic democratic commune-state.

It is very far from the anarchy and chaos theory.... I wish for anarchism and peace.



That is insanely paranoid. Chill out dude.

The term anarchy is thrown around so much in a negative way, every-time I use it, I instantly have to defend a slue of ridiculous claims and accusations about the social ramifications of anarchy, so that people don't think I'm some sort of idiot or terrorist. Sure, the word has a literal definition of utter chaos in its most pure, unorganized form, but that doesn't define the way an anarchist society would actually work.

anarchistic socialistic democratic commune-state

sounds absolutely SPLENDID to me.

Exactly. I'm glad you see what I mean.

If anyone here is seriously interested in revolution or anarchism, the following are essential:

Anarchism in America
The Spanish Civil War pt5/6 Inside the Revolution
The Battle of Algiers

Also, I strongly suggest reading Albert Camus' "The Rebel: An Essay of Man in Revolt."

Oh yeah, this pertains as well:

The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom pt.3/3 "We Will Force You to be Free"

All the Adam Curtis docs are well worth your while.




What a wonderful post for my 777th! Maybe it's an omen.

I believe jail for what I put in my body would turn me into a monster.

I agree. It's just that for me the forms of anarchy that I can envisage working (without having to genetically re-engineer humankind to act a bit more civil!) don't seem like true anarchy to me because they still have some semblance of a state, albeit a less centralised one... they seem more like a form of minarchism than anarchism, though they are neither really). When I talk about anarchy I'm talking about the abolition of the state. Correct me if I'm wrong.