Who are you? Why are you supposed to be so interesting?
I got married to the love of my life in 2007. I was homeless with my hubby before we were married. I am a psychedellic anarcho communist and I am an antimonetarianist. I have a young son (the second love of my life) and I am dirt broke. Don't tell me I am a stupid kid who doesn't know anything, I have many life experiences.
Wait, isn't anarcho-communism a bit of an oxymoron?
I don't see how anarchy and communism are incompatible. I believe there should be no central government and everything should be communally owned.
Communism is an economic system where everyone figuratively owns all products. Anarchy is the belief that no one person or group is in charge.
For example, in America, democracy is the government and capitalism is the econimic system.
What does antimonetarianism mean?
It means I do not believe in money. I don't think that money is the best way to distribute goods and services.
Neither one has really ever worked.
Neither one has been given a chance. Why do we limit ourselves on the mistakes of the past? There are examples of brief periods of anarchy, but I believe that anarchy is not something that is going to happen tomorrow. Anarchy is a result of human evolution.
Evolution? Really?
Eventually those who cannot share will die out. Someone who is always trying to get more than others will be isolated from the group, leading to extinction.
(Please send more questions on this issue as I would love to flesh it out.)
But wouldn't the battle for power eventually take over?
People can seek power, but there will be none to be found. Society will not listen to one or a few people but rather many. Instead of a hive format it will be more like a school of fish or a herd of cows
In a herd of cows there's still a lead cow.
Not a permanent leader. One will decide to go in one direction and if it deemed a good idea the rest will follow. this cow will not always be the one who decides where to go. In effect it is a temporry leader.
Actually more often not its the same lead cow until it dies or is cut out of the herd. But people listen to one person more then you would want to think.
Yes, but in an anarchy you would have the option of not listening to them. Some people are more worth listening to. However if that person ceases to be wise, the majority will not follow.
Wouldn't people just start killing each other?
I am not talking about right this minute, I am talking about evolution. That aside if there were no laws would you just start killing people? Do you think the fact that killing is against the law stops those who kill?
When someone is compelled to do so, or are in rage, they don't just stop because it is against the law? Do you feel you are so different from most people? We are all basically the same.
I don't believe the law stops the people who are capable of killing. People die even with laws and it is not like there would be no punishment for those who kill others. People would not stand idly by when there is a murderer in their midst.
A vigilantly system? How would rules be set down and how would we set the punishments?
That is a problem with laws as well. The courts are full of cases regarding whether something was wrong and how much the punishment should be set. The values of the majority would dictate as they do now.
The decisions would be made by a group assembled on the spot. The flaw with my plan, however, would be the rights of the defendant and how to protect him/her from wrongful conviction or cruel punishment.
(I still need some help developing this point in particular.)
If you have anything to add, clarify, or any other ideas or problems please comment or email me at mmm_paste@hotmail.com I won't be offended by your ideas. I love to hone my philosophies. Sincerely, lola.
No comments:
Post a Comment