Any other teenage anarchist? (self.teenagers)

{teenagers}

27 ups - 84 downs = 0 votes

I get bored and /r/anarchism is fun and all but the ageism, jesus.

302 comments submitted at 06:50:13 on Jan 5, 2013 by seankealiher

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -150 Points
  • 07:13:44, 5 January

Well for one I personally believe that everyone should be in control of their own lives, and not have someone telling them what to do, so there is the anti-authoritarian part out of the way. I am anti-state because I believe the state is pure violence. Be it the prison system, cops, federal agents, all of it needs to go because they inflict SOOOOO much harm on folks.

  • [-]
  • sirderpy
  • 35 Points
  • 16:40:10, 5 January

So in your world if I'm bigger than you then I get to make you my bitch?

  • [-]
  • Kozbot
  • 2 Points
  • 20:20:21, 6 January

you know without the government or police it would be the biggest misogynistic rape fest.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -67 Points
  • 20:48:42, 5 January

Misogny and patriarchy, you resally should get out of your male power complex

  • [-]
  • hflol
  • 42 Points
  • 20:51:39, 5 January

But it's anarchy. We can do whatever we want. If you don't like it, take control of your own life.

Huehuehue.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -57 Points
  • 21:01:49, 5 January

Lololololol ya'll are funny.

  • [-]
  • hflol
  • 23 Points
  • 21:03:26, 5 January

In an anarchy you would probably end up in the kitchen forever.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -45 Points
  • 21:07:30, 5 January

Lol at "In an anarchy"

  • [-]
  • hflol
  • 15 Points
  • 21:10:36, 5 January

Anarchist state*

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -49 Points
  • 21:12:13, 5 January

Aanarchist are anti-state, try again

  • [-]
  • hflol
  • 21 Points
  • 21:13:53, 5 January

It's in a state of anarchy.

  • [-]
  • Lokarn
  • 4 Points
  • 23:13:18, 5 January

Against state, everyone is free to do whatever they want. So let me grab some guns and go to your local area of residence for some looting and raiding to teach you the true meaning of anarchy.

  • [-]
  • gnarlytrees
  • 2 Points
  • 05:00:36, 6 January

state: 1a: mode or condition of being

Tired state, excited state, anarchist state.

  • [-]
  • knicksfan21
  • 26 Points
  • 23:39:41, 5 January

lol you are literally the fucking stereotype of "the radical teenager that thinks he knows every thing" and that's coming from someone younger then you.

>Misogny patriarchy male power complex

Because I have never seen a women resort to violence or intimidation lol. Also, using big words does not make you look as smart as you think it does.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -24 Points
  • 02:11:06, 6 January

Lol not trying to sound smart, I just don't feel like typing huge paragraphs :)

  • [-]
  • sirderpy
  • 8 Points
  • 22:05:54, 5 January

Yeah words like that will really help you in anarchy.

  • [-]
  • po0pdawg
  • 20 Points
  • 02:21:08, 6 January

Someone just saw fight club for the first time.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -15 Points
  • 02:23:39, 6 January

LOLOOLOLOL oh that made me laugh pretty hard thanks for that.

  • [-]
  • po0pdawg
  • 8 Points
  • 02:26:13, 6 January

Good luck when you grow out of the awkward "2smart4everyoneelse" phase and realize how stupid you actually are right now.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -10 Points
  • 02:28:03, 6 January

Im actually not that smart at all and I don't think im smarter than anyone here, except the voluntaryist and proto-fascist.

  • [-]
  • po0pdawg
  • 11 Points
  • 02:32:26, 6 January

Implying you know what those words mean.

But yeah, enjoy the years of cringing over how ignorant you were.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -10 Points
  • 02:33:01, 6 January

I will, thank you.

  • [-]
  • Galactus177
  • 9 Points
  • 22:35:37, 5 January

I can't believe this. You are ridiculous.

  • [-]
  • IsThatJesus
  • 9 Points
  • 02:05:00, 6 January

So, say we get rid of all authority and someone decides to kill you, what stops them? Say they're bigger and stronger than you, and they've got you cornered. What then?

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -18 Points
  • 02:14:18, 6 January

Looks like I am dead. Hey guess what a person wouldn't do that though in an anarchist society.

  • [-]
  • IsThatJesus
  • 12 Points
  • 02:20:02, 6 January

Why not?

People kill for all sorts of reasons. They do it because they're jealous, because it's fun, because they get a sexual thrill from it, because they want to feel incontrol, because they're a religious fanatic, or just because they're angry. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. There has always been, and there will always be, murder.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -15 Points
  • 02:25:10, 6 January

Oh totally not doubting that. It will be easier to prevent in an anarchist society though.

  • [-]
  • IsThatJesus
  • 8 Points
  • 02:30:14, 6 January

What makes it easier to prevent?

It seems like it'd be harder. There's no more cops, no more army, no more prisons.

What it seems like is that warlords would rise up. Look at Somali. Somali is an anarchist place (I don't want to say state, because anarchist state sounds like an oxymoron). What happens is that people, either through intelligence, strength, wealth, or just luck, gain authority over others. And some of these people are bound to be corrupt.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -14 Points
  • 02:31:51, 6 January

LOL WHUT, you need to study white imperialism before you use Africa as an example.

  • [-]
  • IsThatJesus
  • 8 Points
  • 02:33:47, 6 January

So, warlords wouldn't rise up?

What stops them? Seriously, why doesn't some guy with a machine gun decide, "I should be in charge"?

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -13 Points
  • 02:35:25, 6 January

siggghhh.....In an anarchist society the idea of ruling over others would be completely eliminated from the human brain. Greed, envy, property, the free market, they all have 1 thing in common with eachother, they are a social construct. Social constructs don't disappear in a day, it would take a few generations, but you see my point.

  • [-]
  • IsThatJesus
  • 10 Points
  • 02:39:40, 6 January

So, your idea for anarchy only works if, over several generations, everyone in the whole goddamn world stops being greedy, stops owning things, and stops wanting things?

That's goddamn impossible.

And greed isn't even a social construct. We evolved it, because it's helpful. Greedy people are less like to starve. Greedy people are less likely to be caught without some sort of weapon when a saber toothed tiger attacks.

  • [-]
  • Swamp85
  • 32 Points
  • 07:21:21, 5 January

Then what do you do with no authority? You will never NOT have authority. If suddenly all the authority in the world vanished, someone would take their places.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -77 Points
  • 07:24:07, 5 January

Not true at all.

  • [-]
  • matteotom
  • 10 Points
  • 07:33:14, 5 January

To organize anything, somebody (or group) needs authority. The way we have it now, the government has ultimate authority. Without government, authority may be decentralized, but it would still be there.

The difference is the legitimacy of the authority (ignoring the fact that "authority" implies legitimate). You may say the government's authority is illegitimate (I would tend to agree), so the government should be gotten rid of.
With anarchy, the authority would just be [more] legitimate. For example, if my community wanted to build a swimming pool, somebody would have to be in charged of building it, and they would have authority over the workers. Of course, this authority would be [arguably] legitimate, since the workers would have agreed to it.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -52 Points
  • 07:40:29, 5 January

Ummm no someone would NOT be in charge of the workers if they wanted to build a swimming pool. It's called, wait for it......Not being an authoritarian dick. Nobody needs to be controlled. To say authority is needed means you have a power complex and no faith in people. Anarchy is all around us. be it 2 roomates, some relationships. it's everywhere and completely possible.

  • [-]
  • matteotom
  • 10 Points
  • 07:51:43, 5 January

I think we're defining authority differently. From Google:

>1. The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates".
>2. The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.

In the swimming pool example, the project leader would not have ultimate authority; however, it is still authority. I would simply be limited to the scope of building the swimming pool. He (or she) would not have any say over a worker's home life or anything outside of the project, but would give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience by, for example, firing a worker who does not work with the team to further the construction of the swimming pool.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -33 Points
  • 07:53:06, 5 January

I agree with you on the authority part, but you're wrong because it's NOT needed. Ever hear of worker collectives? Also read up on anarcho-syndicalism.

  • [-]
  • matteotom
  • 6 Points
  • 08:05:19, 5 January

OK, let's step up the scale of the example. What if they were building a skyscraper? Even if the workers were in charged of the project, they would have to in some way appoint or elect an (multiple) engineer(s) to actually design it, and then tell them how to build it.
And authority doesn't have to be given to a single person. Even in something like a worker's collective, the authority would simply be spread out equally to every worker. They would still make decisions, give orders (to themselves), and enforce obedience (kick out a person who is counter-productive).

  • [-]
  • ViniTheHat
  • 4 Points
  • 08:08:58, 5 January

why is the task of designing it one of authority?

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -33 Points
  • 08:09:06, 5 January

You should Definatly read up on anarcho-syndicalism. Again, you're wrong because the engineer would not be TELLING how to build said bulding, but explain how through mutual consent. If the workers like it and are willing to build it cool, consent. If the engineer was the boss and said "You have to do it this way and blah blah authoritarian complex" Then fuck that guy, you get what I mean?

  • [-]
  • matteotom
  • 12 Points
  • 08:21:19, 5 January

I think you're assuming that authority is always in some way forced, or illegitimate. The workers (most of which probably know little about how to build a skyscraper) could give mutual consent for the engineer (who could actually be one of the workers) to tell them (or in your words, explain to them) how to build the building. In the end, the group as a whole would have ultimate control over what the end product would look like, but they would agree that in order to correctly build the building, they would need to submit to the authority of the engineer regarding how to reach the end goal.

And as a side note, in my experience with leadership, nothing will get done unless somebody is in the lead. Even when we have a common goal, in groups of more than about 10, we are much more efficient if we designate one person to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done, and assign task to everyone.

  • [-]
  • Yodoggy9
  • 4 Points
  • 01:12:59, 6 January

Have you ever built something? Hell, have you ever worked on a group project? Did you and your group manage to get things done? How? I assume by talking it out, correct? Now, let's say someone wants to work on something that someone else wants to work on, too. What now? Have them argue over it? You'll never get anything done. There is always a leader, even if you don't consciously notice it.

Now, I'm not going to group all Anarchists into one one basket, but for the most part this rings true: most anarchists are unhappy with government because THEY aren't the ones in power. It's not that they want everyone to be free of authority, it's that they want to be the authority, and throwing everything into anarchy gives them a fighting chance to make it happen.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -6 Points
  • 02:13:48, 6 January

Because you know every anarchist? rigggghhtttttt

  • [-]
  • Yodoggy9
  • 4 Points
  • 03:11:18, 6 January

"Now, I'm not going to group all anarchists into one basket.." - Yodoggy9

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -3 Points
  • 03:22:06, 6 January

You said most. I HIGHLY doubt you know most anarchist, I highly doubt you know at least 10

  • [-]
  • Yodoggy9
  • 2 Points
  • 04:21:36, 6 January

Why do you doubt it? Is it because YOU don't know at least 10? Or perhaps you're the only one that CAN know at least 10, correct? Your smugness is a testament to how little you actually know the subject you claim to support.

  • [-]
  • foxxygrandpa
  • 4 Points
  • 07:48:26, 5 January

I see where you're coming from but you're thinking isn't very linear. And you're putting all types of authority under one category. Also are you saying if there was no centralized government, there would be no authority at all? I'm confused.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -28 Points
  • 07:50:12, 5 January

Centralized government is statism. In a statist society authority would be everywhere. If there wasn;t a centralized government, well that would just be a smaller government, some libertarian stuff which is basically micro-fascism. Also you have no idea where I come from with my ideological beliefs.

  • [-]
  • foxxygrandpa
  • 5 Points
  • 07:57:56, 5 January

Alright sorry. Its obvious I don't know much about this topic and I wasn't trying to cover that up. No need to be a jerk.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -32 Points
  • 08:02:15, 5 January

Wasn't being a jerk lol.

  • [-]
  • charlesfkane
  • 14 Points
  • 11:08:58, 5 January

he adds the lol to try to not sound like a complete jerk

  • [-]
  • Swamp85
  • 19 Points
  • 07:27:12, 5 January

I see you're downvoting me for asking a question.

Explain to me why you think it's not the case?

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 9 Points
  • 08:36:01, 5 January

i agree there will always be authority of some degree whether is the big kid on the play ground, the recess aid at the playground, or the police

  • [-]
  • Yodoggy9
  • 6 Points
  • 01:07:31, 6 January

Quick lesson kid: When refuting an argument, you state your position and then explain WHY you believe your position is the correct one, or at the very least the most logical. "Not true at all" shows your lack of argument a lot more than if you had said "I will say you're wrong, but won't explain it, because I haven't actually thought about this for more than three seconds."

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -10 Points
  • 02:09:56, 6 January

Oh please, mansplain to me more :)

  • [-]
  • dargonfyre
  • 11 Points
  • 02:40:50, 6 January

I'm out of arguments, time to resort to name calling!

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -11 Points
  • 02:42:32, 6 January

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

  • [-]
  • Beatlemaniacjng98
  • 1 Points
  • 07:53:03, 6 January

I'm an anarchist but what you don't understand is it isn't abolishing authority, it's decentralizing authority. So everyone has equal share over economic control, societal justice ect.

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 9 Points
  • 07:44:57, 5 January

without laws and government people could just murder someone with way less consequences

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -44 Points
  • 07:48:07, 5 January

Murders happen because of 2 reasons. Reason A. Property, Reason B. Mental health issues the person has. Those 2 are easy to deal with. In an anarchist society property would be eliminated, and rehabilitation would actually be possible.

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 32 Points
  • 07:56:17, 5 January

your livin in a fantasy land man, their are alot of other reasons for murder i could literally name at least 10+ and as far as mental health goes someone can seem perfectly normal and kill someone so how would they get treatment if no one even know they have a mental health issue, sorry man but its way more complicated than you think

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -39 Points
  • 07:58:43, 5 January

It's really not. Killing happens over property ALOT. It's the thought in your head that this person took this thing from you. It could be emotional things, or physical, but get down to the dirt and it's over PROPERTY. Also ever hear of rehabilitation or transformative justice? probably not, go look it up then come back. On elast thing never call me man, im genderqueer. I use they/them/their pronouns and she/her pronouns

  • [-]
  • Melforprezzz
  • 5 Points
  • 00:37:50, 6 January

Woah man... You can't be all authoritarian like that, telling him what he can and can't call you.

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 10 Points
  • 08:04:51, 5 January

k im here to get aggresive i just want a conversation i will cal you watever i want freedom of speech man, you cant just brainwash people into not having mental disorders, all these things you think can happen just cant some people are born without empathy and certain parts of their brains can not work as well its very complicated but no matter what their will always be a murderer you cant just rehabilitate/brainwash someone into not killing someone, i wish what you say could work but truth is it wont, and i know your to stubborn to accept so looks like im out cya (was a nice debate besides you being kinda defensive had a couple good points tho)

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -40 Points
  • 08:06:48, 5 January

You will call me whatever you want? YAY FOR TRANSPHOBIA. Also you should check your aggression, maybe you could be a more misogynistic douche stoner kid somewhere else? Anyways oh trust me I know all about the mental health stuff, and guess what rehabilitation isn't BRAINWASHING. The way it is now, your right, but not in a transformative justice society.

  • [-]
  • charlesfkane
  • 21 Points
  • 11:14:22, 5 January

Stfu you pretentious hypocrite.. 'genderqueer' godddd stfu trying to sound elitist and special. Also some people use 'man' for any gender aka I do that stuff all the time and no one starts whining about it.

Just btw, i'm liberal as fuck, gay, and i'm a strong-minded feminist. In case you want to generalize everyone who is against you. Also YAY FOR STONERPHOBIA. You obviously need smoke a joint and relax, MAN. (idgaf)

  • [-]
  • TitusRome
  • 8 Points
  • 19:36:13, 5 January

Holy shit, you fucking lawyered him.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -23 Points
  • 20:50:17, 5 January

I don't care if people use man as a gender neutral term, I don't like being called that though. Also liberalism is everything bad.

  • [-]
  • p803
  • 4 Points
  • 22:59:21, 5 January

>Also liberalism is everything bad.

You're an anarchist but you believe liberalism is everything bad? Wow you're a fucking moron. How can you be an anarchist while believing a free market is bad? Completely contradictory. A non free market implies regulation and you're not going to have that with out authority.

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 5 Points
  • 08:13:34, 5 January

i meant "k im here to not get aggresive" jus for the record

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -19 Points
  • 08:15:21, 5 January

What about that blocking of me?

  • [-]
  • t8te
  • 4 Points
  • 08:22:13, 5 January

i was gonna block you so i dont get any more comments cus it will just want me to keep arguing when arguing will get us both nowhere cus neither of us will change each others mind but i decided not cus i think our debate is over anyways

  • [-]
  • Sheepgotoheaven
  • 1 Points
  • 04:07:12, 6 January

Oh sure. To disagree with a LGBT person is phobia

  • [-]
  • SalamanderOfDoom
  • 8 Points
  • 13:09:42, 5 January

So in your mind all prisoners and psychiatric ward patients should be released and be free to do whatever they want? By all means get a plane ticket and relocate yourself to a place where government control is very low. See how that quality of life will compare to places like The US, Canada, etc...

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -43 Points
  • 20:49:26, 5 January

LOL

  • [-]
  • MisterMaggot
  • 10 Points
  • 00:43:57, 6 January

That's what you just said..

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -3 Points
  • 09:43:40, 5 January

Haha, dude, you're fucking stupid.

Left wing proto fascist here, ya'll niggas can't even touch my level of political savvy

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -30 Points
  • 20:50:54, 5 January

Racism and claiming to be a fascist, wow.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 5 Points
  • 21:03:32, 5 January

Racism? Where was I racist?

Also I'm not sure you know what fascism is, it developed out of the anarchist syndicalist movement in Italy, and has a lot of far left/anarchist tendencies.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -6 Points
  • 21:08:17, 5 January

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 3 Points
  • 21:41:16, 5 January

Considering that you're in PolSci, would you like to weigh in on the matter? I'm sure you have something interesting to contribute.

  • [-]
  • AntiHer0z
  • 1 Points
  • 23:59:06, 5 January

I think everyones view of anarchy is a bit skewed. There was a time when I was an expert in the theories...back when you could call me a communist/anarchist, when I was 16. But I've put all that behind me, so I'm a bit rusty when it comes to theory.

But a few people here are insinuating that anarchy leads to chaos, riots, death etc.. thats not really the truth. If we examine anarchy at the international level, we see that there is no global hegemony to control every nation, an international government if you will. The closest thing we have is the U.N....but I mean come on...we don't always do what the U.N. says. They are in no way, shape or form in charge. But as I was saying, theres no global hegemony, and thus we have international anarchy. We have nations that are all serving their own interest, looking out for themselves, etc...but do we have chaos and mass riots and looting, because we don't have a hegemony? No, of course not.

Now its one thing to compare states/nation-states to individuals, but I think my point gets across that anarchy doesn't always insinuate the negative connotations that it does.

  • [-]
  • gnarlytrees
  • 1 Points
  • 05:02:25, 6 January

Sorry, calling someone "retarded" isn't allowed by our rules, so I removed your comment. Please refrain from such language in the future.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -24 Points
  • 21:06:39, 5 January

I know what fascism is. Fascism is basically super authoritarian mutualism. It stemmed from some persons name I forgot but he was a rampant sexist and actually kicked out of the FAI in Italy.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 3 Points
  • 21:40:40, 5 January

You're right. it is authoritarian mutualism. What's wrong with that? You have to realize that at the time of it's conception the idea of authoritarianism didn't mean "strong government oppressing people" it meant "strong government/people/industry working together for common goals".

I don't see why that's such a terrible position.

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -24 Points
  • 21:09:52, 5 January

Also saying the n word is racist.

  • [-]
  • TitusRome
  • 8 Points
  • 22:25:52, 5 January

So if a black guy says nigger, is it racist?

  • [-]
  • seankealiher
  • -9 Points
  • 02:12:35, 6 January

It reinforces racist institutions, it basically legitimizes that word.

  • [-]
  • Tortugaturtle
  • 1 Points
  • 06:13:14, 6 January

Why would the idea of ruling over someone magically disappear?