NEWS FLASH 420,000 Armed American CAnnabis Revolutionists to march the capital!

IMagine that.
How would i go about creating that as special effects in a movie?
Wouldnt that be fuggin awsome?
Id go see that movie lmao!

WOW thats so funny.

if 420 000 armed anythings marched the capital theyd get shot to shit.

Hahahahaha. you stoner...

that's funny.. but like kid said, an armed mob wouldn't get anywhere near the capital..besides.. can't we do it peacefully? If we can't.. than maybe it's not even worth fighting for..

Bob.

Im with Bob, pot is ALL about peace, although i know where your comming from, sometimes i just want to go out and kill a pig. Fucking scum of the earth, along with those big fat fucking MP's that TELL us what we can and cant smoke.

Yea, I'd like to see a peacefull march to the capital. Like the million potheads march.

I think its a great idea for real life, and not just people who smoke
weed should revolt against the government. If the government killed
that many civilians it would show the rest of the country how our
system really works. I really don't think the founders of this country
had in mind the government of today, I think they would be ashamed
of today's US government. Of course I am an anarchist and that does
not mean I am against all government just the hierarchy that controls
us today. But with 1.4 million serving in the US armed forces we would
need a few more tham 420,000 people but thats a good start. I just
wonder how the US army and other branches of the military would
deal with firing upon its own citizens.

The sad truth is that you can't get that many stoners together to do anything (other than maybe picking up a bag). Hell we can't even get enough people to vote when we're given the chance. Nearly everytime there is an option to vote pro pot, no one shows up to vote. I say lets focus on just getting registered and voting, then we'll move on to other political activities.

Anyone who doesnt like the government can vote them out, violent overthrow is something the 3rd world does. People in those countires would love to live in the stable democratic place you do. If you you want to force legal weed on the nation at gunpoint it makes you exactly the same as the armed thugs enforcing the drug laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yabatab

I really don't think the founders of this country
had in mind the government of today, I think they would be ashamed
of today's US government. Of course I am an anarchist and that does
not mean I am against all government just the hierarchy that controls
us today.

---

I am an anarchist, and I am against all forms of government. Government is, by definition, hierarchical. A non-hierarchical way of deciding policies I would not call a government, since there are no governors and nobody being governed.

And who cares what the founding fathers would have thought about us? We would have been ashamed of them, too, if we went back and visited their fields of working slaves or their political institutions that excluded everybody who wasn't a propertied white male. We don't need to idolize the heroes of bourgeois republicanism. We need to oppose all forms of oppression, hierarchy, and dominance if we want to legitimately call ourselves anarchists. That means capitalism, government, sexism, racism, theism - indeed, all social institutions and doctrines which demand our obedience to the will of someone else instead of our own under threat of punishment. That's what an-archy means: without-rulers. Fuck the founding fathers and all other rulers.

True anarchist are not against all forms of government. That is a common
misconception.

How are you defining government? Care to tell me how an anarchist "government" would work, and why it deserves to be called a "government"?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster's dictionary

Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r(n)-m&nt, -v&-m&nt; 'g&-b&m-&nt, -v&m-
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : DISCRETION
3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : ADMINISTRATION 4b
7 : POLITICAL SCIENCE

---

Do your research on anarchy.

Umm, I have, and the anarchists seem pretty unanimous on abolishing the state and all forms of political authority. We want to replace government with a non-hierarchical organization of the people as a means of maintaining order. We don't want to govern anybody, since governing people and hence government itself is fundamentally un-anarchistic. How can you have a government without hierarchy? If you have people governing others, that's hierarchy. If there's no hierarchy and nobody is governing anybody else, there's no government!

Quote:

---

We want to replace government with a non-hierarchical organization of the people as a means of maintaining order.

---

You said it yourself....that in its self would be a form of government.
Not a hierarchy but still a form of government that would maintain
order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yabatab

Not a hierarchy but still a form of government that would maintain order.

---

..so police?

I wouldn't call that a government. It's just people keeping shit in line. Nobody's governing anyone else, since there are absolutely no governors of any kind. Government implies political authority; anarchy implies its negation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lagstronaut

..so police?

---

No, a non-hierarchical voluntary people's militia, whose sole job would be to defend people from imminent threats, not a police force whose job is to uphold the power of the state and enforce the laws of the elite on the general public. There's a huge difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No, a non-hierarchical voluntary people's militia, whose sole job would be to defend people from imminent threats, not a police force whose job is to uphold the power of the state and enforce the laws of the elite on the general public. There's a huge difference.

---

Like gangs, or the samurai? That's what I'm getting. Sounds like an opressing government to me. But then again, I'm an idiot so what do I know.

True anarchy is CHAOS.Because TRUE anarchy is to have NO order or law whatsoever except the law of "everybody do what ever the fuck you want to"which includes rape,murder,theft and other assorted mayhem.
You aren't an anarchist,you just want to be the one on top of whatever heap we have at the time.

I think my life would make a decent sitcom. I am very anti-government and anti-military. My roomate and best friend wants to be a career politician, and my sister, is in the army. My dad's a close-minded redneck, and my mom's a hippie.

I think that would make a good script for a sitcom, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebeancounter41

True anarchy is CHAOS.Because TRUE anarchy is to have NO order or law whatsoever except the law of "everybody do what ever the fuck you want to"which includes rape,murder,theft and other assorted mayhem.
You aren't an anarchist,you just want to be the one on top of whatever heap we have at the time.

---

Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is the absense of rulers (it comes from a Greek word meaning "without rulers"). Your rulers have taught you that without them, society degenerates into chaos. And you bought it. Anarchists realize that people are capable of preventing and responding to rape, murder, theft and other assorted mayhem by means of non-hierarchical, democratic organizations where there are no rulers and followers, just people running their own society.

Obviously you have never actually studied anarchist ideas before, or read what actual anarchists have to say about crime. Murder and rape are NOT okay, because they are instances of you imposing your will on another person without their consent, which is what anarchy is all about abolishing!

im a conservative liberal.
I am also a democratic republican.

oxy-moron much?


I am very anti-anarchist. Because i believe in the edge of chaos theory. The theory states that we live on the edge of chaos. By living on the edge we are able to grow and create. For the chaos shows us other ways and ideas of thinking. if we are ruled completley by law we b egin to go away from the edge. without the chaos for us to see, we stop being able ot come up with new ideas. if government and order are abolished, we will be sent tumbling into chaos.

ok, I've not got anything again anarchists or anything beleive what you want, but I do have some questions. Just understand that I'm trying to learn about your beleif and I'm keeping an open mind here, do the same for me if you don't mind.

In an ideal anarchists society, how would one handle a situation of rape or murder or other 'crime'. How would you define what a crime is? Say old billies wife down the road is found dead. What would happen to old billie? He says he wasn't there that night. Who would investigate? Who would punish billie for it if he did do it? Also, say there is a feud between neighboring families that's reached murderous levels. How would the dispute be handled?

I've got a million other questions, but this is enough for now. I'm just trying to picture how all this would work in real life. Educate Me.

In an anarchist society, a crime is an act in which you impose your will upon another person. Murder, rape, assault and slavery would be examples of crimes. Prostitution, drug use, public nudity, downloading songs off the Internet, and any sexual activity between consenting adults would not be considered a crime because it does not involve the violation of anyone else's freedom.

If somebody did commit a murder, presumably the community wouldn't just sit around and do nothing. They would get together and do something about it, and chances are what exactly would happen would vary from community to community. Most likely they would assemble a team of experts who know what they're doing to investigate the crime and determine the causes of the crime. The evidence would be presented to the community, and if there is sufficient evidence to accuse Old Billie of the crime, he would be dealt with according to the situation at hand.

An attempt would be made to find the cause of the crime, its true root causes, and attempt to address that. If the criminal is just crazy, perhaps mental rehabilitation is needed. If he knew what he was doing, perhaps he should have to pay some kind of retribution to the victim's loved ones. It's going to be a sticky situation no matter what, government or no government, because nothing can bring the victim back and make things right again. The best we can do is study cases of murder and try to find out why people kill others so we can prevent the conditions which lead to such situations.

The point is, I guess, that there is no inherent benefit to dealing with such situations in a hierarchical way. Communities can take action democratically and defend themselves from violent criminals without having leaders and followers. What is it that the government will do in the interests of the people but the people themselves will not do in their own interests? Clearly public order and the prevention of unnecessary violence are in the people's best interest; they will not forget this once they achieve a non-hierarchical form of social organization.

One of the main aspects of anarchism is abolishing the institutions that cause inequality which most crime stems from. Some of these inequalities are class, race, religious, age, sex, and gender. There are others but I’m high and can’t think of them off the top of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

In an anarchist society, a crime is an act in which you impose your will upon another person. Murder, rape, assault and slavery would be examples of crimes. Prostitution, drug use, public nudity, downloading songs off the Internet, and any sexual activity between consenting adults would not be considered a crime because it does not involve the violation of anyone else's freedom.

If somebody did commit a murder, presumably the community wouldn't just sit around and do nothing. They would get together and do something about it, and chances are what exactly would happen would vary from community to community. Most likely they would assemble a team of experts who know what they're doing to investigate the crime and determine the causes of the crime. The evidence would be presented to the community, and if there is sufficient evidence to accuse Old Billie of the crime, he would be dealt with according to the situation at hand.

An attempt would be made to find the cause of the crime, its true root causes, and attempt to address that. If the criminal is just crazy, perhaps mental rehabilitation is needed. If he knew what he was doing, perhaps he should have to pay some kind of retribution to the victim's loved ones. It's going to be a sticky situation no matter what, government or no government, because nothing can bring the victim back and make things right again. The best we can do is study cases of murder and try to find out why people kill others so we can prevent the conditions which lead to such situations.

The point is, I guess, that there is no inherent benefit to dealing with such situations in a hierarchical way. Communities can take action democratically and defend themselves from violent criminals without having leaders and followers. What is it that the government will do in the interests of the people but the people themselves will not do in their own interests? Clearly public order and the prevention of unnecessary violence are in the people's best interest; they will not forget this once they achieve a non-hierarchical form of social organization.

---

You have done your research we will just have to disagree on the
whole idea of government and anarchy. I find myself defending
the true anarchist ideas a lot, people are misinformed on what
most anarchist believe and you did a great job at explaining it.
Most people think anarchy means no rules and a free for all on
crime which isn't true.

Quote:

---

Civil disobediance is still disobediance. Beat the shit out of em'!

---

I was beaten at a protest and I didn't do a damn thing that was agaisnt the law

how about 420,000 people march to the capital everyone pulls out a blunt sits down and starts smoking, and we dont leave until its legal.........govt officials and local news would be talking about how many terrorist we supported by buying our weed, and while they are talking shit about legalization,they suddenly get a contact high from the large cloud of smoke that has surrounded the capital and all take vote then and there to legalize growing and smoking pot.....................then they change the national anthem to sublime "smoke 2 joints" and we all march off happily ever after.....................this sounds like a good plan to me, just set a date and time and ill be there chillin like a fuckin villian

i like his idea ^^^

also the dude who is all pro anarchism has no clue how the world works......he is probably 15 years old and still lives with mommy.....if you want no government move to the third world and enjoy all the bullshit that comes with having no government......if our govt failed you would just be takin orders from the next guy who takes charge.

Umm I'm 21 and living in my own apartment, if you must know. Also, the Third World has some of the most oppressive governments on earth, you know. You obviously have no clue what anarchy even means if you think the Third World is a picture of what a society without rulers looks like.

which 3rd world country doesnt have a government

ok, I got ya I think. Bascially what you're saying is take us back to the villiage style environment with town hall, just exit the religion. It seems as far as I can tell that generally the local gov't is run from the local church or temple. Just like the romans, myans, muslims, etc...
I'm down with this idea to an extent. I would much rather meet with everyone in my area and take a local vote than let someone in DC decide for me. The only downer to this is every little issue would have to be debated with the whole community, but I'm sure there's a way around that. It's been my understanding until now that pure anarchy just meant go hog wild. No resrictions. Maybe this view of thinking about it should be called something else to keep from getting people confused such as myself.

One more question (I think). How would an anarchist community handle meeting new culture and groups? Would there be an elected rep to speak for all, or would everyone just sit in on the 1st meeting. Don't know why I thought of that, but I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Umm I'm 21 and living in my own apartment, if you must know. Also, the Third World has some of the most oppressive governments on earth, you know. You obviously have no clue what anarchy even means if you think the Third World is a picture of what a society without rulers looks like.

---

You shouldn't feel the need to defend or explain your beliefs to
such people that make ignorant statements and degrade you as
the person you made this reply for. Just let them be bitter and
ill mannered and move on to someone that is willing to debate
in a reasonable and intelligent way. People that do not know
what anarchy truly is are going to have preconceptions and
believe what they have herd about it thru media and other
mind numbing mediums.

(red-and-black)