The word "anarchy" is thrown around when a politician does not understand how something exists without their approval. Maybe we should embrace this idea once more. Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules. Opposing chaos is a no brainer, what the political system is opposing is precisely the ordered anarchy that the internet has become.
>Anarchy is not the same as disorder or lack of rules.
Well said. Anarchy is not a world without rules - it's a world without rulers.
I always like to refer to something that Alan Moore (the author of V for Vendetta) said: he regards the current state of society as anarchy gone horribly wrong. As he remarks, people often like to claim that in a state of anarchy, the strongest would eventually rule, and use this to dismiss the philosophy as a whole.
Now he asks (and so do I), how is this different from our current society? The strong (corporations and governments backed by monetary and military power) control the weak (the general populace), and will do everything to keep the current state of affairs and to prevent the loss of their power, including threats, lies and atrocities against life.
Anarchy is the most natural and best state of human society. It is actually unavoidable, since entropy dictates that any society will eventually disintegrate. Instead of counteracting this with increasingly strict control, which always leads to some sort of authoritarian dictatorship (which will also eventually destroy itself), we should embrace chaos, and try to work with it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist or - worse - that it is tamable.
I was suggesting anarchy/revolution/whatever to demonstrate to our leaders that we do not agree with what they are doing, and that they cannot shove us around however they wish.
If you support the government, and have also given them a monopoly of force, you are explicitly supporting a social contract you seem to detest.
EDIT: Come now, why the downvotes? I'm not saying they are correct or not--I'm merely pointing out that it is somewhat contradictory to both call for revolution/anarchy and yet still de facto support the government.
EDIT2: Moreover, the final part of the parent explicitly says "...cannot shove us around however they wish." They very much can, as we have all given our respective governments reasonable monopoly on force in exchange for whatever it is they do that benefits us. Complaining about that while at the same time being a disarmed taxpayer is akin to complaining about the rain while leaving your umbrella indoors.
Yes I pay taxes, otherwise I would be thrown in jail. That doesn't mean I support the government. It would be rather hard to fight the power behind bars, don't you think?
Your arguments is the same as: you support factories that pollute, because you are breathing air.
