Swoboda on DeviantArthttps://www.deviantart.com/swoboda/art/anarchist-s-are-not-enemy-102544600Swoboda

Deviation Actions

Swoboda's avatar

anarchist's are not enemy

By
Published:
5.7K Views

Description

we want anarchy!!! not chaos!
Image size
1500x2166px 1.9 MB
© 2008 - 2024 Swoboda
Comments19
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Adalack's avatar
I don't have a problem with anarchy as a concept, as a man, but I do also want to grasp scientific reality as a basis of integrity and strength; my goals in regard to this is to demolish the powers of the state, but since for instance the Church on the other hand, if rooted in reality is in fact instructing men (humans- proper grammar) in the nature of reality... that institution is not a state institution, so it's got to be kept.
On the other hand, and this's due to endorsing the same laws of reality's moral standards, and not rejecting the regulations of just laws, as in such a case the state (assuming it's only *proper* place- again, anarchy is a state of every man being a state in and of himself, has to be standing up for reality), we, the average man- your argument here as I grasp it, is rooted in man's necessary state of being united to scientific and moral/ethical laws, also has to be rooted in moral standards... such as just laws against murder, theft, rape, and the like felonies- and rightly so.
Also, a true anarchist is out to use reason to remove the state's power over himself; thus, and here I do disagree with your *tactics*, not your *overall goals*, any police officer who is standing for enforcing just laws and not enforcing unjust laws is on our side- we most certainly do not want a bigger state apparatus of more restrictions, but far less government is the goal of such a man. Thus the rule we'd insist on is "is the proposed law *absolutely necessary*?" being the overriding question we'd insist on being answered prior to rendering our support for/against said regulation.
My code: and this's about protecting my neighbors from harm: if the law in question is rightly setting safety of others: absolutely, but only if absolutely necessary: as in if man himself knows on his own to do the following/avoid the following, and why, then the aforementioned law is entirely redundant and thus mustn't be made, but on the other hand, if the law in question is both a safety one, say against assault of any kind, and also not something someone mature has right reason to know, then by all means... and it's justifiable, as it is voiced not to increase government power, but rather to increase justified man-to-man safety.
That is above all why I do endorse ownership of firearms, by everyone- it'll also decrease violence, anamoly that proves that: the one place that is the safest to be on is a firing range, as there's never been a massacre on that kind of place: too much odds of not getting away alive... and that's a case today of organized anarchy, as it were, the little people's agenda proving itself the safest. But to do that requires that everybody know what's what and how to defend themselves- today's politics proves that that agenda is also the anarchist's agenda, as you're citing that kind of man- ideologically, myself included, due to the government's overreach for many decades.