Fjulle

Hello!

I'm glad you've joined our little quagmire in the Anarchism article. Because the dispute between the libertarian socialists and the anti-state capitalists is largely an ideological one, and because both are marginalised movements the arguments tend to get vengeful and counterproductive (the lower the stakes, the pettier the battles) and it's good to have someone who isn't too jaded have their say. There are a number of very good AnCap editors around here (Jimbo Wales is actually an Objectivist) but it's unfortunately a movement that attracts hyperenthusiastic shrill idiots. A lifetime of involvement in fringe leftist politics doesn't always make people very sociable either... Welcome, and I hope we don't drive you out too quickly! --GoodIntentions^talk 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem and thanks :) This dispute isnt as different in Denmark, where i come from, i assure you. Its always been hard to calm people down talking about these concepts, which isnt really suprising. After all its politics even when it comes down to cooping with the concepts. I dont know if ive read anything on Jimbo Wales. Ill stick around :) --Fjulle 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge

Two points against this. Firstly, you can never know that someone actually believes what they say because they could be lying. I advocate some things both as a professional journalist and as a trade unionist that I do not personally "believe in" or even necessarily agree with - however, I am bound by organisational policy and the decisions of a democratic structure. Secondly, I draw a distinction between beliefs and the simple act of accepting something to be accurate for the moment in the absence of any better explanation. I don't believe in science, I accept that certain theories are persuasive but are also open to falsification. My acceptance of anarchist ideas are on the same level - I don't believe in anarchism, I accept it as the most persuasive of all ideologies based on my own experience of human nature and personal reality tunnel. Perhaps some people believe in anarchism, but to generalise anarchist theories or the arguments of a particular individual as beliefs is inaccurate because the possibility is there that they may not be. To say a person said something is correct, it's verifiable, to say a person believes something is incorrect because you can never prove what's in another person's head. Donnacha 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just reread this - to be clear, I don't mean I advocate things with which I disagree! Just things that I think could be done better or differently. Donnacha 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're arguing more about the definition of terms, rather than the ideas themselves. I'm very much influenced by Robert Anton Wilson, so I'll quote him on the subject (why try and rewrite it when he wrote it so well?

"My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended." - Cosmic Trigger, Volume 1

Donnacha 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the drug-free badge?

Why do you put that box around yourself? Do you condone drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes as opposed to hash, pot and whatevers even more potent? On the one side i take it you want to ligitimize what you do drink or smoke as opposed to whats "wrong" or "evil" or "against the law" or "bad for ones health" and on the other side you are ligitimizing government control on 2 sides: The first is giving citizens some drugs that they can use, so that many doesnt get too angry about not having their after-work drink or the "i got to go get a cigarette" break. The other is creating a small minority of criminals to make sure that the many can say "Iam not an addict, iam a good, iam right" so to keep them going and working for the state and the capital, whats worth anything to people with power. This last one also makes sure the police and the different government bodys got an extra job.

Anyhow smoking cigarettes affect other people as opposed to joints which is rarely smoken around lots of people and even if its hard on one self putting needles in ones arm its hardly something which attack other people on their physical health. Taken in this perspective alcohol is probably the worst of them all as that above anything else (not even speed) effects the level of aggression!

Why do you have to put that badge on yourself? Making yourself better than the people who have problems doesnt make their situation any better! Its alienation! My body is filled with drugs, and what the fuck is your problem with that! --Fjulle 16:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude. There is OBVIOUSLY some problem with that, or you wouldn't go hopping mad over a wikipedian userbox. To begin with, it should be duly noted that I do not ever drink alcohol, do not ever smoke or in any other way use tobacco, and do not ever do drugs. I have seen too much shit gone wrong. I spent large parts of my fucking christmas eve giving support to a friend with alcoholic parents, for instance. I consider alcohol to be the most dangerous narcotic of them all, but there is no specific userbox for it... although, "alcohol" is included in the quite broad "drug" category. Furthermore, the userbox doesn't say "I'M DRUG-FREE, ILLIEGALIZE ALL DRUGS!" it says "Drug-free" - legally or not.

I also have quite a lot of opinions on the role of alcohol and other narcotics in a future socialist/anarchist utopia, and their role in the daily class struggle. If you wish, I can explain those ideas. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly iam tired of seing those everywhere, and then heres a person calling himself an anarchist going around with the same badge as all the government supporting freaks trying to be better than people who do drugs, willingly or not that anymore. If i where to wear anything, and thats the anarchist line of thinking!, it would be: "My body is filled with drugs!", both as a reminder to anyone, who thinks thoughts of restraint, of who controls this body of mine (I do) and as a point against the thinking that if theres just no more cigarette smoke in public then everybody will be just fine and no more lung problems there, cauz thats not the case. Still theres the cars and the factories and those are awfull compared to one or two spaces where smokers can do their shit ... But indulge me, id like to get a view as to how far you would want to go against personal liberty and why. --Fjulle 16:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As previously stated, your argument fails on the point that I, by that userbox, do not argue for an illegalization of drugs. It merely states that I am drug-free. Similarly, your userpage states that your website is in Danish - not that you want to illegalize all non-danish website. See my point?

Furthermore. I am an anarchist. The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying. You are not participating in the struggle if you are watching soccer and having a beer with your friends. It pacifies you. It turns you into a drone, a working drone - slave of the capital.

Now, it ain't only pacifying. It is also the subject of a consumer boycott by me and my likes - not for pacifying, but for all the evil shit the alcohol industry does. Like Heineken's and Carlsberg's so-called "beer girls" in South Asian countries like Cambodia. Like the six meters tall advertising billboards from Absolut placed over the roads of African countries like Tanzania. Like the beer halls built in African countries like Uganda - "we want running water", the villagers said. "We can afford a pipe if you drink enough booze in the beer hall we just built", says the corrupted authorities. The list goes on - compared to alcohol industry atrocities in especially the third world, those committed by, say, Coca-Cola Company are nothing - and what anarchist wouldn't boycott the CCC, murderers of union representatives?

Back to the issue of personal liberty. While I have already stated - twice - that I by my userbox am not arguing for an illegalization of all drugs. Nevertheless, if I did so, it would hardly bring me into conflict with my anarchist views of society as a whole - freedom is relative. "Anarchy", derived from "an-" and "arkos", does not mean "no laws", it means "no leaders". A future utopian society would have to pit one's right to fuck oneself up versus the right of one's right to not get abused by someone who fucked himself up. Personal liberty is a hoax. The mere fact that I've dealed with several friends who have been abused, verbally and physically, by their parents on christmas speaks to me and says: Thou shalt not give a fuck about stoners' rights, thou shalt help the weak in their time of need and struggle for the prevention of similar happenings arising yet again.

I could write tons more, but I have more important things to do - I doubt you will change your mind anyways. You might also want to read this little pamphlet from CrimethInc: it is called Wasted Indeed:Anarchy and Alcohol.

For a lucid bacchanalia, an ecstatic sobriety! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"As previously stated, your argument fails on the point that I, by that userbox, do not argue for an illegalization of drugs. It merely states that I am drug-free. Similarly, your userpage states that your website is in Danish - not that you want to illegalize all non-danish website. See my point?"

First off theres a difference between stating "i never use x" and "i use y". If it where one and the same meaning then i did indeed mean "i never use anything but Danish", but that was not it. The first kind of statement: "I never use drugs" is from first hand, and by the normal use of those words, a statement of the fact that you might have your reasons for not wanting to use drugs, ever! Theres something about those drugs that just makes you want to hit on the topic that you wouldnt use them. Why would you state this if not to show your opinion on this topic? And when first youve got your oppinion what do you want to do to make it so? Youve chosen your moral ground, what to do with it? You said: Anarchy is not about "no laws" its about "no leaders". Well sure, but if those laws are made by leaders then the anarchist are responsible for bringing those laws down. This means you cant make people not take this as a way of stopping the possibility of them fucking up with other people without either 1) making them stop, using authority, or 2) them making the choice of stopping. Laws without authority are the laws of the individual. You might hold onto your ideas about drugs being in the way of toppling capitalism, but you will never be able to use them as society altering tool toward any kind of anarchy, because you need to use authority to make sure everybody dont use drugs.

By the way what kind of high rise are you putting yourself up on when writing: "Thou shalt not give a fuck about stoners' rights". Like if you do have anything to say about stoners rights at all as an anarchist. What other people do with their own lives when not troubling you, you just shouldnt mess with! If anarchy is "no leaders" then thats all you got to do as an anarchist. If you want to go making sure people dont use drugs so that they might not in teh future become a problem for you in any way youre something else! So either cut the crap about calling yourself an anarchist if you dont admit that even though you dont want to take it, theres NOTHING you can do to stop other people from taking it. You might try to talk with them but you know stating that "You dont take drugs" doesnt seem that much important when talking to somebody who needs help ... thats alienation. If theres no smoking of joints it aint my revolution.

What about this: First youre saying i dont want to illigalize drugs, and then that anarchy isnt "no laws". Beyond that about the rights of stoners, you seem like the type who would like to stop other people from taking drugs with authority. On top of that youve got no respect for personal liberty. So for you the society should always be the first thing any individual should care about? What about the human side of all this drug talk?

"The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying."

Well then you might have tried to get those beers stuffed into your mouth by capitalists before? That sounds strange? Ive never seen this in all my life? If you got it on video that would be great! Stop this its silly, come on, its not the plant, its not the liquor or the stuff or whatever, and its not the workers producing the drugs thats responsibly for either of those two scenarios: 1) The capitalist conspiracy and 2) the men beating the wife and kids. Responsible for the first are the capitalists, and they will and can do all sorts of nasty stuff to further their goals. Responsible for the second is the man looking down on himself, having no self-esteem, and drinking to much in connection possibly with a harsh childhood. In none of these cases the drugs are to blame! ITS PLANTS FOR GOD SAKE! Its humans that use those plants in a wide variety of ways. When they use them to control other beings thats an enemy of anarchism, not the plants or drugs themselves.

Look at it like this: Theres a few people being capitalist, theres lots of people drinking beers and using drugs. Id say to stop them all would be the toughest plan if the alternative are to stop the capitalists and people who beats their wives and children.

About the boycotting dont you think those workers who are abused all around the world would be happy to sell us products if they wouldnt be abused about it? So if the abuse stops, will the coexistence and trading stop? I doubt it. Even though all sweatshops are liberated and the workers controlling every single factory, theres will still be drugs. And best of all: You cant stop us! You can try but i guess you wouldnt stand a chance, unless offcourse youre willing to go the hard way. And why have an oppinion about whats good or bad for the society of you cant make it real? At least not without authority. Why not then just cut it and make it just your own. Why let people read your page and possibly think: He/she (?) thinks he's/she's better than me! Thats just stupid. --Fjulle 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)