What category does my friend all into?

[davy050995]

He believes:
-antimarriage
-no mass or organized relgion
-love all equal
-anarchy

• antiwar
  -no leaders
  -antipatriotism

I no this probably isnt the right place but idk where els to go

 

[JohnDamian]

-anarchy
-no leaders
-antipatriotism

These are political Anarchism, the belief in no established government, which generally leads to a collapse of patriotism (but anarchy is subject to easy conquest, hence there are no anarchist states in the world).

• antiwar

This is really a desired convenience for Anarchists, ideally there would be no war or crime; allowing each man to peacefully go about his business etc. But as this is essentially impossible without some government to regulate citizens (police/judiciary) and deter foreign invanders (armed forces, politics) it is wishful thinking.

• love all equal

This really is also unenforcable in an Anarchist system. It is just wishful thinking.

-no mass or organized relgion

Evidently your friend views organized religion as a bad thing, however any organisational approach is essentially anti-anarchy, so if he is an anarchist it is likely he will oppose all organisations.

-antimarriage

Again, he would oppose all organisations, including marraige.

So your friend is an Anarchist. He does not believe in established states, religions or institutions (marraige etc.). He also appears to be a Pacifist..

 

[Desertsailor]

He believes:
-antimarriage
-no mass or organized relgion
-love all equal
-anarchy

• antiwar
  -no leaders
  -antipatriotism

I no this probably isnt the right place but idk where els to go

Let’s see, what category? what category?

There are:
Geniuses: No he doesn’t go here

Saints: Doesn’t qualify

Leaders: No he’s a do-nothing

Followers: No he won’t follow

Idiots: Ah! I think this is it! He fits in nicely right here.

I wish everyone believed what he believes. It wouldn’t take me long to take over the world.

 

[Lieutenant_Kije]

Let’s see, what category? what category?

There are:
Geniuses: No he doesn’t go here

Saints: Doesn’t qualify

Leaders: No he’s a do-nothing

Followers: No he won’t follow

Idiots: Ah! I think this is it! He fits in nicely right here.

I wish everyone believed what he believes. It wouldn’t take me long to take over the world.

I…don’t think calling him an idiot is warranted. Even if his views are undesireable very intelligent people sometimes hold very, very wrong views.

OP: He seems to be an anarchist with a smattering of feel-good-liberalism (love all equally, etc). This is not a particularly uncommon category these days.

 

[nsper7]

I…don’t think calling him an idiot is warranted. Even if his views are undesireable very intelligent people sometimes hold very, very wrong views.

OP: He seems to be an anarchist with a smattering of feel-good-liberalism (love all equally, etc). This is not a particularly uncommon category these days.

‘Foolish’ is probably the better word. Anarchy just does not work since the society without order is open to feudalism (say the US government collapses and I have some guns and some loyal friends…guess who is the new lord of the immediate area), violence and people doing whatever they want with the only thing stopping them being some other guy with a gun (who maybe asserting his own selfish and violent interests as well).

I don’t think there has ever been real anarchy since someone invariably takes over quite quickly. Perhaps the closest example would be the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and they didn’t call that period the Dark Ages for nothing, although that was not total anarchy, just the loss of centralized control, but it was still problematic.

 

[rpp]

Are you asking us to judge this person’s heart or soul? Or just agree with you that he(she) is very foolish, at best.

 

[Newbie2]

I…don’t think calling him an idiot is warranted. Even if his views are undesireable very intelligent people sometimes hold very, very wrong views.

OP: He seems to be an anarchist with a smattering of feel-good-liberalism (love all equally, etc). This is not a particularly uncommon category these days.

‘Foolish’ is probably the better word. Anarchy just does not work since the society without order is open to feudalism (say the US government collapses and I have some guns and some loyal friends…guess who is the new lord of the immediate area), violence and people doing whatever they want with the only thing stopping them being some other guy with a gun (who maybe asserting his own selfish and violent interests as well).

I don’t think there has ever been real anarchy since someone invariably takes over quite quickly. Perhaps the closest example would be the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and they didn’t call that period the Dark Ages for nothing, although that was not total anarchy, just the loss of centralized control, but it was still problematic.

I prefer the term, “confused”.