Why do ant-socialdisestablishmentarianists inculcate that anarchists  suffer from existentialist angst?
606492
Existentialist angst is a part of modern life, nobody can escpe it. Anarchists are not imune.
904521
Sometimes it is easier to live in your own little world, gettignyour direction from your superior\nproblem is that everyone becomes your superior\nand before you downgrade socialists, maybe you really need to find out what they are about
833846
Existentialism is a philosophical movement that is generally considered a study that pursues the meaning of life and seeks value for the existing individual. Existentialism, unlike other fields of philosophy, does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding existence and subjective experience are seen as being of paramount importance, above all other scientific and philosophical pursuits.\n\nThere are several philosophical positions, all related to existential philosophy, but the main identifiable common proposition is that existence precedes essence, i.e. that a man exists before his existence has value or meaning. Man defines the value or meaning of both his existence and the world around him in his own subjectivity, and wanders between choice, freedom, and existential angst. Existentialism often is associated with anxiety, dread, awareness of death, and freedom. Famous existentialists include Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Camus, Fanon, and de Beauvoir.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism\n\nTranscendentalism was a group of new ideas in literature, religion, culture, and philosophy that emerged in the New England region of the United States of America in the early-to mid-19th century. It is sometimes called American Transcendentalism to distinguish it from other uses of the word transcendental. \n\nTranscendentalism began as a protest against the general state of culture and society at the time, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard and the doctrine of the Unitarian church which was taught at Harvard Divinity School. Among their core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions.\n\nProminent Transcendentalists included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, as well as Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson, William Ellery Channing, Frederick Henry Hedge, Theodore Parker, George Putnam, and Sophia Peabody, the wife of Nathaniel Hawthorne. For a time, Peabody and Hawthorne lived at the Brook Farm Transcendentalist utopian commune.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
1158494
Lazieness is one factor..a major one. Remember it was a slothfull induvidual who wouldnt work by the sweat of his brow who came up with the theory that evolved into communism...the evil empire. Also people who wre not raised to work with their hands but to chase after materialistic gains will not want to take real work but whatever can make easy money. They are spoiled...rotten\n Regards, Ammo
1130722
Is not asking why somebody entitled to exist implying some sort of hate?\n\nI love irony.
36164
Existentialist angst--man is adrift in a universe he cannot possibly account for, and yet is accountable in.  Accountable to what?  To forces beyond his control; beyond accountability.  And if that is not enough, accountable to his own conscience: "Between our own thoughts, we are accused or excused."
289009
This is a symptom of a national disease. That disease is apathy. There is a value assigned to all thing according to rarity. Objects, beauty, the quality of life, even relationships. The more you have of something, or the less you had to work to get it, the less value you attache to it. This isn't a bad thing, it is completely natural. In nature there is competition and typically, the stuff that life needs to continue living, will be the stuff that is hard to find.\nAs a generation of Americans without any great war or great tagedy to scare us into caring about the things we have, we care very little about the luxuries we possess, the freedoms we enjoy, and in turn we run everything we have into the ground. We are apathetic to how our great government is run and don't even pay attension when the corperations take over and start wittleing away our freedoms. We are apethitic to each other and the happiness of our neighbors so we drive like selfish pricks, or we lie, or we otherwise treat eachother like crap. We do this because there has been no hardship big enough in any of our lives to teach us the real value of things. The real value of forming a brotherhood with our fellow Americans and doing good for goodness' sake. Also this process is what allows us to not be interested in how the defination of freedom is being changed. We have freedom taken away bit by bit. In increments so small it looks harmless. But eventualy we will all look up and realize that whatever isn't defined by the law is ilegal. This is fascism. It is a shame. This is a cycle that has been evedent throughout the history of Man. \n1) Things are awefull\n2) War against hardship to make life good\n3) Happiness and prosperity for 3-4 generations\n4) Decline\n5) War, etc.\nThis is sad, but it is the way things work. And it continues to happen because most people don't realize that this is the cycle. And until there is a great catastrophy to make us care about the things we have it will continue to decay.
1073604
Existentialism doesn't necessarily preclude one from belonging to a religion but it would definitely discourage one from belonging to an organized religion with strict rules and strict structure.\n\nExistentialism is the philosophical premise that underlies a deep questioning of one's origins, one's makeup, one's motivations, one's behaviors.  It is a powerful psychological tool that allows people to free themselves from all of the mental shackles of parental, societal and religious expectations and breaks things down to a microcosim of this moment.\n\nWhere do you exist in this moment?  What precedes this moment?  What are the consequences of your action in this moment?  \n\nTry meditation, which is essentially just "being" in the here and now.  This usually leads one into an inward spiritual journey and a deeper subconscious understanding of existence and spirituality.
861272
I try to reach their humanity or the oppositte side of their brain...here is what I mean....they are probably angry and enraged and aggitated to reach this current state... I tell them I understand their being upset however, what they are about to do will only make it worse and will magnify the problem ruining 2 lives in just a moment. I try to connect with their reasoning, that all though it seems like lashing out feels good ...nothing good will ever become of it.....and this act...They will spend the rest of their life regretting....You have a choice...Make the right choice now....
749405
What you're advocating is philosophical anarchism. It's an old idea; and one that has been tried numerous times over the centuries to no good effect.\n\nThere's a simple problem with your view -- it only works if every single person in society behaves perfectly. Without government, what do you do if someone attacks you? What do you do if someone just wants something you have and decides to harm you to get it?\n\nEvery time anarchy has been tried in the past it has failed because the fact is, people aren't angels, and aren't going to behave like them. What happens under true anarchy isn't peace and love, but a Hobbesian state of nature -- a "War of each against all."\n\nSo the question stands. What do you do when you or your loved ones are attacked by others? What you do is band together with like minded individuals for mutual defense. You create rule to live by, and get people to enforce those rules. In short, you create government, because you need order.\n\nCan governments go too far? You bet. But your original question was "do we really need government?" And the answer to that question is, "Yes, we do."\n\nCheers, mate.
185857
To be interested and research anarchy and violence is not wrong. To participate in anarchy to overthrow a corrupt government is sometimes necessary. To paritcipate in violence is wrong.\n\nIt takes research and studies to find out the thoughts that provoke anarchy and violence and to prevent it. I believe it would be difficult to 'anticipate' those actions.  So, no it is not wrong to be interested in those actons.\n\nDid you anticipate the anarchy/violence going on in Paris right now?  Riots are due to new labor laws affecting youth.
262073
When things are fighting for their own supreme survival, anything goes.  If you've got a knife stashed in your pocket, and you agree to a fistfight to the death, when you start losing, the knife is brought out.  The quote is saying that everything is tolerable in the aim of survival.  Like in the movie Space Odyssey, the artificial intelligence Al had no real soul.  It just did what it felt it needed to preserve itself, and so killed the crew because they were going to turn him off.  As in war, mustard gas, dehumanization, and torture are all forms of self-preservation.  Kill them before they kill us.  Make them fear us.  Etc.\n\nThe love half of it is kind of ambiguous to me.
838773
There are many types of anarchists - from anarcho-communists to anarcho-capitalists (these two groups strongly dislike each other).  Most people of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion call themselves libertarians (in America anyway). Those who call themselves plain anarchists are more likely to be against capitalism.\n\nWhile anarchists see the value of democracy, they don't believe you should have an entire nation voting on, say, what you should eat for lunch.  Instead, anarchists believe in decentralized democracy - only those most affected by a decision should have a say.  In many cases, this becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.\n\nIn terms of economics, anarchists don't believe big shareholders and CEOs should have the power to dominate the economic lives of the people. Instead, the policy of corporations would be decided on democratically by their employees or the communities they operate in.\n\nOne way to bring about corporate democracy would be for widespread workplace occupations to take place, in which employees simply show up for work, but no longer listen to their bosses.  Something similar has been happening in Argentina - see http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1482898&lastnode_id=124 - movements like this would usually not be supported by top-down-ruled mass media, so it would be important for the employees of the media to assume democratic control over them as well.
1119324
Anarchy can't exist as a government. It's a stateless society with no heirarchy.\n\nAnarchy does not mean chaos. The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." \n\nDon't take my word for it. Read the Anarchist Faq.
1109987
This is a great question. I'm troubled that we're prodded to follow social norms which are deeply embedded. This dynamic limits the individual ideology we're all capable of creating. Instead of the incredible people we can become, we wind up becoming a by-product of society. The projected pathways isolate our journey in life and threaten our experiences with social disorder and upheaval. Some look to conform simply to gain popularity within their own social circle. Others, through lack of development, become a social cling-on. Still others find solace in social addictions.\nTo let you know that I do have a positive side, I look for things in people that challenge this the way I do. Don't get me wrong, I don't adopt principles that are riddled in anarchy. I look for ways to complement my own philosophies and find personal progress and self-fulfillment. Excuse me for answering, but you asked.
996088
It's innate in humans the need to express and share our emotions, experiences, and our ideas.  This is why people that are in solitary confinement, stranded on an island, or generally loners go crazy.  Without that avenue of communication, their unexpressed thoughts drive them mad.
487217
Only choosing between the 2.. capitalism FOR SURE...\n\nCommunism will not work at all in combination with human nature. We as humans want our efforts to go towards our family and our well being. Would a person willingly work extra hard and watch the benefits of the extra effort going to the lazy SOB down the street who does NOTHING???\n\n*********\nAnd to the ignorant youth who spout off their little "anarchy" crap... the best thing you can do is shut up. Your little attempts to look rebellious or special are just plain ridiculous. A society with no laws would not be a good thing. And the little "look at me" geeks who spout this crap would be the first ones actually weeded out in a 'survival of the fittest' anarchist scenario....