What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
114 Comments
- elisa72, on 10/12/2007, -24/+74The world is full of people who consider it their right to be supported by others, and their right to take or destroy what belongs to others. They suck.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+65Doesn't an assembly of anarchists defeat the purpose?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -21/+62As I see it, they had many years to form an organization and put together the funds to buy the abandoned building, but nobody bothered, because they thought the free ride would go on forever. Then a church buys the building, wants to use it, and now they're up in arms. Go figure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44I don't know about Europe, but in the US I have never met an anarchist who wasn't some underachieving highschool kid loser or a literature major in college under the mistaken impression that the world owed them something. None of them I have met have ever been making a contribution to anyone or anything, least of all their own lives.
Maybe it is serious political movement in Europe. Here in the US it is a poor excuse for a loser who has refused to grow up and work for change. - resprung, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30No-one has any sympathy with them any more.
An external trust was set up which raised funds for a new house. An agreement was reached - but then the anarchists decided they want a new house for free, as they are against capitalism and the market. So no deal, and the riots began.
We've had lefties before in Copenhagen who occupied buildings, but they kind of had a message, as there was a housing shortage and lots of empty buildings.
But this lot are just brats, and they're pretty violent. - LuciferChaos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27@evolvedfromapes
Yes, here in America they're called "politicians"... - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35No, it's the same losers in Europe as well. They just have more political support (from the communists, mainly).
- zentro, on 10/12/2007, -9/+291389 > Yes, do continue the rhetoric of the one-sided mainstream Danish media!
The youngsters were given the house, and then - 20 years on - it was taken away again because it no longer fitted into clean-cut values of the government.
It seems to me that most people who live far away from the part of the Copenhagen where the "Ungdomshuset" is located, have a very simplistic view of what's going on. It's a very complex situation which has evolved over many years and now the inevitable has happened: Riots, i.e. desperate actions from people who've been put in an impossible situation.
I live in the same neighbourhood as the house and although I'm not part of the Ungdomshuset crowd I consider myself a supporter of their cause. It's funny, that people who live close to the house and who are consequently mostly affected by the riots, are more likely to be sympathetic towards the youngsters. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22"The world is full of people who consider it their right to be supported by others, and their right to take or destroy what belongs to others. They suck."
That would be politicians and most rich people, and I agree. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25@BakuninXXL,
Sorry, your comment is more than a little bit off topic with regard to the submitted article.
This whole issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the "New World Order." It's all about kids using other people's property without permission or payment to the owner. It's all about disrespect for property rights and the rule of law, combined with plain old selfishness. - EvolvedFromApes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I'm amazed that people can squat for decades in a publicly owned building. Does this sort of thing occur regularly?
- antique, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23@Royall
thank you for showing how little you know about anarchy. Even if it is a joke, it is perpetuating false conceptions of what anarchists believe in. Anarchy comes from the roots an and archos meaning no and leader, respectively. Anarchists believe in just that; anarchists are basically anti-authoritarian. The way that anarchists differ from each other is how they mean to handle life without leaders. So, to answer your question, no, it doesn't defeat the purpose as long as it ends up helping the anti-authoritarian cause. - turbakt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18There is something rotten in Denmark.
- zentro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18They're not squatters. They were given the building be the local government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12BTW...The Copenhagen Post has updates on the situation as it unfolds:
http://www.cphpost.dk/
According to this, Danish authorities are attempting to stop people at the border who are attempting to participate in the rioting:
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/100646.html - Cyphase, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Anarchy: The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17For once, I have to agree with the 'dawg, with one minor caveat:
The original meaning of "democracy" was "mob rule," and I'm afraid that what we are seeing in the submitted article is, unfortunately, an attempt at mob rule.
Mob rule is never a good thing.
What most people want is more properly called a "republic" - government by elected representatives. - medeshago, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I think most of you don't really know what anarchism is. Anarchism isn't about the dictatorship of the people, is about the willingly association between one person and another. It has nothing to do with a centralized government, no one will force you to accept their rules, that's against the basis of the free association.
(Sorry if i can't express myself correctly. English is not my mother language) - Cyphase, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Anarchy means "without government". It doesn't mean "chaos". You can be without government without having chaos. But I would agree that the word "anarchy" has been tainted by the media to mean something bad, to the point that people who aren't true anarchists think they are.
- Daedalus17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10That is all fine and dandy but many people who describe themselves as anarchists have a completely different definition of anarchism. And also the theoretical concept of anarchism is very distant from the actual practice of it in the real world which further complicates things.
- sachmanb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Thnx, LuciferChaos
@tinkerbell
Perhaps that's because you haven't actually spent any time reading political philosophy. It was the media, and Roosevelt who in response to the labor movement (the reason we moved past working hell hours for no pay) made anarchy out to be some kind of monstrous chaotic idea. Then as your pop media, like emptyV promote chaos as 'cool' and ignorance and rampant consumerism as trendy -- very against the grain of anarchist philosophy -- then a ton of teenage kids go "Oh I'm anarchist, i don't follow any rules....im so cool." That would fall into Anarcho-Individualism, but I'm confident you don't know there are many different branches to anarchist philosophy (most of those listed by LuciferChaos would be anarcho-syndaclists).
Communism is an enemy of anarchism. One of the leaders of anarchist philosophy debated against Marx at the Communist convention saying it would lead to a red beauracracy. Chomsky as well write about how tyranny, fascism, the republic of the US, and communism all share similar trends. Anarchism is a socialist idea, but communism (state based socialism) is inherently flawed. Communists worked with Anarchists for the Russian revolution, and the Anarchists supported them because they thought anything is better than the Tsar. The Communist party (led by Lenin) then mass slaughtered the anarchists after they won.
Political theory does not end in the 1700s. The Ideas Locke discussed, which influenced the US continued to be discussed and the discussion on what is government? What is the role of government? Is it necessary? What are the alternatives? These questions kept on going among political philosophers and Anarchism is one of these theories that has been evolving and it's thinkers dissect systems of power but as a whole have come to find government in itself to be inherently oppressive, and that a truly functional government for and of the people, would be a decentralized one.
Learn before you trash talk....and you'd quickly learn you have issues with some anarchists -- and anarchists discuss between each other as well. To base it entirely on someone you know in your high school is like basing Apple on the closest fanboi you can find.... - Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't know the whole situation, but after reading the article I have come to a conclusion.
1) This property is within the border of a sovereign nation
2) It was purchased legally by a private group
3) That purchase was challenged by an organization on behalf of these Danish youth
4) The purchase was legally upheld in a court of law.
It sounds like the government also tried to compromise by providing an opportunity to move into a new property that was summarily rejected by the "youth". At this point it seems like they have no leg to stand on. The only alternatives are to (1)accept what they can from the situation, or (2)challenge a sovereign nation with armed resistance. I personally would pick option 1. - mikebeauchamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Did you ever think the fact that Denmark's youth is actually willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in might actually be the reason why their government is friendly, egalitarian and not locking up 9 year old Canadians and sending prisoners to 3rd world countries to be tortured?
- zentro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9It's such an uphill struggle when people like you make sweeping statements like that. Not accepting the "replacement house" was one of the most credible and moral things they've done. That what have been the easy option.
The reason why they did not accept the helping hand from the trust was that the local government had taken away and sold the house they had originally given to the young people of Copenhagen. So why should the pay for a house when they'd been given one to begin with?
Yes, I know they lost the court case and that the christian fundamentalists are _legally_ the owners, but I urge you to look into the specifics of how the sale came about. No doubt that the local government had it all rigged, and they were even social democrats!
I do find it a slightly annoying that the majority of diggers on this page make their comments based on a small fraction of the available information - and even that fraction is not "fair and balanced" (to quote a famous US news station whom Danish TV2 News aspire to be like). - LuciferChaos, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13@tinker123
Howard Zinn, historian and author of the essential book "A People's History of the United States":
http://historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn
http://howardzinn.org/
Noam Chomsky, one of the most significant linguists of the 20th century and author of numerous books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/
A list of prominent, self-avowed anarchists from Wikipedia:
" * photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson[135]
* MIT professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky
* feminist, author and critic Germaine Greer
* social historian Howard Zinn[136]
* author Edward Abbey
* author and speaker Murray Bookchin
* author and philosopher Robert Anton Wilson
* film-maker John Milius
* graphic novelist Alan Moore
* UFC fighter and champion Jeff Monson
* actor, film director, writer and comedian Hans Alfredson.
* Hip Hop musician Emcee Lynx"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism - SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Speak for the continent. Here in the U.K we are too lazy to bother with all that.
- teethman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I guess thats what they teach you in school...
- vulcanius, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Damn kids have been watching too much Clockwork Orange.... probably high on milk again...
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6look up anarcho-capitalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which I see as the only plausible anarchistic society. It sure doesn't appeal to anyone that is a slacker!
- Jade10145, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Although I support any rising of youth, there is one thing that I have a problem with "The eviction had been planned since last year, when courts ordered the squatters to hand the building over to a Christian congregation that bought it six years ago. The squatters said the city had no right to sell the building, and they demanded another building for free as a replacement." It seems a little ridiculous that they are demanding another place for free, but then again I dont know the whole story.
In general though I wish that youth from the states would ***** stand up for something like these europeans. Too many of my classmates seem to be so self obssesed that they dont care abut the world around them, at best they are apathetic. - ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9They should be accountable for what they did. Pay up.
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18"Don't bite the hand that feeds"
Those people fight against a system that allows them these rights. They shouldn't take it for granted. 100 or more years ago in many places in Europe they would have been killed for this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This must be a new Danish policy of no squatters rights.
Just recently the world renown squatter haven in Denmark called Christiana was shut down and all squatters booted out
The place had been around for 30 sum-odd years but developers had other plans - plugues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There's plenty of opportunity in a handful of strong economies. There are jobs, there are up and running economies. If you live in the US, it's all due to an aggressive foreign policy and agriculture subsidies that results in a very simple pyramid: the rich are rich because there's a bunch of poor people at the bottom doing the real work.
Even if you live in a 3rd world economy, societies simply aren't organized to find a place for everyone. Blacks, immigrants, indigenous people are usually left behind because of a very sad cultural baggage that dates to more than a hundred years ago. They're still capitalist economies. You fool yourself if you think that poor people want everything handed to them. Most of the time there just aren't enough jobs.
I won't doubt that you've really worked your way up. That's an actual possibility in some places, but generally it's due to a lot of very poor countries being exploited to the bone. I certainly would have nothing against globalization if the rich countries would open up their borders.
Now, we're talking about Denmark here. It's certainly not a 3rd world country. But it's not the average dane we're talking about. These are protesters. They don't want to be part of the system, a fragment of the engine. As far as I'm concerned, they're parasites and proud of it. There's definitely a point there. - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yeah, that must be the reason why college towns have the most anarchists per capita in the USA.
- joeTaco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@Royall64:
Sadly, that's not the first time I've heard that remark. Please learn a little bit about the history of anarchism and the principles of its main thinkers before claiming such things; lack of a state does not mean lack of any organization! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anarchism
PS. These protests/riots sound pretty ***** misguided to me, anyhow. Violence like this isn't going to bring social change. Then again, my knowledge of the situation is pretty much limited to this article so I really shouldn't be spouting off about it. Feh. - timkl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6There is this fund who want to buy the squatters a new house, but they only want a house that the state pays for, as they say: "don't privatize our culture". So much for anarchism. Basically the squatters are just leeches like everyone else who wants to live off their fellow citizen. But then again they are hip leeches, left-extremism is this seasons cool.
I guess many young people have a drift towards cataclysmic events - I am convinced that the punks that set cars on fire in Copenhagen tonight, are the same punks who would have marched under the banner of communism or nazism in the last bloody century. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That's only because the government did it so slowly and over such a long time that nobody noticed that they didn't own anything they thought they did.
I love going over the taxes I pay on my car with people.
I was taxed when I earned the money, I was taxed when I spent it to buy the car, I had to pay license fees and taxes when I bought the car, I pay taxes on the gas I buy, I pay excise tax every year, plus the tolls (that the Government said would only be up until the roads were paid for.. that was in 1960, and they should have been gone in 1970). - ninjakoala, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Feel free to read more about the issue at www.ungdomshuset.dk under "English (news)"
- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7You have to pay taxes because you entered into the social contract that everyone agreed too with the community if you don't want to pay taxes then start your own country with your own rules. Taxes are a necessity of civilization because without taxes there is no government and without government there is only roaming bands of barbarians taking what they want from whom they want. Think about it, during the last 7000 years humans have done more then the previous 193000 years specifically because of governments and taxes and the safety that they provide.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11I can't see why Anarchists would support people violating property rights.. unless they're just some punkass kids who pretend to be Anarchists, when in reality, they're from rich families and have very left leaning politics..
Those kids give the rest of us a bad name.
""Doesn't an assembly of anarchists defeat the purpose?"
They have to have some way to organize all that chaos and mayhem."
Anarchy isn't chaos, it's self regulation. The Wikipedia is a great example of Anarchy gone right. - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11I don't know how it works in Denmark, but you can't legally own property in the USA.
You can only own a right to lease it from the local government.
They call the lease payments property taxes, and if you fail to make them they revoke your right to lease the property and sell it to someone else.
The whole idea of property ownership is a grand illusion. - pogfreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You can still get Alodial Title in Texas and Nevada in certain situations. 99% of the time when you own land though you own it "fee simple" which isn't exactly "leasing it from the government" though you are always subjected to taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat =
- WaltJabsco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This reminds me of the Dial House. Basically it sounds somewhat similar to the house in the article and housed the anarchist punk band Crass and a bunch of other people. Then they faced legal battles but through raising funds of around $100,000 they managed to swallow their ideology for awhile and do what was more important, to keep the house. Which sounds pretty cool to me, the anarchists in Denmark should have followed suit and purchased the property (politics aside). Now I think the house (In Denmark) sounds like a good idea, however because of the circumstances and the fact they had a chance to own it, I cant really make a definitive choice of supporting them or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_House
http://www.uncarved.org/music/apunk/guardian050101.html - ninjakoala, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I'd rather see the governing powers in Copenhagen be held responsible. They were the only ones who had the power to actually solve the problem and simply pointing your fingers at the effect of the politicians' lack of action won't make the situation any better.
Yes, it's wrong to smash other peoples' properties. Yes, Faderhuset legally bought the house. Does that mean it's as simple as black-and-white? No.
While I don't support the violence I have far less respect for the core of the problem: The politicians. - mlfoley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank God some people still care about the freedom and rights of the people.
- BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah it bugs me too. Anarchists are on the vertical plane of the political ***** spectra. They can have liberal ideals or even very conservative ideals. Anti-authoritarian isn't a right/left thing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@LuciferKaos
In any group you can find exceptions of people doing better or worse than the group.
I am actually a fan of Zinn and some of the other people you listed. As anarchists, they are failures, they are living in the system and not doing anything to create anarchy. In that way they are sort of like the socialists and Christians. They preach about something that will never be experienced, as they preach it, on a real Earth by real people.
Aside from that, those are good people who are doing stuff. They are the exceptions among the anarchists I met, who for the most part are malcontent do-nothings. - SoulRebel23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Solidarity with the squatters. It is in the best interests of society for the building to continue serving it's current purpose. It is in the best interests of the powerful, however, that the building have a proper "owner" and the squatters be evicted. The police are acting in the interests of the powerful, not the people. The people have a right to resist laws which drive them out of their homes and don't allow them any effective way to participate in the decision making process.
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5fasda how do you figure that? If I didn't use government services on my land, I would still have to pay the tax or forfeit the land.
Yes, it is called a tax and it is for the 'better of the community' to pay it and they even call it ownership... however it is not. -
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is