Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anarchy is not having a need to be told what to do. That means thinking for oneself.
Most people believe that anarchy is people bashing in the heads of others to get more stuff for themselves.
Americans are very conformist, a robot society. Americans do not believe in individuality, they believe in individual property ownership.
Anyone who refuses to act is not necessarily an anarchist - a stubborn donkey is not an anarchist.
Americans do not believe in individuality, they believe in individual property ownership
So in your reality, collective property ownership is more individualistic than individual property ownership? If so, I believe you are devoid of logic and consistency, sir. Might I ask if up is down, and down is up, as well? Incidentally, I do believe there are more independent thinking libertarians per capita in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. Try starting an anti-government, pro-individual rights & pro-free markets protest in any other country, and you will likely fail.
- however, where dictatorship can be somewhat benevolent, anarchy has yet to demonstrate any sort of sustainability on a larger scale.
As far as I can see, anarchy is pretty much doomed to become feudalism in short order - we can of course discuss whether feudalism is better or worse than dictatorship.
On the other hand, there are examples of dictatorships turning to democratic states - Spain, for instance, saw Franco's designated heir (King Juan Carlos) flip the bird at Franco's Old Guard and institute a sound parliamentary system.
Yeah, I'm pragmatic. If someone can cite examples of modern anarchies actually working on anything resembling a large scale, I'd be interested.
Anarchy simply means lack of government. It has nothing to do with guns.
Matter of fact, we have a government in the U.S., and people are free to use guns. Why do they need anarchy then?
ohh, dont be naive. Nothing positive has ever from anarchy. No authority, no government, social chaos. A perfect example for toothless Johnny to use his gun.
A do it yourself government (aka anarchy) will surly bring out the gun nuts.
ohh, dont be naive. Nothing has ever come good from anarchy. No authority, no government, social chaos. A perfect example for toothless Johnny to use his gun.
A do it yourself government (aka anarchy) will surly bring out the gun nuts.
You know nothing of anarchy then.
You seem to associate anarchy with violence. Ireland was anarchial for hundreds of years. No real viloence there. Matter of fact, it was arguably the most advanced "country" in the world. The American West was basically anarchial until 1900. No real violence there. Western Europe has had periods of anarchy. Again, no violence to speak of.
WW2 led to 100 million deaths. All caused by government.
Chinese government has killed at least 60 million in the last 50 years.
The Soviet government killed 50-70 million.
The Cambodians killed 3-5 million.
Castro: 5 million.
I could go on and on listing deaths by government.
Yet you claim anarchy leads to social chaos? LOLs. Maybe government is the cause of social chaos. And death.
A lot of people associate dictators with bad things. A lot of what we do in British "Constitutional" Monarchy and what served as a model for American democaracy and the form of democracy in the former states that were part of the British Empire owes itself to the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth Cromwell. Cromwell was a dictator. Another Dictator stopped the excesses of the 1st French Republic and put France on the road to its modern democracy. The dictator was Napoleon Bonaparte. French law is still based on the code Napoleon.
Ireland was anarchial for hundreds of years. No real viloence there. Matter of fact, it was arguably the most advanced "country" in the world.
What advances came out of Ireland - I assume you're referring to the 650-1650 timeframe - that were unmatched in the rest of the world?
And it's not as if everybody was free and equal. Sure, the landowners took part in local government, but those who weren't landowners were rather screwed, wouldn't you agree?
So in your reality, collective property ownership is more individualistic than individual property ownership? If so, I believe you are devoid of logic and consistency, sir. Might I ask if up is down, and down is up, as well? Incidentally, I do believe there are more independent thinking libertarians per capita in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. Try starting an anti-government, pro-individual rights & pro-free markets protest in any other country, and you will likely fail.
I didn't even mention anything about "collective property ownership".
Your piece is based on your assumptions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd rather not have either.
