In order to keep that one from being hijacked.
If they are examples of anarchy, I'll have some government please. If you think they had it better, then you are naive.
Living a simple life sure does suck?
I prefer your pictures of wannabe revolutionaries in black. Better that anarchism be represented for the adolescent daydream that it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_Warhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbIpgGKtj5Yhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzjuE5ahetAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI^^ Man would you just look at that young whippersnapper.
The North American indians did not fare well against a better organized invading government. I'll take my risks with a government... worts and all.
So you would of sided with the Nazis if you thought that they were going to win?
If there were no government, within ten minutes a couple busybodies would get together to form one. laugh
And you would have all of the anarchist fighting them.
From what I understand, those anarchists who aren't merely looking for a good time throwing stones and acting rowdy believe that society can cooperate via voluntary contracts and "syndicates."
That's because the media doesn't show why they did what they did.
In this you kind of get an inside look, sort of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ9iQoSW9jkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVmfQzo7NHohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM1Mghp32Fkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dYh7KqR3n4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjrRRbbvc30http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cd3m5wqwZ8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZVzQOm-_Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSCDgdB5fcShow me a single historical example of a stable anarchy. Just one.
What do you mean by stable?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html And again, the Indians.
From the Notes On Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.
This practice results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.
There is also a really great quote about the Indians from the Journals of Lewis and Clark but it is currently in storage,
When I get it out I'll post it. But what it pretty much states is that the "Chiefs" were not kings, they were just a wise person.
You know some of you with responses like,
They don't seem to realize that if you tear down what exists, the historical odds are you won't like what replaces it at all.
sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<