i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

Quote Originally Posted by thcbongman
That is quite delusional.
what did you expect, sanity????

But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?
there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

Quote Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process.
no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual.
yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

Quote Originally Posted by psychocat
A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .
we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.