I think its a nice ideal, but there's several issues Im having difficulty with, maybe you can enlighten me...

1. "Anarchy." I hate the name. I think people who hear the terms "anarchy" "anarchists" "anarchism" automatically hates it as well given the universal definition. Even if your definition is different than everyone else's it has a negative association with it, like chaos and destruction and disorder, and "anarchy" is used commonly today to define the very negative words you say it doesnt represent. And I dont think it'll be a term that'll have your proper definition attatched to it that'll be widely accepted anytime in my lifetime given how it is percieved by the majority today.

2. Who decides the structure? Who enforces it? What motive do people have to keep structure (especially people who simply don't care about others, and there are many, and they will exist even in an anarchist society), what motive do people have to not be more lax about right and wrong since consequences seem obsolete?

3.
"Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those other people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle."
I dont agree with this at all. Read next point.

"If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that makes people stupid and irresponsible. "
So what this is saying is that the reason people misbehave is because of the government's control and lack of validation of their citizens?
Yeah, I dont think so. I do agree that people can become angry, cynical, and violent when they feel unheard or misunderstood, but those feelings dont just arise from government control. Those feelings can be prevalent among their peers, their family members, their community(and are mostly stemmed from those influences). Absense of government isnt going to erase how important or unimportant a citizen finds himself to be any in his world. Except now it sounds like there's no regulation if he reacts to being invalidated.

4.
"Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and, therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails."
Are they aware, though really? Do you really, honestly believe people, for the most part, are "aware" of others?

I dont. People are barely aware of themselves let alone other people. And I dont think the government holds much (if any) responsibility for that, either.

5.
"The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive."
What should we be sharing in the real world that we are not? And were we taught as children to share everything of ourselves with everybody? I dont really think this sharing aspect of the anarchist argument makes much sense as Im seeing it here.

6.
" Pretty much every worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved people's lives, has come through cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while no doubt there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. A society which encourages competition only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another."
Again, Im not really understanding. Are anarchists for communism as well? If so, then this statement makes perfect sense.
But why do you think society encourages the behavior? Why do you feel that those in power do not deserve to be compensated for instilling drive, want, inspiration, and self respect among the people? How does encouraging people to be competative, educated, and driven help those in power? If they were really about control of the people you and I both know they wouldn't encourage us at all. These coroperations didnt just land here like an alien invasion, anal probing the people and conquering the planet. There's a lot of history behind most of the corperations, and often they started with humble beginnings. What you're proposing is a limitation of one's ability to be great and do great. When people feel limited, or like there is only so far they can go, or only so much they can achieve, and it doesnt really matter anyway cuz you'll be equals with every dipshit from your community. What do you think a person's drive will be then? "Why bother" would probably be mine if those limitations were placed on me. Maybe Im missing something, please correct me if Im not interpreting this right.

7.
"The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults;
You really think its because of the government?
I think this is stretching a little bit now...

8.
their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?
Sure, if it actually worked out that way, which as it stands right now I dont believe it would. If everyone were as smart as you, ermitonto, and has the understanding and awareness that you have...this ideal sounds really really great. But you know thats not the case. People make bad choices all the time, even in our society with government regulation and law enforcement, and even then you'd think the people had never even heard the word "government" before, or "consequences" before, thats how dumb, uneducated, unmotivated, self-absorbed, and senseless a large group of people are, and thats WITH societies influence to be competative. And these people breed the most. I want to be protected from the likes of them, Im not willing to put myself and my loved one's on the line and "trust" them, and "trust" that they are "aware" of right and wrong, or that they actually care, and I dont want to be considered equal to them no matter how nice and sweet that may sound either, because Im not, and neither are you.

Again, if I got this all wrong, which could be a definite possibility, please please correct me and enlighten me.
Ousted Reviewed by Ousted on . Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!) Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!) from the New York Anti-Capitalist Convergence http://my.execpc.com/~maier/reading/ruanarchist.html Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard about them is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they oppose all forms of order and organization, that they are Rating: 5