Humans are social creatures that naturally organize into groups, and access to resources immediately becomes a point of authority. If you have the sabertooth meat, you make the rules. If you were to dismantle all governments tomorrow, there would be a period of chaos followed by people rather quickly organizing back into communities that share a common interest with the person who has the most guns at its center. From that naturally arises codes of conduct created specifically to discourage bad behavior and encourage good behavior. These rudiments of culture are seen in primitive tribes all over the world, are common to all cultures regardless of their advancement, and have been well documented by anthropologists for hundreds of years.
In short, anarchy is a red herring. It does not exist.
But I see 15 year-olds with anarchy symbols on their T-Shirts all the time, it must exist somehow
Ridiculous as it may be
It is an idea. What I'm saying is that in practice there really is no such thing, except for perhaps very brief periods before people naturally organize. But even during those brief periods we are governed by even more deeply innate principles such as reciprocity. Even though there is no threat from the state, we still have to contend with the wills of other human beings.
I don't think you're understanding the concept of anarchy as others see it, especially those that are politically motivated
How very informative and incisive.
you can go incise the shit out of that statement all you want, all I intended to do was point out the flaw in your argument
You didn't point out anything. In order for a point to have been made, you have to elaborate why it's a misunderstanding, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
It would appear that social order is not antiethical to anarchic thought, they do however often speak of how society would be more equal without a State because to them States produce inequality through their monopoly of force.
Yes, the biggest hurdle anarchists seem to have trouble overcoming is the issue of enforcement. They appear to rely on the principle of mutual destruction in so far as they propose that if everyone had access to their own security firms and if there existed a legal order in which to litigate, people would try their hardest to do as little harm as possible to others in order to avoid mutual damage. This however relies on the notion that everyone is rational enough to abide by such a principle. I think there are other problems with this anarchist rebuttal.
The libertarian party is probably not a good example since they are actually trying to use the mechanisms of the State to gain power, thus it would be silly for them to insist on the destruction of the State while running for entry into the State.
I was typing something long and good, left for a while to go wander town, came back and didn't remember exactly what I was saying so I typed this instead.
it was like 2 paragraphs when i left
and that's pretty wordy for me on beeg
Have you ever deleted something because it didn't sound right and then rewrote it nearly word for word after
everything i have ever written
I cant tell you exactly what it is but I know there is something wrong with that penis
So skirkle, do we disagree with the anarchists in so far as we think that the State is inevitable? Do we agree with their notion that the State is a necessary evil? Except that of course, they don't think it's necessary. So do we think the State is evil?
His dick glistens like glass on a prison wall
I need 3D glasses for that kinda glisten