mmhm, why direct the concept to the US?

Are you one of those people that initiate these conversations to sound "more worldly" than they appear to be? Frankly the US are perfectly capable of wallowing themselves to anarchy... what with all the disenchanted kids that own the same book you base you ideas off on...

Only time dig my heels into US politics is when it threatens my job or family or when its being discussed by the local drunk in the bar who JUST got cable and started watching Fox News or CNN.

For your info and further reference, anarchy can be brought upon by non-military means as well, social engineering for example...

oh noez. The anarchists in the US are going to launch frozen oranges and rocks against armored soldiers with M4s and grenade launchers mounted to the barrel.

But, Juntalis! Keep in mind how well this rock-hurdling strategy works in the middle east!

I heard they once almost made visible scratches in a tank!

I never said its moral and perfect, it has people in it remember. Crime is crime, no matter what the system. Also as you said before, without millitary they will be vunerable to attack, and without propper borders they will probably have to pay for private protection in their area. Security is a massive bussiness, and it would just escalate in a country without police or a formal military.


Im not exactly sure who you are rebutting, and im not sure which argument you are refering to. Can you be more precise? (rather then saying Aussies bitch, and you guys didnt counter good enuf, maybe link the post and use exact examples or quotes)


Stupid arguments like this doesnt really count...

*cough*

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Something to live by.
You don't have have to hurt people to have personal freedom.

You're the one who escalated into talking about violence, Mister616, not us. How about this; instead of reading your "personal philosophy" out of a book, why not do some research, employ some CRITICAL THINKING and REASON, then come back. You've yet to counter a single argument that breaks your viewpoint.

But if you really feel that everyone is moral, etc, would you allow me to post your password on here? Since everyone is moral, there's no need for passwords or anything like that.

So, let me get this straight... The new argument calls for a militaristic organization to watch over the people of Anarchyville? I posed this question earlier, and I'll pose it again: Who will watch the watchmen?

Sorry Clbck, i musnt have see ur question earlier. In this supposed Anarchyville it would function much the same as commercial society. the people will watch the watchmen, and the people will be watched by the other people. In essence everyone prevents everyone else from getting out of line and trying to take over (if thats what your getting at).

Ill give you a smaller example, a small anecdote if you will; 10 people on a desert island, one of them has a knife and is designated to protect them from wild animals. 3 of the others are gatherers, 3 hunters and 2 builders. The protector decides one day that he has the knife so he should be in charge, and so he threatens the others and says he will kill them if they dont follow his orders. And so they feed him poison and he dies, or the zerg rush him and he dies, or they just refuse to follow his orders. Assuming that he isnt mentally derranged he will realise that by controlling them unwillingly he will encite their anger, and so they will retaliate, and he cant watch them all at the same time, and also that he doesnt have a chance if they decide to zerghim, and also that by killing them all he gains nothing, and loses almost all chance of survival. Obviously this is only a small example, but i think you can imagine the kind of effects i refer to on a larger scale. That is, assassination, rebelion, and refusal.

Again with the faulty comparisons. 1 guy with a knife vs 9 without. How about a small army of well trained people with advanced guns vs people with no military training, and some guns. The small army would slaughter them. Remember India when the British had control?

The verdict is in.

Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.
Anarchy will not work.

Ever.