She's my best friend/roommate

....Anarchy is the absence of (by failure of) government, not an uprising.


No, that would then be the end of anarchy and the start of a new government.


Once again, wrong. Anarchy is not immature or stupid. You just don't understand what it is. It's not a bunch of punks with the CircleA drawn on their hands and arms. Anarchy happens when a government starts abusing it's power and the citizens under it decide to set up a new government.


It took me awhile to type this, so it may have already been said, but whatever.

Sorry, Hello Massassi! I'm with ^ that one ^ (Sugarless)

Critical Path by Buckminster Fuller describes how governments started. A band of ruffians approached a shepard and told him, "this area is dangerous. You will give us 20 sheep for our protection from predators."

The shepard responds, "It's not dangerous. I've been doing this all my life with no problems."

The ruffians then kill a sheep or two each night until the shepard caves in and agrees to pay them.

The only way a proper anarchy would work is a coup de grace. There's too many people and too many opposing opinions and too much government for a peaceful, or swift anarchy to be achieved. So while I agree with you that many misunderstand and misrepresent anarchy, a United States anarchy WOULD be a stupid and violent upheaval of the government. Even if it didn't start that way.

Just adding on...

Yes, anarchy is the lack of government. Anarchy is a total lack of rules and control where everyone is free to do as they please. There are no boundaries. In fact, anarchy (in a perfect world) would be the ideal way to live. However, human nature prevents this. Someone's desire to kill and steal (and so on and so forth) is what makes anarchy fail. This is not a utopian society. Therefore, people (in my opinion) should look to the next best thing: a society in which government exists, but who's only responsibility is to protect the rights of its people (e.g., someone can't just have the freedom to kill someone -- that revokes the individual's right to live). That was the original intention of America's founding fathers -- to offer a country where people can live with rights and without fear of oppression. However, the American govt. has began to revoke an individual's rights over time. And now today, we have two parties that are favored by the mass majority of American citizens that really just favor two different extremes -- one favors social control while the other favors economic control. Either way, you are probably going to lose more freedom.

Why use it? Maybe I wasn't clear when I called your writing e. e. cummings poetry, but it seems like you're intentionally being obscure and mystical when you're coming across as annoying and no one can take your political views seriously. I don't automatically have anything against anarchy, but I can't know what brand of anarchy you support, or why you support it, when you post in monosyllabic responses to things no one said.

That's pretty much why I've decided to ignore him. He has no interest in debating or discussing anything. He just wants to be a Mystic.

Contradictory.

Anarchy is the absense of any form of government, an-archy. A section of people withing the governed rebelling against the government is not anarchy. Those are citizens being unlawful against the government established. Meanwhile, there is a government body in place ruling a group of people.

Rebellion != anarchy

This poll is stupid and needs a Colbert option.

.

This poll is stupid anyway, I accidentally voted Mitt Romney

Anarchy immediately becomes feudalism.

nothing that gets people talking this much about an important issue is stupid.

however, i did not vote either due to the lack of a colbert button.

we demand representation!!!

right now? Ron Paul... but I havent paid much attention to anyone but him and obama. Obama just seems like a hack to me. I don't like the way he speaks.

I'm rather disappointed by all of the candidates. But, it is American politics, therefor my standards are low.

I signed a petition today to get Bill Richardson on the ballot in Illinois.

Bill Richardson seems like a great candidate if you ignore his Iraq policy. He is most definitely qualified to be the president.

I could go for Bill Richardson. Namely he's not a complete idiot when it comes to the border.

The border is ****ing big for me. We SoCal folks want a resolution to this that does not involve open gates INTO the United States.

Brownback's gone! Not that it matters. . . .

Yoda for President 2008