so you think that anarchy would, well make it alot easier for you hhhhhmmmmm? really? explain how? because if everyone can do as they please and there is no gov't you probably be in the exact same place as you are now.

and aaaawwwweeee poor baby you've been homless too, congratulations.

but seriously, instead of sitting there hopeing for socety to colapse and every one to be "free" make your own freedom.

anarchy is for those who cant handle the real world.

shit happenes no matter what.

well put fly well put

@white:
completely agree.

@defcon:
come to canada and try living on the fucking streets in the prairies where some days get to -30C with a wind bringing it to -40 as a daytime high. after one night, you will be lucky not have the early stages of frostbite on every extremity. when you do that, you can say that you know how bad being homeless is. till you know what that is like, shut the fuck up.


Anarchy will never work on a large scale. Small scale; possible, but highly improbable.

Am I the only one who see's the irony of arguing against anarchy on a site called ACB?

No you're not the only one to see the irony, but thats besides the point if you dont get it you dont get it, i see what they are trying to say but they dont understand what i am saying nor are they trying. At the end of the it all perception.
Sionyx it works on whatever scale you want it to it is in history books man anarchy in it self has been used to shape the world we live in research a company in Canada named Persona or in China i hope i get this right Po hia lo same situation. When people feel they are being unfairly treated they act out reguardless of what you call it anarchy, civil disobedence, right to rule, and a host of other names can be used. The only thing is that when it works by law someone must pay for what was done weather it be jail time or money but if the point is proven then its worth it.
Check the movie the 300 at the end the only point they were able to make was that the man who placed himself as a god could be touched thus not a god that opend the door for falible and thats all it is making sure people stay humble cause they can be affected by the small man.
Its not about people being physically free its a mental thing you are freeing them from the mind set that life is how it is live with it and open them to the fact that we shape this world by every action. Freedom of choice!

GOD FUCKING DAMN IT SHUT THE FUCK UP

ANARCHY IS NOT REBELLION.
THAT'S A FUCKING MISNOMER.
ggggggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh hhhhhhhh

the irony is moot, the book was also a misnomer....as well as a fake

If you are going from a mentality perspective, then yes it is not only possible but necessary for freedom, in all respects and is currently in place everywhere (to some degree anyways).

If you are going for an anarchist state where you are without any ruler or any hierarchy/people to organize shit, then it probably won't work on a large scale. A community, yes that can work (pending on the mindset of the people), that can work. If it is a country like the US where you are expected to conform and obtain power while saying fuck you the others; it won't work. The resultant economic disparity would create tension and inevitably conflict. This conflict will lead to civil wars between citizens for the sake of culture, power, religion, wealth, ect. which will cause it's inevitable self-destruction or fragmentation.

Also, there will always be someone that is in charge; whether it be collective group or a single man. Thusly so, "anarchy", by your definition of "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.", is still an ideological fallacy.

If people have a socialist attitude, where people help those in need and accept people's choices/beliefs, then it can work, but will be improbable to initiate and sustain itself peacefully. On a long enough timeline, a large scale project can potentially work if tolerance and acceptance are upheld.

I misunderstood you, and kinda went into a political tangent - as I so often do.

Anarchy has come to be a bastardized word that has been whored and marketed to irrelevant things. The meaning it once had is no more - as far as I am concerned.

Edit:
Very true.

^^^
Great example of why an anarchist state wouldn't work. Some people would be free to purposely fuck with people for fun or profit - thus self-destruction.

More people you have, the greater the chances that someone will flick matches at a powder keg.

Modus Ponens

I give up you guys are going around in a big circles, never said anarchist state or society i never said thats how the world should be all i said is that it is need to cause change, not distructive blow shit up, not a whole people need to be free, nothing like that sometimes you have to shake the ants nest to get um to build something new. Thats me i have nothing else to say.

"I give up you guys are going around in a big circles, never said anarchist state or society i never said thats how the world should be all i said is that it is need to cause change, not distructive blow shit up, not a whole people need to be free, nothing like that sometimes you have to shake the ants nest to get um to build something new. Thats me i have nothing else to say."

That's more of a revolutionary/liberalistic idea. "Anarchy" really has too many connotations that go with it, so you almost need to define which definition you use so that there is little confusion.

Reason I say that:
"sometimes you have to shake the ants nest to get um to build something new."

Purely a revolutionary idea, and pending upon how you interpret it, with a dash of anarchy. Anarchy can be part of a revolution, but it does not have to be as it can be completed through civil means and without causing chaos.

And, I did say that "I misunderstood you, and kinda went into a political tangent - as I so often do.", so, my bad.