Good lord, another bong water drinker.
In comments below, from another enlightened Anarchist:
Well, actually, Anarchism does work. There have been many Anarchist societies throughout time.
Yep. Six whole seconds of googling was the massive effort it took to determine they have all failed, or are in the process of failure.
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
Ooh, How Original!
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean communism doesn’t work.
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean socialism doesn’t work.
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean collectivism doesn’t work.
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean marxism doesn’t work.
And even if there weren’t, it doesn’t mean fluffy buny poop worship doesn’t work.
Congrats on falling into the stupoidest logical fallacy on earth. Nice to see you checked your brain at the door.
I’m sure you like democracy
Are you now? How is it that you’re sure of that? Like Billy Blowjob, you come here without any knowledge whatsoever of who or what i am, and you’re “sure” of how I feel on a subject? What, you can read minds now? You don’t even know if I’m human. You know exactly nothing. And you demonstrate it every time you open your piehole to make another utterly invalid point based on your own prejudice and utterly closed mind.
There were no democratic societies for thousands of years. Ever hear of a Monarch? Does that mean democracy doesn’t work? Also, maybe there aren’t many Anarchist societies around, because at the moment we have leaders who maintain power, they aren’t exactly giving that power up.
Here’s a little clue for you. When you decide to ramble on about things you understand not at all, try to keep those voices in your head, and don’t let them leak out onto the keyboard.
If you had done some research other than talking to other people who dislike Anarchy you might have learned something. Then we all could of avoided the pleasure of hearing you mindlessly bitch about Anarchy on some blog.
Hm. Maybe I see people like you, you purulent piece of dogmeat, and I understand what a morally bankrupt piece of shit you are, and how morally bankrupt the concept of anarchy is, when it is practiced by anencephalic fucktards like yourself. I’ve a: Done more research than you can imagine on the subject, thus arriving at the correct conclusion, and b: knew it was bullshit the moment I tripped across the goat turd ot Anarchy,
Yes Ayn Rand is a fucktard – though I’m not sure what that has to do with Anarchism because she rejected Anarchism hugely… (Again with the research.)
The point of that, you pusilanimous scumbag, is that most of the idiots that espouse Anarchy in one form or another also espouse objectivism. If you would stop being such a close -minded idiot. You might avoid humiliating yourself over the internet trying to act intelligent.
God, I cannot even IMAGINE using that kind of grammar and trying to pretend I had a clue.
So finally, if you stop being such a close-minded idiot. You might avoid humiliating yourself over the internet trying to act intelligent.
OK I’m going to correct your grammar here because it’s your first visit. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re a product of the public screwel system and the bong you have stuck to your lower lip right now.
Try this on for size:”So, Finally, if you would stop being such a closed-minded idiot, you might avoid humiliating yourself over the Internet , trying to act intelligently”
That actually makes some sense, though, as usual, it was your thought no matter how disjointed, and is of course utterly false.
You came here to spout shit about which you obviously know not a thing, to someone you don’t know from adam. You have been rude and an ass, and as thus, I appoint you Queen of Anarchists. Go somewhere, put down the bong, and try to learn something. I do despair of that, lord knows, because it obviously hasn’t happened thus far.

Anarchy cannot work, because it is inherently self limiting; never mind that it ignores human nature.
Anarchy is a system which by it’s very nature cannot defend itself from outside attack. It will inevitably fall into tyranny at any powerful organized attack.
Such organized attacks will inevitably arise, because there will always be those who seek power over others; and those who wish to be led, as well as reap the benefits of being a member of a powerful organization.
People will always respond to their incentives; and there are always people who are strong, ambitious, cruel, and evil. Their incentive is to form such organizations, and to crush anarchists with them.
This is simple reality. Simple psychology. Simple economics. Anyone who doesn’t recognize this is either an idiot, delusional, or both.
Some like he needs a good dose of Anarchy to come to his house.
You can’t stay awake 24 hours a day to protect it, can you?
Oh… the house is YOURS??? That requires a set of … laws that everyone agrees to! Lets see his anarchist buddies respect that.
Chris: I like the description on your blog. “Disgruntled minarchist”. EVERYONE with a brain wants smaller government.
Cond, I think the irony is lost on them, I really do.
“Cond, I think the irony is lost on them, I really do. ”
They do give us fodder for amusement, don’t they? =)
I’m just looking for the ‘Stupid Fuckers Welcome!’,sign.
Can’t see it, but you gotta have it tucked around here somewhere.
All the discourse about Anarchy … went to dig up a few things … found it did work, in modified form, in Iceland for a couple hundred years. But Iceland in a number of ways seems to be the exception to the rule.
Then there are those who propose Anarchy to be the “Smiley faced” version of communism. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt either.
Or Nozick, whose contortions in trying to hammer out a “workable” anarchist state, to my mind, brings a new meaning to the word nuanced.
Chris Byrne states above;
Anarchy cannot work, because it is inherently self limiting; never mind that it ignores human nature.
And that just about says it all. That pesky human nature strikes again.
And now my head hurts from reading bits an pieces of Chomsky, and others of his ilk.
Weirdly, I’m not sure I’ve ever met an Objectivist Anarchist.
Mostly I run into squishy-left ones (ie, people who read a few paragraphs of Bakunin, or a summary), or Rothbardites.
Or just people who hate government without any particular philosophical basis.
(And on what Guy said, well, sure, pseudo-anarchy* “worked”, but at the same time, Iceland was both nearly lawless in the modern sense [good luck if you weren’t a vicious brawler or have a lot of friends, too!] and had enough law and government to banish people from the country entirely on pain of being killed without repercussion by anyone if they stayed.
Icelandic “anarchy” is nothing I’d like to live under, fun as it is to read about in the Sagas.
* Really not quite anarchy, in that there was “a law” and judgments from the Thing were enforced, if not by an independent policy, but close enough by modern standards of State action.)
Sigvald,
That is kinda the thing (no pun intended) that got me too. Be it in Iceland or anywhere else, *something/someone* needs to take the place of *law* in almost all the forms of anarchy (save for the *smiley faced commies*). Some talk of “private security agencies”, others want to leave it up to each individual. Either way is nothing more then “pie in the sky” thinking.
Mankind may not all be in a constant state of “assholy-ness”, but all of mankind has been an asshole at one time or another. In short, it ain’t gonna work, in the real world.