[U184]

He's an anarchist.

Oh right, those people who rail against everything they have, while enjoying the privilege of having them.

I thought most people got over that when they grew up...

[Wolfman]

I think it was Honisoit who described his version of Anarchism as something like "an ideal we should move towards of a community helping itself voluntarily, even if we will probably never get there". In that regard, I find it acceptable.

[U184]

However that can be done with Nationalism, it can be done through Socialism and it can be done through Social Democracy via the National service/volunteer plan we have discussed before, anarchy is not needed, nor is it warranted.

Anarchy, is unsustainable, can not be stable and is a poor dream, as it can never be anything more than a symptom of a failed system.

In the end, anarchy is a transitional state, just as chaos is transitional to structure.

[Paradigm]

Anarchy, is unsustainable, can not be stable and is a poor dream, as it can never be anything more than a symptom of a failed system.

A system which prevailed for the majority of human existence, and continues to exist in many parts of the world, is unsustainable?

[U184]

A system which prevailed...

But it has not prevailed. Some type of cultural structure, moral/religious dominance, or hierarchy always accompanies Human development.

[Paradigm]

But it has not prevailed. Some type of cultural structure, moral/religious dominance, or hierarchy always accompanies Human development.

All I can say is, study some anthropology before making such uninformed statements.

[U184]

I thought I had.

In order for your statement to be true, there would be no "tribes" or groupings larger than small family units, as it is a structure. Can you list a majority of cases that lack order, structure, rank, etc?

Making statements like that should be easy to back up, assuming your not talking out of your ass, I mean making such uninformed statements...

Or you can refrain from stupid rude remarks and prove/disprove as the case may be.

[Paradigm]

In order for your statement to be true, there would be no "tribes" or groupings larger than small family units, as it is a structure. Can you list a majority of cases that lack order, structure, rank, etc?

Now I see the problem. You have no idea what anarchism is. Tell me, do you know what the famous "circle-A" symbol stands for?

[U184]

Anarchism means without rulers, however there are many aspects to the word and I suspect your going to champion Anarcho Communism. However when referring to anthropology and ancient time lines, none of the more modern aspects really matter now do they?

So Paradigm, could you just get to the point, state your stance and let me do the same, without the BS?

[Paradigm]

My point is that the societies I refer to have order and structure, but no separate political class and no system of domination. This is precisely what anarchists advocate. There are, of course, more modern examples of anarchy in Spain, for instance. But the point is that it's completely stupid to claim anarchy is unsustainable when in fact most people who have ever existed lived under anarchy.

[U184]

When that system has one law enforcer, one judge, one administrator, one inherited title, one medicine man, etc... it ceases to be the system you describe.

The concept of a political class is not the same as a system of domination, few ancients had need of a political class and fewer still had no form of domination. The Hunter who was feed first or best, to the head male, female, whatever, there is a semblance of order within a system.

Can you point to a ancient culture that had no rank, separations or preferential treatment for choice groups within the group of one kind or another? I have not made it my life work, but I can not think of any, can you?

Are you using the modern definition and concepts of the word anarchy, rather than the vernacular, to categorize and describe these groups?

[Paradigm]

When that system has one law enforcer, one judge, one administrator, one inherited title, one medicine man, etc... it ceases to be the system you describe.

And if you think all societies have had that, then your knowledge of anthropology is much more severely limited than you claim.

The concept of a political class is not the same as a system of domination, few ancients had need of a political class and fewer still had no form of domination. The Hunter who was feed first or best, to the head male, female, whatever, there is a semblance of order within a system.

And what you describe is simply not the case for the vast majority of hunter-gatherer societies that have ever been studied.

Can you point to a ancient culture that had no rank, separations or preferential treatment for choice groups within the group of one kind or another? I have not made it my life work, but I can not think of any?

You mean like pretty much every hunter-gatherer society ever studied?

[U184]

I suppose you could think this, if you see hunter gathers as anarchistic that is on you.

I do not equate egalitarianism with anarchy. I also do not see the practice of social equality as being equal to "without leaders". Even in hunter-gatherer societies, jobs fell to those best suited to do their jobs, males hunt females gather or, if you rather, the stronger hunt and the weaker take up supporting roles.

Either way, one does not need to see the shift from hunter-gatherer, to agricultural practice, to see class structure within these groups.

Is there a reason that your responses are so pointed and aggressive? Surely you can handle a differing view of opinion better than this, can you not?

[QatzelOk]

How do you see the above as being a problem?

He doesn't actually say they're a problem. He mentions that they're 'parasitic' in the same way that a dependent baby in a womb is parasitic: dependent on working adults.

The "taxpayer" victimhood argument ("I'm a taxpayer. I need relief.") is founded on an invented middle class victimhood that pretends to be a victim of paying more than its share of taxes. Income is not evenly distributed, and yet the wealthy often expect the less advantaged to contribute enough to impoverish themselves even more.

[Warren]

1) You are not the 99%. Dragon's Den is one of the most popular game shows ever, there are lot's of capitalists and entrepreneurs out there.
2) I don't trust your leaders as far as I can throw them. Socialist Occupiers, nationalist socialist occupiers... Surely people who studied socialist history know what the word occupy means. And your founders named a socialist movement the 'Occupy' movement? Are they lovingly polishing their swastikas now? Google national socialist and occupy and images if you think I'm deluded. And you are terrorizing your grandparents around the globe. Google wwii and Germany and images to see how well you did at economics last time. The socialist occupations of the past left Germany completely destroyed. They say the smart money is starting to move to Russia because people there remember how badly socialists are at economics. You'll be a fringe element of lunatics who don't remember history for at least another twenty years. I might move myself.