NationStates Jolt Archive

Anarchism.

We’ve all heard of it. Anarchism is where there is no government, where people pursue whatever their brains dictate them to, be it kill someone, take someones food, and much more.

I am here to break down the ideals of Anarchy and prove to you, the reader, that it is nothing more than rubbish – A concept not to be taken seriously.

Before I begin, I would like to state the fact that this is not a piece of propaganda, but in fact a paper on the reason why we need government.

Let’s begin with the basics. Anarchy is defined as the absence of any governmental authority, a situation where people may do anything. The concept of Anarchism, in theory, is good. John Locke stated that in a state of Anarchy, people would be kind and helpful. Thomas Hobbes disagreed, saying that human nature would cause people to be greedy and cruel. Both, however, agreed that a government is necessary.

Why is government necessary you may ask? Without it, the people who are arrested daily for rape, murder, and robbery would be lurking freely, with the ability to attack anyone. People naturally do not want such people to be able to do anything they wish. A good example of this is the west during the 1800's. In many towns, townspeople formed vigilante justice groups to stop bands of thieves and robbers.

This is where Anarchy is disproved – The fact that people WANT a government. While it is necessary to give up some rights for a government to be formed, people are willing to do so if it means law and order.

Many Anarchists believe that people would work together to form a better society free of government. The only problem with this is that a government is already forming. If Bob suggests to build a new home for a family and be the supervisor, Bob has become the leader – A dictator, if you will. When the people agree to have a house built, but vote to have another manager put in charge, the people have created a direct democracy. This continues on and on.

Many Anarchists are ignorant teenagers looking for an idea to vent their ideas of rebellion against their parents (government), and while this paper is directed at them, it’s also for the adults who stand for Anarchism. If you do in fact support it – Can you prove people want/need it?

Egad. Here we go again. :(

Calm down, calm down! This, I assure, will not turn into that silly "Big Brother" thread... *Shudders at the thought*

Calm down, calm down! This, I assure, will not turn into that silly "Big Brother" thread... *Shudders at the thought*

It's already well on it's way.

Please do elaborate! I'm curious as to why it is - I'm up for a friendly debate, and this is in response to some real life people I know who adore the concept of Anarchism.

Many Anarchists believe that people would work together to form a better society free of government. The only problem with this is that a government is already forming. If Bob suggests to build a new home for a family and be the supervisor, Bob has become the leader – A dictator, if you will. When the people agree to have a house built, but vote to have another manager put in charge, the people have created a direct democracy. This continues on and on.
I'm not going to bother about weather people want it at this point--that's irrelevant. Some do, most don't. Fine by me; it can't happen successfully in the near future anyway.

On the subject quoted here. I simply do not think that what you described constitutes a government. To take your example, any decision-making process involving more than a single person is, in effect, a government. I suppose this depends on your definition of "government," but I don't consider it any sort of government to discuss with my friend weather we should get pizza or chinese food for dinner. That's an extreme example, granted, but it's essentially the same thing. If Bob wants to build a house, he might be the supervisor for that project, but he's got no authority outside of the context of that project. What you describe is a social relationship. If people were to get together and name Bob the supervisor of house-building in their area, that would be a governmental situation; Bob has lasting authority. Additionally, in your example, there is no real penalty for disobeying Bob. If I was working on the house, and I disagreed with Bob on something, I could just go ahead and do it my way. He might get irritated, but he couldn't disallow me from continuing to work if I wanted to keep at it, short of physically moving me every time I tried to. No authority outside of the social context. Therefore, no government. That's my take on it, as an anarchist.

My lord - A serious and mature response from an Anarchist.

Possibly, Bob could decide to punch Tim who doesn't agree with his design?
My point though, is that the fact that the people of the community voted on building the house but electing a different manager of the project is a developing governmental situation.

if people freely agree to go along with somebody's idea without being forced to simply because it is a good idea, and without any threat of force if they decide to not go along with it, then you do not have anything remotely like government (i would normally use the term 'the state') in operation. if you want to call bob a government, then we are not and have never been against government.

My lord - A serious and mature response from an Anarchist.

you'll get a lot of those, both here and from the anarchist movement in real life

Anarchism.
Yep.
We’ve all heard of it.
Maybe we have heard the word, but clearly we know little about it.
Anarchism is where there is no government,
Not true.
where people pursue whatever their brains dictate them to, be it kill someone, take someone food, and much more.
Also not true.

Anarchy. An-archy. "No rulers." Not "no rules" or "no government," but no rulers. In other words, anarchists call for a form of human government in which no one person or class rules any other class of people. Rather, people are politically equal and rule themselves. Of course, some self-described anarchists call for "no government," but these voices are generally outside the mainstream anarchist tradition. "Anarcho-capitalists" think you can do without anything that really resembles politics... but only by making politics entirely a division of economics, since whoever has the money makes the rules. Primitivists could do without government, as could true libertarian individualists who want to stake out their property claim and defend it by force of arms. Otherwise, the tradition of libertarian communism certainly understands anarchism to require a "government" in the form of established rules by which the community governs itself. There will be no killings, stealings, or otherwise, without a response from the community.
I am here to break down the ideals of Anarchy and prove to you, the reader, that it is nothing more than rubbish – A concept not to be taken seriously.
Perhaps you should take it seriously enough to figure out its ideals before attempting to break them down.
Before I begin, I would like to state the fact that this is not a piece of propaganda,
Of course it is propaganda. Most political writing is. Why lie about it?
but in fact a paper on the reason why we need government.
Okay... So we need government. Then, we agree. Anarchists just think it should be government of all by all, that a community should be truly self-governing. So what do you have against anarchism again?
Let’s begin with the basics.
Always a good idea.
Anarchy is defined as the absence of any governmental authority,
Wrong.
a situation where people may do anything.
Wrong.
The concept of Anarchism, in theory, is good.
Yes, it is -- unlike that bizarre idea of no government you were just talking about.
John Locke stated that in a state of Anarchy, people would be kind and helpful.
Technically, I am not sure Locke's state of nature could be called anarchist, since he still allows for divine law. In any case, Locke thought that most people were decent enough, but that the absence of authority involves enough problems to make it unwise.
Thomas Hobbes disagreed, saying that human nature would cause people to be greedy and cruel.
Wrong. Actually, Hobbes claimed that only a few people would be truly greedy and cruel, but that in order to avoid becoming the victim of these few, all people would be driven to competitive behavior.
Both, however, agreed that a government is necessary.
Wrong again. They both think it wise, but not necessary. Moreover, they differ in important respects that you neglect to mention. Hobbes is fairly specific about the form of government -- it is difficult to read him as a democrat. Locke, on the other hand, is rather vague; we tend to read him democratically after the fact, but really his theory justifies any form of government a society might choose for itself. Of course, from an abstract point of view this makes Locke more sympathetic to anarchism, since anarchism is just one system whereby people might agree to the defense of their common rights and the promotion of the common good. In reality, however, both men would oppose anarchism, especially Locke, because both have an interest in preserving a ruling political class.
Why is government necessary you may ask?
First, it is not really necessary; just a good idea. Second, I do not need to ask why... nor should anyone here.
Without it, the people who are arrested daily for rape, murder, and robbery would be lurking freely, with the ability to attack anyone.
First: not necessarily. People can come up with some good ways to defend themselves from, or revenge themselves upon, those people with or without government. Government is, of course, a good idea for those of us who would like such matters to remain as orderly as possible.
People naturally do not want such people to be able to do anything they wish.
True. Most of us do not want anyone to be able to do anything he or she wishes.
A good example of this is the old Wild West. In many towns, townspeople formed vigilante justice groups to stop bands of thieves and robbers.
And are vigilante justice groups part of any government? Probably not... or at least, if they are, you have to admit it is a fine example of anarchist government.
This is where Anarchy is disproved
Umm... people taking care of justice themselves? It sounds like this is where anarchism is proved, not the other way around. Good job.
The fact that people WANT a government.
Okay, so you admit government is not necessary, since if it were it would not matter if people want it. Of course, we agree: people want government, and for very good reasons. I just prefer anarchist government.
While it is necessary to give up some rights for a government to be formed,
Not really. Only if you believe rape, theft and murder are "rights." I suppose some people might consider revenge a right that must be given up for government to function... but really, society and government strike me as more likely to create or facilitate certain rights of self-development, rather than necessarily limiting rights. Of course, bad government may do so, which is among the most important reasons that some of us support anarchist government -- we think it least likely to be "bad."
Many Anarchists believe that people would work together to form a better society free of government.
No... most of us believe people can work together to form a better society with a better government.
The only problem with this is that a government is already forming.
Probably. Even hopefully, and along anarchist lines. But not necessarily.
If Bob suggests to build a new home for a family and be the supervisor, Bob has become the leader – A dictator, if you will.
I will not! There is a difference between a leader and a dictator -- but I suspect you know that. Careful... I thought you said this was not propaganda??
When the people agree to have a house built, but vote to have another manager put in charge, the people have created a direct democracy.
Sort of. A truly direct democracy might side-step the "manager" altogether, and make all decisions collectively. Of course, that would probably be rather inefficient... and democrats have little interest in the mundane details. So, appointing managers for specific tasks is hardly a violation of anarchist principle, so long as the managers have no directly political power, they can be removed easily, and so on. Anarchism, moreover, is likely to admit of a variety of "authorities" in technical fields, education, and so on... but the only "power" exercised by such authorities is something agreed upon between them and other workers in their respective fields. Students still defer to teachers, but because they want to learn rather than merely because "they have to". (If you examine classroom politics beyond the secondary level, this is largely true already.)
This continues on and on.
Ditto.
Many Anarchists are ignorant teenagers looking for an idea to vent their ideas of rebellion against their parents (government),
Maybe. But I suspect that most anarchists are academics who actually understand the meaning of the term and its historical significance.
If you do in fact support it – Can you prove people want/need it?
I think my defense here should go a long way. I suspect that the more you find out about anarchist thought, the more you will agree with it. Just remember, the last thing anarchists want is chaos -- quite the reverse. Anarchists believe that an end to class conflict and the emancipation of politics -- so that society and government become one -- will result in the most free, well-ordered society possible. I think the burden of proof rests with anyone who would show that people want something else.

Hrm...

Alright - This is not brought on by the latest reply. It's brought on by a realization that it's pointless to debate Anarchism vs. Government.

I believe that government is neccesary and important, as to keep law and order. Anarchists may believe otherwise and I now respect that.

Uhh.... God bless America?

Maybe. But I suspect that most anarchists are academics who actually understand the meaning of the term and its historical significance.

i think we need an international anarchist survey

That whole "people need a government" statement . . . I disagree. While not anarchist myself, I hate the whole concept of 'people need order' . . . it's too authoritarian for my liking.

IMO, there should be only ONE, and ONE purpose of government: to ensure the rights of its citizens.

As AnarchyeL clearly illustrated, you used the wrong definition from the beginning (popular vs. historically correct).

Some one here said that people would "be able to revenge themselves". Think about it. Think what all the countries with no state rule of law are like. Basically, if there's no powerful, impartial state, the strongest get to the top, and the weaker (ie: children?) get killed. Anarchy would eventually create non-anarchy - that is how the stone age gave rise to civilisation. Agree?

That whole "people need a government" statement . . . I disagree. While not anarchist myself, I hate the whole concept of 'people need order' . . . it's too authoritarian for my liking.

IMO, there should be only ONE, and ONE purpose of government: to ensure the rights of its citizens.
indeed. government should only exist to enforce the concept that my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. people should be guaranteed any freedoms that do not DIRECTLY stop another human from exercising their own freedoms, and beyond enforcing that restriction government should stay the hell out of the way.

One interesting difference between the government in a traditional representative democracy, and "Bob" the house-construction manager is that the people can remove Bob's power whenever they want (though they would obviously try giving their suggestions to Bob first).

*Note - this is not an argument for either side.

It would be nice if states did what they were supposed to, but history has shown again and again that they don't and that they are consistantly violent. From the Roman empire to the American empire, from the first armies to hydrogen bombs capable of wiping out entire cities, states have dedicated themselves to violence.

The actions of serial killers and rapists pale in comparision to the mass-murder and misogynism of most hierarchial societies. Sure, John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people, but doesn't that speak rather poorly about the effectiveness of government at stopping crime? Hitler, a leader of a state, killed millions of people because he had political power. How many would he have killed if he were an ordinary person?

Some one here said that people would "be able to revenge themselves". Think about it. Think what all the countries with no state rule of law are like. Basically, if there's no powerful, impartial state, the strongest get to the top, and the weaker (ie: children?) get killed. Anarchy would eventually create non-anarchy - that is how the stone age gave rise to civilisation. Agree?
It's not really correct to compare the theoretical anarchist "state" with nations without rule of law (ie, ones experiencing a power vacuum). Nations without the rule of law tend to fall into that directly from having a traditionally-styled government (be it dictatorship, democracy, state socialism, and so on) because of sudden events that that government was not prepared for. It is less anarchy, than chaos. The way I see anarchy working, the only way I see it working, is if at some point the government structure is peacefully dismantled by the people living under it, out of a desire not to live under one anymore.
I would also challenge the comparison between anarchy and stone-age humanity. We are a good deal more progressed than cavemen, and I think that progression allows us to act in more mature ways.

It's impossible for a government to be peacefully dismatled by the populace. Besides, that's not anarchy: that's original communism. Marxism is incorrect because
1: Most people need to be told what to do at some point. I don't mean like who to vote for or what to wear, but it's mainly the government that keeps people aware that, say, cigarettes cause lung cancer, or that stealing is bad.
2: People aren't born with a moral compass. If you put anyone from our world in a world where everthing is peaceful and equal, that person will sieze control of the government and make himself ruler of the world because it's easy. People are naturally evil, greedy, and stupid. Education (which is funded by the government), religion (which communism doesn't tend to tolerate) and government help people to understand what's best for themselves and those around them. Without government, an atheist with no education is likely to able to be amoral.

It may seem like i have a cynical view of human nature but...
oh wait, i do have a cynical view of human nature. Anyway, communism/utopianism is good on paper, but you'd have to change the way people think, the way they're programmed, so to speak, to get it to work. Anarchy isn't a lasting state. It isn't a utopian society. It is a chaotic vaccum, and one that cannot be left unfilled for long.

There is a large chance pure anarchy could possibly lead tp humanity destroying itself.... but I'm okay with that. :)

However, it isn't impossible for anarchy to work peacefully. For this to work though it would require people to realize that to survive they must learn to function together peacefully. The natural greedy desire for power though could come in the way of this working. At least if money (power in a physical form) is out of the way people won't be able to relay on how much money they have to get by. Without any form of currency you can no longer pay to get something or pay someone to do something for you. People will be forced to either do everything themselves or get someone to assist them & in return voluntarily help them. As we know, it can be difficult to survive on your own. Volunteerism will become necesary and this will help people learn to function peacefully together as a government-free soceity.

In reality though, what are the chances of anarchy actually working peacefully? The chances are very low. Some say government is necesary for peace. Even with government peace is probably too much to ask for. There are billions of people in the world and we'll never be able to get every single one of them to function peacefully with eachother. Peace isn't possible. Our flawed human nature will always get in the way. At least with anarchy we don't have to worry about large governments opressing their people. Everyone will be free to do as they wish and live the way they'd like.

yes, but could you convince every criminal on the planet to stop committing crimes? Could you convince leaders to stop using their charisma, a god-given talent? Just as there is no place for a greedy criminal in anarchy, there is no place for a charismatic leader either, and charsmatic leaders are plentiful today.

I don't think anarchism is very practical. Any anarchists have a viable, working, rational plan to get from here (or any society with a government) to their no-rules paradise?

It would seem that our host for this thread, having had his hat handed to him by AnarchyeL,
has departed for sunnier climes. Still, an object lesson has been provided.

Judging the political philosophy of Anarchism by the actions of teenage "Anarchists"
who bust things up for fun and listen to awful punk bands bankrolled by Sony
will give one as accurate a picture as will studying Satanism by hanging out
with bored suburban teenagers who kill neighborhood cats and listen to death metal.

If I want to write a blistering critique of democracy, I'm not going to focus on some high-school
class election, nor will I attack the lemonade stand on the corner when I wish to have
public respect for my antithetical views regarding the workability of capitalism.

I will choose targets at a proper fighting weight -- examples of democracy
or capitalism that are widely accepted as being successful efforts.
The problem for those who wish to attack anarchism in this manner, of course,
is the fact that large scale anarchist movements that achieve success tend to get
violently crushed by neighboring armies, or rot from within due to the power lust
of one "leader" or other. (Or simply infiltrated by the powers-that-be.)

There is a large chance pure anarchy could possibly lead tp humanity destroying itself.... but I'm okay with that.

I think hierarchy will lead to humanity destroying itself in one way or another.

I don't think anarchism is very practical. Any anarchists have a viable, working, rational plan to get from here (or any society with a government) to their no-rules paradise?

Again, with "no rules" and "paradise".

If it needs repeating, common rule-making does not equal "no-rules".
And there's no delusion amongst grown-up supporters of anarchism
that it's a miracle cure for all of life's problems.
If that were the criteria, on what grounds could one defend democracy?

Most present-day anarchists have no current expectation of achieving an "anarchist state".
They instead consider the philosophy/ies of anarchism to be a valuable and vital guide toward
making our societies fairer, more free, less encumbered by the bureaucratic idiocies
and hierarchical lusts that typify our current western-democratic forms of government.

(And don't get me started on Islamic states, or Russia...)

It's impossible for a government to be peacefully dismatled by the populace. Besides, that's not anarchy: that's original communism.
It is original communism. The only difference between the two is the method used to get there; I don't advocate socialism or the violent "people's revolution."

1: Most people need to be told what to do at some point. I don't mean like who to vote for or what to wear, but it's mainly the government that keeps people aware that, say, cigarettes cause lung cancer, or that stealing is bad.
Um...parents? Community? My doctor can tell me that I'll get cancer from cigarettes, and my parents taught me not to steal from an early age. Anarchy doesn't mean a complete breakdown of social order (like it seems to in NS ^_~), only a removal of a (at that point) superfluous part of it.

2: People aren't born with a moral compass. If you put anyone from our world in a world where everthing is peaceful and equal, that person will sieze control of the government and make himself ruler of the world because it's easy. People are naturally evil, greedy, and stupid. Education (which is funded by the government), religion (which communism doesn't tend to tolerate) and government help people to understand what's best for themselves and those around them. Without government, an atheist with no education is likely to able to be amoral.
No, people are not born with a moral compass. However, even today, if a person continues not to have a moral compass by the time they grow up, their family and community has failed. Providing morality is not the job of the government. There was education before it was government-sponsored (and there continues to be), so that's not an issue. Religion is another issue upon which I disagree with Marxist philosophy; there is a reason I call myself an anarchist, and not a Marxist.

It may seem like i have a cynical view of human nature but...
oh wait, i do have a cynical view of human nature. Anyway, communism/utopianism is good on paper, but you'd have to change the way people think, the way they're programmed, so to speak, to get it to work. Anarchy isn't a lasting state. It isn't a utopian society. It is a chaotic vaccum, and one that cannot be left unfilled for long.
Yes, you have by far the most cynical view of human nature I've seen to date, actually.

One cannot say what anarchism "is" at this point. One can only make conjectures and theories about what it "may be." And I agree that people need to change the way they think for it to be truly feasable; if you'll notice, I never advocate switching to anarchy in the near future. However, I do think it's possible. The human thoughtstream is not static; it has been in a constant state of (generally slow) flux since humanity evolved. To say that it will not change is, therefore, denying history.

It's impossible for a government to be peacefully dismatled by the populace.
First, how do you know? Second, who here wants to "dismantle" government? We anarchists only want to transform it.
Besides, that's not anarchy: that's original communism.
Actually, anarchists and Marxians are more or less in agreement about ends; they primarily disagree about means. To present a radical oversimplification that should be instructive nonetheless, Marx thought that existing democratic republics could be used by a revolutionary worker's party to change, through politics, the economic system, as a result of which the state would "wither away." Anarchists, on the other hand, think that existing political systems inherently favor the existing economic system, so that their goal can be reached only by first establishing truly democratic (anarchist) politics, from which economic equality will naturally follow. Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle, and tend to prefer market socialism to communist economics. There is a wide spectrum of doctrine along these lines.
Marxism is incorrect because
1: Most people need to be told what to do at some point. I don't mean like who to vote for or what to wear, but it's mainly the government that keeps people aware that, say, cigarettes cause lung cancer, or that stealing is bad.
Okay. So, government is a good idea. Government can appoint experts to study lung cancer, and it can enforce law. Good, and we agree. However, would it not be better to have a truly democratic government of equals, operating in a world in which all products could be scientifically evaluated... without all those unfortunate pressures from pharmaceutical companies and oil-drilling billionaires? Did you not read the post in which I explained that anarchists will be perfectly happy to deal with crime in a sensible manner?
2: People aren't born with a moral compass.
No, that is what education is for.
If you put anyone from our world in a world where everthing is peaceful and equal, that person will sieze control of the government and make himself ruler of the world because it's easy.
Why should it be easy? I think it will be much more difficult, because in such a society of equals people will be suspicious of political ambition. Since the institutions of the government, and the constitution of the society, are guided by principles of equality, what do you think there will be to "sieze"?
People are naturally evil, greedy, and stupid.
If that were true, our world would be in far worse straits than it is. The fact of the matter is that, given the size and complexity of human societies, people get along remarkably well. Given that we presently exist in states of extreme inequality and deprivation, the fact that chaos does not ensue could only be considered a miracle... if we could not reach the much more obvious conclusion that people are "naturally" cooperative. Considering that capitalist society encourages competition, how remarkable is it that cooperative, friendly relations abound? More importantly, how much better would things be in a society that discourages competition and encourages cooperation?
Education (which is funded by the government),
Yes. There should be more, and better. Anarchists love nothing more than the notion of universal free education.
religion (which communism doesn't tend to tolerate)
Yes, anarchists and communists are at best ambivalent about religion; hostile at worst. While I am atheist, I recognize the important social bonds that religion helps to maintain... but I do not think it is essential to moral teaching. Indeed, many Christians might behave better if they had no assurance of forgiveness, but were forced to recognize that there is no taking anything back, and one has to live with one's decisions. The fact of the matter is that atheists do not commit more or worse offences than religious people, so why make an issue out of it?
and government help people to understand what's best for themselves and those around them. Without government, an atheist with no education is unlikely to able to be amoral.
Sure. But, anarchists certainly want an education for all, and they desire a well-ordered government. So, what was the problem again?

It may seem like i have a cynical view of human nature but...
oh wait, i do have a cynical view of human nature.
It does not matter. Many anarchists are quite hopeful about human nature; on the other hand, I know just as many who propose anarchism as the best means to deal with human nature, because anarchism recognizes that no human's nature is good enough to warrant granting her/him power over other people. So if people are bad, why do you want some of them to have power over others, rather than suggesting that we all share power equally?
Anyway, communism/utopianism is good on paper, but you'd have to change the way people think, the way they're programmed, so to speak, to get it to work.
Simply wrong. First, do not lump together communism and utopianism as if they were the same thing. Communism (or anarchism) is a model for how to structure the political and economic world, dealing with real human concerns. A utopia ("no place") by definition cannot exist.
Anarchy isn't a lasting state.
Wrong. Their treatment of women aside, pre-colonial North American tribes were essentially anarchist for thousands of years. And there is no reason to believe that we cannot do the same.
It isn't a utopian society.
There you are correct.

I'm probably not the most illuminated person on this matter but I'd still like to share my thoughts.
(this is mostly for Heptria)
You say that anarchists are for a "common rule-making" system of some kind. But sure you agree that it's impossible for millions of people to get all together and decide on that common rules? I think that is why you have the Government, because it would be impossible for all the people to go and give their opinion on all the rules that would be needed for those people to function like a society.
And a democracy is not the cure for all evils also but still it's the best thing there is, because people get to vote the ones they would like to decide in their place.

Hmm.. I think there was more to say to that but.. I'm a bit of amnesic lately.

But sure you agree that it's impossible for millions of people to get all together and decide on that common rules?
Of course. However, who is saying that's necessary? Anarchism favors smaller communities over gigantic "states." Hell, it'd certainly be a boon to the Middle East: think about what would happen if none of the Arabic tribes were trying to rule the others.

I don't think anarchism is very practical. Any anarchists have a viable, working, rational plan to get from here (or any society with a government) to their no-rules paradise?

If you ever find an anarchist who believes society should have no rules, send her/him my way and I will personally straighten her/him out.

If you want an idea of how we might get to an actual anarchist society, as opposed to that straw-man daydream of yours, let me know.

I think hierarchy will lead to humanity destroying itself in one way or another.

Most likely, no matter what, humanity will destroy itself.

Good thread. Well done, AnarchyeL.

Hey guys, I'm back to make stupid points about how much I hate anarchy. I was busy working on a real life school project and having my countries surplus of one million AKS-74U's rejected by the Island of Rose. And each one was a mere $20!! Yeeshh... So what'd I miss?

Hows the 'Anarchy' region these days? :) anyone if you alive, E???

Hows the 'Anarchy' region these days? :) anyone if you alive, E???

Hi. The region used to be more active on the old boards.

Hi. The region used to be more active on the old boards.

*snif* what happened the peast year? I quite liked the older boards more...

*snif* what happened the peast year? I quite liked the older boards more...

Indeed...don't remember if there's an explanation in a sticky somewhere...*pokes around*

I have no time to write up a long reply, as sleep becons...

But http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ is a great on-line introduction to what real Anarchism is, as opposed to some stupid punks who like to blow shit up.

Indeed...don't remember if there's an explanation in a sticky somewhere...*pokes around*

TIA :)