Thoughts on Anarchism

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I was going to say that the idea of "big government" versus "good government" isn't really the issue, because "good government" doesn't exist, but that seemed to be outside the scope of your thread. Everything the government does is based on violence and coercion to begin with so it's never good, but the bigger it is the more it does so the more it engages in violence and coercion.

From the get-go I want to state I respect you and hope we can engage in clean debate. This is a fundamental question about government that deserves serious consideration. Ultimately, I think you are right about there is no good government. Most people attracted to power are mediocre and our institutions have been slanted towards personal gain over the good of all.

But the fact is we have government, so we need to consider what's good and what's not. You assert all government activity is violent. I sharply disagree but I suspect it's because your definition of government is coercion. So that' won't do for our purposes of discussion since by definition I have no chance of asserting otherwise. I'm sure you are attached to that term and tautology so I will use a modified term: really existing government.

So given really existing government (REG) we can take a look and see if there is anything REG does that is not violent. Take any number of welfare programs. I have received benefits on occasion and I can assure you there was no violence, there was no coercion in the process. I was simply without adequate food and after much bickering decided to see how good government can be if at all. It turns out I was able to get the nutritious food my body needed and this quickly became a celebratory day when my card would be loaded. It meant I had access to sustenance that was denied to me through prices and the market.

To argue this is coercive is to simply speak in an esoteric language that does not vibe with reality in this case. I can offer more specific examples but suffice to say, REG does good as well as bad. but I most curious by your anarcho-capitalist stance. I find this an oxy-moron at best and an outright contradiction at worst. I want to reiterate I respect you and you are clearly intelligent so I have chosen to engage your views on a critical level as I hope you enjoy. I mean no harm and it's sad that most participants I've engaged on USMB feel deeply threatened and hurl insults at me for merely challenging their assertions.

Anyway, allow me to explain. You probably imagine free enterprise is the fuel for freedom. But free enterprise cannot exist without private property, right? Right. So how do we come to hold private property? Through drawing up a document that claims you own such and such. This document is then embedded in a set of legal statutes governing "property rights." But in order to defend property rights once you own something there must be those who defend that property from altercations and invasions.

Well, property then is by no means self-evident and is entirely arbitrary from its deed to its legalisms. For without property, there is no need for property rights and no need for laws that arbitrarily support property. Nor is there a need for an army of defense to serve those with property while limiting those who do not have property from accessing life sustaining land or water. Thus, some form of government must exist in order to protect property rights. Inherent, according to John Locke, Hobbes and others whom I've read say that the state of nature does not work for property. That governments must be instituted and have been to protect property (but the only way property had nascence was through state protection from outsiders by arbitrary legal documents.

Therefore capitalism is state dependent and if we take a look at subsidies of corporations and tax incentives, we can see that fact is really beneficial. State re-distribution of taxes is alive and well and much of it is re-distributed upwards to private hand though various means. We can discuss this more if you like but suffice to say it doesn't take much thinking to realize anarcho-capitalism is blatantly unaligned with anarchism. Anarchism is absence of state and capitalism is dependent upon the state for private property to be protected.

If you want to get hypothetical and say capitalism can exist without government then who protects the property? The private enterprise-ers. But how would they protect property? The only way possible: the same way the government does: through intimidation, coercion and violence. Thus, authority is sneaked through the back door while still calling it private. Well, technically all authority is is private people cooperating and there would be cooperation among the few corporations that own a majority of the earth's supposed "private property." So it seems anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

If you'd like further discussion listen to this podcast at around 30 minutes in: CrimethInc. Ex-Workers? Collective : Podcast Episode #18

The bold portion is the relevant portion to this thread, while the earlier portion was more in line with another thread.

Many of the collectivist variety of anarchists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc..., would agree with your assertion that anarchism and capitalism are contradictions. Even Murray Rothbard, the "founder" of anarcho-capitalism, at one point believed that the terms were contradictions.

We must conclude that the question “are libertarians anarchists?” simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge “are you an anarchist?” is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the “middle of the road” and say, “Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/are-libertarians-anarchists/

Of course Rothbard never again, as far as I'm aware, uttered any objection to the idea of calling ourselves anarchists, and certainly his term "nonarchist" never stuck. I myself favor the term "voluntaryist," or "voluntarist," meaning a person in favor of a fully voluntary society. Hans-Hermann Hoppe favors the term "Private Law Society," which is instructive towards how I'm going to answer your post more specifically, but I really don't get too bothered about what we call it as long as we know what we're talking about. So anarcho-capitalist, nonarchist, voluntaryist, or private law society are all fine.

Let's turn to your more specific concerns. You're correct that private property is the basis for free markets and capitalism, so you say that without government private property is essentially arbitrary. Frédéric Bastiat, not an anarchist himself, stated:

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

How do we know that private property preceded the State? Because human beings in and of themselves must have preceded the State, and since every human being has an innate property right in and of themselves (This must be axiomatically true, because to deny such a claim proves the claim) then it must logically follow that they have a property right in that which they transform with their labor. So private property is not arbitrary, but rather clearly defined. It is only when the State gets involved that the definition becomes muddled.

So your question, then, is who protects the private property in the absence of the State? Well every person has an incentive to protect their property, so they would either protect it themselves, or they would turn to those who have a comparative advantage in providing defense to do so. Now it would seem that you're operating under the assumption that anarcho-capitalists are opposed to all aggression, but this is a common misconception. We are opposed to violent, or offensive, aggression. Defensive aggression, or violence, is perfectly compatible within the anarcho-capitalist framework which is based simply on the non-aggression principle. You may not aggress against anybody, unless they first aggress against you or your property. So you may defend yourself and your property against aggression.

Now we come back to Hoppe's idea of a "Private Law Society," where the market would not only provide defense of property, but would also provide arbitration in disputes that inevitably arise. Judges or arbiters would be brought in by the different parties to mediate the dispute, and the market would obviously weed out biased or corrupt arbiters the way it does now in cases of arbitration. The parties would then be bound by the decision of these arbiters as laid out in a contract.

For more on private defense and private arbitration in the anarcho-capitalist society I would suggest reading "Chaos Theory" by Robert P. Murphy, which, despite the title, has nothing to do with actual chaos theory, and is actually two essays on this very subject.

Robert P. Murphy :: Chaos Theory

 

[manifold]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

I'm going to go wikiducate myself about anarcho-capitalism.

But I can tell you my initial impulse is to reject the term out of hand as an irreconcilable oxymoron. As I understand it, if you're combining anarchy with anything else at all, then what you have is no longer a form of anarchy. In which case this isn't a discussion about anarchy at all, but rather a discussion of old school capitalism, straight up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

I'm going to go wikiducate myself about anarcho-capitalism.

But I can tell you my initial impulse is to reject the term out of hand as an irreconcilable oxymoron. As I understand it, if you're combining anarchy with anything else at all, then what you have is no longer a form of anarchy. In which case this isn't a discussion about anarchy at all, but rather a discussion of old school capitalism, straight up.

I address that a bit in post #2, but while I might agree with your last sentence I might just say that the "anarcho-" in front of capitalism is superfluous rather than being an oxymoron.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

Well that didn't take long, but please tell us, how does one live like an anarchist?

 

[manifold]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

I'm going to go wikiducate myself about anarcho-capitalism.

But I can tell you my initial impulse is to reject the term out of hand as an irreconcilable oxymoron. As I understand it, if you're combining anarchy with anything else at all, then what you have is no longer a form of anarchy. In which case this isn't a discussion about anarchy at all, but rather a discussion of old school capitalism, straight up.

I address that a bit in post #2, but while I might agree with your last sentence I might just say that the "anarcho-" in front of capitalism is superfluous rather than being an oxymoron.

While the ideal appears to have some things to like about it, I still reject the notion that it would be any better than the status quo, and definitely not worth the cost of what it would take to affect such a change. You cannot create a power vacuum and assume it will not get filled. In the end, those with means would wield the power, just like now, the only difference is it'd mean the little guy threw in the towel.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm going to go wikiducate myself about anarcho-capitalism.

But I can tell you my initial impulse is to reject the term out of hand as an irreconcilable oxymoron. As I understand it, if you're combining anarchy with anything else at all, then what you have is no longer a form of anarchy. In which case this isn't a discussion about anarchy at all, but rather a discussion of old school capitalism, straight up.

I address that a bit in post #2, but while I might agree with your last sentence I might just say that the "anarcho-" in front of capitalism is superfluous rather than being an oxymoron.

While the ideal appears to have some things to like about it, I still reject the notion that it would be any better than the status quo, and definitely not worth the cost of what it would take to affect such a change. You cannot create a power vacuum and assume it will not get filled. In the end, those with means would wield the power, just like now, the only difference is it'd mean the little guy threw in the towel.

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” - Étienne de la Boétie

I don't envision any violent revolution, which I think historically has only ever really made things worse.

 

[manifold]

I address that a bit in post #2, but while I might agree with your last sentence I might just say that the "anarcho-" in front of capitalism is superfluous rather than being an oxymoron.

While the ideal appears to have some things to like about it, I still reject the notion that it would be any better than the status quo, and definitely not worth the cost of what it would take to affect such a change. You cannot create a power vacuum and assume it will not get filled. In the end, those with means would wield the power, just like now, the only difference is it'd mean the little guy threw in the towel.

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” - Étienne de la Boétie

I don't envision any violent revolution, which I think historically has only ever really made things worse.

I disagree that it could ever be achieved without bloodshed.

It's not the kind of thing that can happen gradually. And like I said, it would mean the little guy has thrown in the towel. I don't see that happening without a fight.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While the ideal appears to have some things to like about it, I still reject the notion that it would be any better than the status quo, and definitely not worth the cost of what it would take to affect such a change. You cannot create a power vacuum and assume it will not get filled. In the end, those with means would wield the power, just like now, the only difference is it'd mean the little guy threw in the towel.

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” - Étienne de la Boétie

I don't envision any violent revolution, which I think historically has only ever really made things worse.

I disagree that it could ever be achieved without bloodshed.

It's not the kind of thing that can happen gradually. And like I said, it would mean the little guy has thrown in the towel. I don't see that happening without a fight.

Could you be more specific when you mention the little guy throwing in the towel? I know what you mean in a general sense, but I think I'd be able to respond better if you went a bit more in-depth.

 

[manifold]

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” - Étienne de la Boétie

I don't envision any violent revolution, which I think historically has only ever really made things worse.

I disagree that it could ever be achieved without bloodshed.

It's not the kind of thing that can happen gradually. And like I said, it would mean the little guy has thrown in the towel. I don't see that happening without a fight.

Could you be more specific when you mention the little guy throwing in the towel? I know what you mean in a general sense, but I think I'd be able to respond better if you went a bit more in-depth.

Throwing in the towel is a phrase that I believe comes from boxing, which means to surrender, to wave the white flag, to give up, etc...

A lot of blood was spilled and centuries of history traversed before the little guy finally got anything resembling a real seat at the table, so to speak, as reflected in our current system of government. I don't see that being surrendered willingly. Now, even if many are duped into it, or sell out for short term benefit, there will always be some level of opposition willing to fight and die to prevent your vision from ever being realized. By my estimation, that level would be enough to spark an extremely protracted and bloody civil war. In short, you won't get what you're after unless you convince a crap load of people to go to war for it, and then win that war.

 

[westwall]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree that it could ever be achieved without bloodshed.

It's not the kind of thing that can happen gradually. And like I said, it would mean the little guy has thrown in the towel. I don't see that happening without a fight.

Could you be more specific when you mention the little guy throwing in the towel? I know what you mean in a general sense, but I think I'd be able to respond better if you went a bit more in-depth.

Throwing in the towel is a phrase that I believe comes from boxing, which means to surrender, to wave the white flag, to give up, etc...

A lot of blood was spilled and centuries of history traversed before the little guy finally got anything resembling a real seat at the table, so to speak, as reflected in our current system of government. I don't see that being surrendered willingly. Now, even if many are duped into it, or sell out for short term benefit, there will always be some level of opposition willing to fight and die to prevent your vision from ever being realized. By my estimation, that level would be enough to spark an extremely protracted and bloody civil war. In short, you won't get what you're after unless you convince a crap load of people to go to war for it, and then win that war.

And I think that going to war to install anarcho-capitalism would be a pointless affair that would end up installing a different kind of State. Again, the only way it happens is when the people in general realize that the State is not looking out for their best interests and that it not only doesn't give a seat to "the little guy," but doesn't give a seat to anybody other than those that can further its interest of consolidating power. I would rather it never happen than that it happen through force and violence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

I would agree, but I don't know of any anarcho-communists on the board who can defend their ideas.

 

[gnarlylove]

How do we know that private property preceded the State? Because human beings in and of themselves must have preceded the State, and since every human being has an innate property right in and of themselves (This must be axiomatically true, because to deny such a claim proves the claim)

I wish my philosophy could state that any objection to is is necessarily false. The trouble is this sort of philosophy immediately excludes itself from criticism and therefore does not allow certain kinds of discussion. This is not free thought and is the anti-thesis of freedom.

But I will take your comment with less severe consequences as to simply mean I doubt it can be proven false or reduced into absurdity. I however think it can be on certain grounds.

If a human being owns himself, he is capable of rightly selling his in-essential parts (liver). However I think it is highly destructive concept for property to become the basis for human value. A society that considers themselves a property will agree to get advertising casino tattoos on their forehead for money, $10,000. This therefore reduces human life to a market commodity. But we know that markets corrode the value of a thing they deal in. (http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/339496-the-problem-with-a-market-society.html)

In other words, the market system has polluted your thinking into the delusion that human beings innately own things, namely themselves. People are not born with the right to property. The government declared it and you have defined man in new terms: property rights. But not all people have the right to property, just those whom the state agrees (a current case exists in Nevada somewhere where the government is taking someone's property and surely corporations ).

There is no reason to think humans innately own themselves other than for retro-justification. Human beings can be easily manipulated into doing the opposite of what's good for them. They can easily be persuaded to vote against their interests in the name of freedom all the while denying their own capacity for action. You have no proof other than tautological which is just erudite nonsense. No one has any good reason to think they own themselves other than the will to believe it. Other than defining humans this way, what makes you think people are property? Before capitalism the prevailing idea was the people have a right to exist, albeit a crummy place. Now we drive people from their land in order to access the rich resources and deny people access to life sustaining resources and consider this "as the market wishes."

The only justification I see that would lead me to think property is natural is if you can demonstrate that you take something with you to the grave. But the fact is we don't take our body, we don't take the stuff we are buried with, nothing transitions from this life to the next. So property does not exist. Property has an owner and that owner can do with it whatever desired except continue to keep it. That doesn't sound like a genuine concept of ownership: involuntary giving up of something (i.e. death)?

The more substantive piece is in regards to what manifold said. A power vacuum will be created upon the dissolution of the state. People desire to have the right to deny certain people access to water, food, and life (property is a simple way of doing this). If you do not have a state to control the mass of people someone else will need to do that. And in a free society it is very expensive: not only do you need force but you need framing, propaganda to keep the masses appeased.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

Well that didn't take long, but please tell us, how does one live like an anarchist?

Ask an anarchist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How do we know that private property preceded the State? Because human beings in and of themselves must have preceded the State, and since every human being has an innate property right in and of themselves (This must be axiomatically true, because to deny such a claim proves the claim)

I wish my philosophy could state that any objection to is is necessarily false. The trouble is this sort of philosophy immediately excludes itself from criticism and therefore does not allow certain kinds of discussion. This is not free thought and is the anti-thesis of freedom.

But I will take your comment with less severe consequences as to simply mean I doubt it can be proven false or reduced into absurdity. I however think it can be on certain grounds.

If a human being owns himself, he is capable of rightly selling his in-essential parts (liver). However I think it is highly destructive concept for property to become the basis for human value. A society that considers themselves a property will agree to get advertising casino tattoos on their forehead for money, $10,000. This therefore reduces human life to a market commodity. But we know that markets corrode the value of a thing they deal in. (http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/339496-the-problem-with-a-market-society.html)

In other words, the market system has polluted your thinking into the delusion that human beings innately own things, namely themselves. People are not born with the right to property. The government declared it and you have defined man in new terms: property rights. But not all people have the right to property, just those whom the state agrees (a current case exists in Nevada somewhere where the government is taking someone's property and surely corporations ).

There is no reason to think humans innately own themselves other than for retro-justification. Human beings can be easily manipulated into doing the opposite of what's good for them. They can easily be persuaded to vote against their interests in the name of freedom all the while denying their own capacity for action. You have no proof other than tautological which is just erudite nonsense. No one has any good reason to think they own themselves other than the will to believe it. Other than defining humans this way, what makes you think people are property? Before capitalism the prevailing idea was the people have a right to exist, albeit a crummy place. Now we drive people from their land in order to access the rich resources and deny people access to life sustaining resources and consider this "as the market wishes."

The only justification I see that would lead me to think property is natural is if you can demonstrate that you take something with you to the grave. But the fact is we don't take our body, we don't take the stuff we are buried with, nothing transitions from this life to the next. So property does not exist. Property has an owner and that owner can do with it whatever desired except continue to keep it. That doesn't sound like a genuine concept of ownership: involuntary giving up of something (i.e. death)?

The more substantive piece is in regards to what manifold said. A power vacuum will be created upon the dissolution of the state. People desire to have the right to deny certain people access to water, food, and life (property is a simple way of doing this). If you do not have a state to control the mass of people someone else will need to do that. And in a free society it is very expensive: not only do you need force but you need framing, propaganda to keep the masses appeased.

Well you can disagree with it being axiomatic, but you're not really making a convincing argument. You're simply looking for reasons to dismiss what I said.

As far as the bold portion goes, you're simply applying your own value judgments to these ideas rather than making any rational argument against what I said. What does it matter to you if people want to sell their organs or tattoo brands on themselves for money? Nobody would be forcing you to do so.

My question, however, is if people don't own themselves, then who does and where did they get said ownership?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

Well that didn't take long, but please tell us, how does one live like an anarchist?

Ask an anarchist.

So, just trolling then?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well that didn't take long, but please tell us, how does one live like an anarchist?

Ask an anarchist.

So, just trolling then?

This is not the thread for trolling or for name calling. Please can it.

I'm not an anarchist and the only "anarchists" I've met/known are fakes. I would like to see how a real anarchist would answer this. I don't know any. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.

**shrug**

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ask an anarchist.

So, just trolling then?

This is not the thread for trolling or for name calling. Please can it.

I'm not an anarchist and the only "anarchists" I've met/known are fakes. I would like to see how a real anarchist would answer this. I don't know any. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.

**shrug**

You clearly implied that you know how anarchists live, and then when questioned about it you rest on the claim that I would need to ask an anarchist. Well, how can I ask an anarchist when you say none of us are real anarchists?