Thread: Can you argue with Anarchism?

Originally Posted by david44

Shortbread

Tyron.

Well Earl made a century at least
Nice to see the coalition of the confused try to contribute. Still a long way to go, but well done.
What can we try and argue against next then Earl.?

^how about discussing the brain damage caused by personal motor vehicles.

Can we argue against it.?

I don't think so, as it's endemic throughout the world.

bet you won't get a century out of it

Depends on how the question gets phrased, I reckon I'm still working on it.
Maybe it will come to me on the next bicycle ride.

Certainly:
Anarchy suggests a lawless society without defined leadership or acceptable rulesof behavior.
Even Hippy, Amish or Mormon communes have some form of leadership or democracy. Read ‘Lord of the Flies’ or ‘Animal Farm’ perhaps.

Originally Posted by crepitas

Certainly:
Anarchy suggests a lawless society without defined leadership or acceptable rulesof behavior.

That's the thing, there isn't a clear definition.

Which is why I started the thread with the Emma Goldman quote;

Anarchism... stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.

When you contemplate the quote some, your realize Anarchism is about being aware of yourself and those around you.
Perhaps the kind of thinking which gave birth to the Greek city-state.