It was a hot, sticky day. Children were packed into the gymnasium like sardines, and somewhere on the gym floor a man paced back and forth with a microphone. Nobody could really understand what he was saying, and nobody really cared for that matter. This was another typical high school assembly. Through the jeers and chants in the crowded bleachers, one could hardly notice anything outside of his own immediate area. Suddenly, everyone rose and faced the Stars and Stripes. A badly dubbed version of our national anthem played over the microphone system, and everyone respectfully honored our nation.

That is, almost everyone respectfully honored our nation. A small handful of individuals sitting a few sections below me remained seated, turning their backs on the flag. I found this to be in very poor taste. However, being the full blooded Libertarian that I am, I really thought nothing of it, respecting their right to make fools out of themselves in front of the entire school. As the situation grew to a boil one teacher approached these individuals, and asked one of them why they weren't standing up. The reply?

"because *I'M* an anarchist"

Needless to say, anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that these so-called anarchists just happened to be attending a PUBLIC school.

This is the mindset of many of today's youth who fancy themselves as being politically motivated. Although I admire their enthusiasm, most of them are completely off base in their arguments. I can even agree with some of the arguments that the stereotypical teenage radicals make, but most of their positions lack any sort of substance behind them. They want to see drugs legalized because they do drugs. They support things of that nature. If the issue doesn't affect them directly, it might as well not exist. What the older people see is that the politically minded youth are all radical fire breathers who gather for pointless protests in the streets.

Another issue I fail to come to grips with in the teenage mind is the protest march. There are two points I would like to address on this issue. First, these children are simply marching for the sake of marching. They have no cause. Where the young hippies of the 60's at least had a cause, today’s teens are struggling to find a reason to march against the "fascism of conformity", or some other pointless dribble. I am reminded of students who wander around my school wearing big patches that give off a strong message, "Fight Fascism!", and depict a fist bashing a swastika. That's nice. Secondly, along with having no cause, the young, narrow-minded radical will also have no tolerance whatsoever. These people believe that they have every right to peacefully assemble. They believe they have every right to broadcast their freedom of speech to the entire community. They absolutely have that right, yet when other viewpoints want to do the same, who are the first people that show up to deny it? The teenage radicals, of course. Freedom of speech is not limited to any one group of people. Freedom of speech means that we must be willing to tolerate the good with the bad. Homophobic people must be willing to tolerate Gay rights marches. We must be able to tolerate the Ku Klux Klan, if they choose to peacefully assemble. (on a side note, that is one thing I never understood either. Violence always erupts at Klan rallies because of the outside observers who show up. Isn't that exactly the publicity the Klan is looking for? If nobody showed up to their stupid rallies, it would just be a handful of guys wandering around with dunce caps on. We must tolerate it, but if we disagree with their message, why should we even acknowledge their existence). We must also tolerate the marches of the teenage radicals, just as they must learn to tolerate other marches they don't necessarily agree with. Tolerance does not end when an issue arises that we do not agree with. This is something that most youth today fail to realize.

My final objection to the stereotypical teenage "anarchist" is their endless contradictions. I have coined the term "anarchists on welfare" for several reasons. I think the whole mentality arises out of a need to be different, rather than a desire to see political change. That is what is most disturbing. They call themselves anarchists, but look for the government to solve every problem involving the poor, the immigrants. They want the government out of their lives when they're smoking crack, but are the first ones in line to petition the government to crack down on things they disagree with. They seem to be the first in line to petition the government for handouts as well. All in all, it boils down to their lack of understanding what a true anarchist is. Being a Libertarian, though, I must respect their rights to act as they wish, so long as they don't force themselves on me. It's too bad they can't find it in their hearts to respect other peoples rights as well.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

Hers my two cents.

Societies need order. Anarchy would not bring order, unless everyone had the exact same tastes about everything. But that's impossible. A disagreement happens. Someone gets mad. Someone hurts someone. And when that person gets hurt, justice and force cannot be brought upon the person, because this is a free society where there is no law.

Alcohol. Drugs. You're allowed to do these, and drugs and alcohol are the things that so many anarchists are anarchists are for- they say it's for peace, but when I found out that they do drugs, I find out right there the real reason for their anarchist theories. If we were free of all law, their parents and the police couldn't bust them, and they could go out to all the parties they want and get stoned, drunk, and high.

And it's amazing, the paradox that anarchist drug use brings- drug use causes violence, and that's something IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. People don't forgive for being hurt. They get revenge. Someone gets revenge on the person who got revenge. Someone gets revenge on the person who got revenge on the person who got revenge. And so on.

Someone's an anarchist, but the only reason they're an anarchist is so that they can kill the object of their hatred and get away with it. It burns inside of them, the passion to kill, with fury. Anarchy comes about. They kill. More killings. Do you get it?

You might not like the police, and hell, maybe some of them may be abusive, but rules are needed to keep society in order for the things listed above.

Somenting smells funny in here.

We surrender a little of our liberty (e.g. the liberty to kill our annoying neighbor) to the State in exchange for the rule of Law.

Without the protection of the law human life would be nasty, brutish and short.

QED

LUG - "Somenting smells funny in here."

Uh, that would either be your underwear, your socks, your upper lip, or that joint you're smoking. Internet pages dont have a smell.

"Most CITY DWELLERS, for example, and they are many, are still very much addicted to finding government solutions for every problem. For them, the concept of individual responsibility is ENTIRELY FORIEGN to their everyday thinking and overall worldview. To them, every bum, dropout, and criminal is a victim and worthy of a HANDOUT at taxpayer expense." -- Bill Sizemore

Anti-Tax Conservative Guilty of Defrauding the Public

"the large amounts of money which were donated to the CHARITY by his supporters were SECRETLY funneled to the PAC and to Mr. Sizemore's corporation, I&R Petition Services, in order to serve Mr. Sizemore's own personal and political goals." - http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/05/01/a1.sizemore.0501.html

Bill Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union as a self-described "Anti-tax activist." Bill was the Republican candidate for governor of Oregon in 1998 where he and his family live on 36 rural acres. Bill was raised in the logging communities of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state and is a graduate of Portland Bible College where he taught for two years. - http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore6.htm

I'd say Sizemore is on the money with this excellent quote:
__
"Most CITY DWELLERS, for example, and they are many, are still very much addicted to finding government solutions for every problem. For them, the concept of individual responsibility is ENTIRELY FORIEGN to their everyday thinking and overall worldview. To them, every bum, dropout, and criminal is a victim and worthy of a HANDOUT at taxpayer expense." -- Bill Sizemore
__

If you look at the way San Francisco handles their exploding population of bums (aka: Homeless People) you can see a perfect illustration of what Sizemore is talking about.

...and there my friends is the perfect explample of what Libertarians and "Bush Admirers" are all about.

If you listen closely, you can just hear the furnaces of the social darwinists off in the distance... Throw another body on the fire please, it's getting chilly in here.

This is the same silly argument, presented in a different form, that the pea-brained leader of the inbread and socially retarded KOBE organization pulls out of his draws from time to time. The abstract form of the argument is this (and if he could write well, he could have used as few lines as I will in presenting the argument):

KOBE's false argument:

(1) Anarchists do not believe in X.
(2) Our society is constructed around X.
(3) When not given a choice to do other than X, anarchists do X.
(4) From (1) and (3), it is concluded that anarchists are hypocrites.

This is a false argument.

Let's begin with the specific example supplied by pea brain. In this case, he whines like a Bush over the fact that some group of children in a public school are anarchists. According to the law, the children must go to school. If they do not go to school, they will be arrested (or their parents will be arrested). Eventually, due to refusal to go to school, they will be detained in a juvunil prison. There they will be forced to go to public school. Therefore, the children have no choice, especially if their parents cannot afford to send them to a private school.

Now, let's take another example frequently presented by the chronically retarded KOBE SBM. KOBE SBM asserts that an anarchist that is employed or engages in earning a living is a hypocrite. Due to his limited intelligence and poor understanding of anarchism, KOBE SBM believes that anarchist are against working. Any anarchist knows that this position is pure bull shit. However, if we accept the position for the sake of argument, we are still left with the fact that the anarchist is working within the framework of a society that he or she disagrees with. Given that no anarchist society exists on Earth, the only choice that anarchist would have, if he or she chose to live only as an anarchist, would be to commit suicide or to hide out in some wilderness area. Now, if an anarchist believes that anarchist can eventually be achieved through educating others about anarchism, suicide or withdrawal from society would be self defeating. Thus the anarchist has no intelligent choice other than to participate in society.

Finally, moron and chonically obsessed KOBE SBM fails to point out that Christians should oppose war, help the poor, and sacrifice themselves for the greater good. This is what Jesus was all about. However, since KOBE SBM hates anarchists (probably due to the fact that he is too much of a coward to think on his own, and therefore needs to find an excuse for being an ass kisser), he points his dirty fingers at anarchist while not mentioning the same "contradictions" that Christians live within. This is no surprise. KOBE SBM is a pathological liar and without honor.

“Given that no anarchist society exists on Earth”

Somalia is as close as you get?

As long as Anarchism refuses to accept human greed, and the fact remains that the moment it existed, it would in fact cease to exist. As human nature dictates, some society members would attempt to increase their power. Therefore, there can never be a continuous power vacuum.

It is the same with Communism, Why would a company improve their widget or their production methods, without the threat of Competition? Thus, (in theory) a 100% efficient economy never improves, never becomes more efficient and actually less.

I am a utopian, but since no utopian society exists, I have no recourse but to bitch

i am an anarchist, but TO A MEANS. anarchism is not about burning and killing. look it up ok? its about not having gov't. its about over turning gov't. so it is safe to say that i believe that anarchism is a good idea and then we should start something new. something effective, something NOT imperial and tyranical. that is part of out civil rights too, check it out. the constitution gave the people power to create, alter and ABOLISH gov't. if need be. and i believe need be.

this whole, "they're contradictory, and confused and not real" arguement is ridiculous. there are hundreds of factions of anarchism, some of which are radical and believe in buring and killing, while many are pacifist anarchists. so try and do some research before you put someone in a pigeonhole. thats disgusting. that has gotten people introuble over and over in history.

here's and idea: dont get this preconceived idea of what anarchism is. i bet you guys think im some dreadlocked, rage against the machiner, but im not. im a political activist in my own right. and i will try and use the laws in place until there is a new better way.

so, dont label us.

"They want to see drugs legalized because they do drugs"
i am an anarchist. i do not do drugs.

"A Proud Libertarian"
do you even know where the word "libertarian" came from dumbass?

"Needless to say, anyone with a shred of common sense would realize that these so-called anarchists just happened to be attending a PUBLIC school"
you can beleive in anarchism and attend a public school. you can be and believe in alot of things and attend a public school hun.

"First, these children are simply marching for the sake of marching"
how much fucking liberal ignorant generalizations can you make. if i was to march just to "march" i sure wouldnt fucking waste my energy
would i?

"They have no cause. Where the young hippies of the 60's at least had a cause"
wouldnt beleiving in an anarchsit society which would make them an anarchsit be a cause? and if im right, dont the hippies push more towards the legalization of drugs that they did more then any other cause?

"They want the government out of their lives when they're smoking crack"
i do not smoke crack, get a fucking life and actualy think before writing such a dumb ignorant rant.

smash neo-liberalism

The highschool anarchists described in the initial post haven't thought things through. Anarchism, to a youngster, is a fashion accessory. Like a mohawk or pierced face. Most grow out of it shortly thereafter.

Those that don't grow out of it are a completely different specimen. They are usually white, male, middle class, and have a sense that they are more intelligent than most others. It drives them nuts that others (most of whom they think are intellectually inferior) are more successful than they are. So they fantasize of a utopia where these more successful people ("capitalists", "sell outs") are removed from society. Presto! The anarchists are no longer the losers.

The bottom line is that anarchism, for anybody old enough to know better, is a way for a white middle class male to make himself into a victim. "The reason I don't make something of my life is because I am repressed by the system". Boo hoo hoo.

The writer of this article seems to lack an understanding of anarchism. He labels himself a "Libertarian" but does not seem to realize that this means anarchism. There are two main forms of Libertarianism that I know of: market libertarianism and social libertarianism. Judging by the author's writing I would guess that he supports laizze-faire, or market libertarianism. When he incinuates that Anarchists are hypocrites for opposing the state while accepting services from it, he should be reminded of what government is. According to democratic theory, the government is nothing more than an instrument of the people used as an organizational tool. When somebody accepts a service provided by the government, they are actually receiving that service from the people. One can oppose the state institution while still supporting democratic organization.

Isnt it funny that the "radical" movements are borne of youth, when minors still live at home with their parents, or they are attending college and havent yet been introduced to REAL LIFE yet? If they ever become successful, and start to raise families and buy property, they find a sense of normalcy (non-anarchy). The most pathetic anarchist is the one you describe. The middle class white male who finds no solace in his failures. The man who is ridiculed by his peers and who becomes more and more bitter instead of retrospective. Its a shame. America has so much to offer...it asks little in return. LOYALTY.

Here you go with that "Another post by Computers NLA" and KOBE SBM bullshit again. I havent seen these "kobe" people here for some time now. They dont constantly, incessantly accuse you of being somebody else. You, however, give yourself away by posting the same old shit. This thread is very interesting, given the rational commentary which has followed. You add nothing except your paranoid "Im being chased again" theory. Give it up, man!

The only time we get to see anarchy is like in Iraq when there was no government, and now in Liberia. During riots, and in stampedes at concerts. What good is anything without order? Even insects have government.

I think there has been an Anarchist commune in Spain in the early 20th century which existed successfully for a period. Its worth researching. The idea that anarchism can work is based on the idea that people want to be free. But aren't people greedy?! You cannot have greed and freedom, and I think people will choose freedom. Market anarchism is not truely free because people are still forced to work to survive. Anarchism, in order to be free, must be social in nature; meaning that the people must collectively control their communities central functions and be able to voluntarily contribute to those organizations.

Anarchy cannot work for a very simple reason. Higher animals naturally organize into hierarchial groups. Primates (of which humans are members), organize into social groups which then organize internally into a heirarchial order. The strong at the top, the aspiring and the females in the middle, and the young and dependent (and the elders) at the bottom.

Even the most ancient fossil records show that humans have organized in such groups since the dawn of humankind. The hierarchy is based on controlling resources. Getting the best females, controlling the waterhole, or the best hunting grounds. Fow anarchy to work, there would have to be no limited resources to control. Even then, there would have to be a fundamental change in the way human beings live and grow.

Organization into quasi-governmental structures appears to be the norm among primates, birds, fish, insects, and even plants. Anarchy is illogical and unnatural.

"Isnt it funny that the "radical" movements are borne of youth, when minors still live at home with their parents, or they are attending college and havent yet been introduced to REAL LIFE yet?"

Martin Luther King and Malcom X (both assassinated when they became too radical), not to mention radical feminism thoroughly contradict your interpretation of radical movements.

"If they ever become successful, and start to raise families and buy property, they find a sense of normalcy (non-anarchy)."

There is nothing "normal" about less than five percent of the human population living in all white suburbs, shopping at the Gap, driving SUV's and watching Fraiser on TV.

" [...] Its a shame. America has so much to offer...

[for white males who inherit property]

it asks little in return. LOYALTY."

Dogs are loyal. Second and third class citizens (i.e., non-white heterosexual males) should not be loyal to an entity that oppresses them or others. The children of slaves are still due their thirty acres and a mule.

PS Anna, you are definitely a (white) dude.

I live in a beach suburb, and I dont like SUVs. I drive a Mercedes. You are typical of blacks who think that success belongs to whites alone. Just because you dont get to tast the American Pie, you say its for "whites only". How pathetic. I suppose you feel that blacks who look down on the hip-hop "culture" and "acting black" is a requirement for African Americans. WRONG. I went to college for 6 years, got a great job, and now I make a lot of money (over 100K a year) which I used to buy property and to invest in commodities. I am being rewarded for EARNING the right to be an American.

You sound like a sellout to Slave Mentality to me. How DARE you invoke the names of Martin Luther King and Malcom X. I was around to see them ALIVE. You deify them as though they were gods. Malcolm X was a RACIST until the end. Martin Luther King was different. He was killed for the same reason Kennedy was.

Ill bet that you are in your twenties, and either a high school dropout, or a proud GED recipient. Talk what you know, or not at all.

"Second and third class citizens (i.e., non-white heterosexual males) should not be loyal to an entity that oppresses them or others"

Since when is a non-white a second class citizen? I could name more than a few millionaires who are anything but second class. And I mean in class and refinement, not measured by money. Being wealthy does not a first class person make. Look at any rich rap artist for examples. Those types are snubbed at country clubs and nice restaurants NOT because they lack the money to join them, but because they have no class or manners. Those things must be cultivated over the years, beginning in childhood.

Sidney Portier and Phylisha Rashad had class. Whoopi Goldberg and Chris Rock do not. Colin Powell and Vaness Williams have class. Puff Daddy (snicker) and Lil Kim (chuckle) do not. Having money does not equal Having Class. Not having money does not equal Oppressed either. Dont blame your failures on some perceived "system". You simply dont have a clue.

"I live in a beach suburb, and I dont like SUVs. I drive a Mercedes."

A distinction without a difference.

"You are typical of blacks who think that success belongs to whites alone."

A black person would never say "you are typical of blacks."

"Just because you dont get to tast (sic) the American Pie, you say its for "whites only"."

I didn't say it's for "whites only". That was your admission.

"How pathetic."

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you.

"I suppose you feel that blacks who look down on the hip-hop "culture" and "acting black" is a requirement for African Americans."

Again, I did not say that. Your own admission again.

"...I went to college for 6 years, got a great job, and now I make a lot of money (over 100K a year) which I used to buy property and to invest in commodities..."

At least you are a creative liar.

"You sound like a sellout to Slave Mentality to me."

"A sellout to Slave Mentality," now that's priceless. Did you just make that up?

"How DARE you invoke the names of Martin Luther King and Malcom X. I was around to see them ALIVE. You deify them as though they were gods."

You're silly. Everything you accuse me of doing you in fact are doing yourself. The word "invoke" is a deification.

"Malcolm X was a RACIST until the end."

You don't know anything about Malcom X.

"Martin Luther King was different."

You know even less about Martin Luther King. He supported affirmative action and was against capitalism just like Malcom X because he saw them as inheritly racist.

"He was killed for the same reason Kennedy was."

I gotta hear this. Why was he assassinated?

"Ill bet that you are in your twenties, and either a high school dropout, or a proud GED recipient."

Naw, not even close, probably describing yourself. Nice try though.

"Talk what you know, or not at all."

Naw, I prefer to say whatever the hell I want. Later.

"Since when is a non-white a second class citizen?"

Since over a third of black males are disenfranchised because they are in some portion of the criminal justice system. The right to vote and hold office is the fundamental right of all first class citizens. The only other country that has locked up as many black people as the US is apartheid South Africa.

A "wannabe black dude"? NOT. I grew up in Windsor Hills (near Baldwin Hills). Im sure you know it well, if you are black and live in Los Angeles. I am 43 years old, and I know more about Malcolm X then you will ever know. I actually SAW him in person, and heard him speak. Until he went to Mecca, he advocated a separate black nation to get away from the "blue eyed devils". One of my parents happens to be white.

You whine about the black men locked up? WHY were they locked up? Because a lot of them are violent, or resorted to stealing and dealing drugs because they couldnt make it in school. I dont feel sorry for them at all. The rest of us who DIDNT get caught in the snare represent the successful blacks who "got it".

The generation of blacks who have a legitimate tie to racist America are now in their 60s or older. The post King era has given rise to a new class of non-whites who have risen to the highest echelons of society, effortlessly, and without regard to race. I am one of them. I like it fine, thank you.

Im feel safer when I see some bee-boppin "brotha" who is dressed in baggy ass clothes and wearing braids being shadowed by police. If he was educated, he would have learned that such attire is representative of the STREET and with GANGS. Peer pressure in college would have cured his street ways.

Your pathetic references to the Civil Rights struggle are at best, second hand. You can tell me nothing about the 60s. I grew up in them. Did you? I have never been arrested for anything, I served in the armed forces (USMC) and I am AMERICAN to the bone. The Dream has come true, but you are stuck in the nightmare, and you blame it on "whitey". What a shame.

You didn't answer my question.

They (IMC Nazis) delete KOBE SBM using a batch delete, hence the name Anna. You didnt ask me any questions, LOSER. You just typed a bunch of your uninformed "answers".

"What question."

>> "He was killed for the same reason Kennedy was."
>>
>>I gotta hear this. Why was he assassinated?

But I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer the question.

Go to http://www.kobehq.com if you want to TRY to engage me in debate. Unfortunately for you, I am definitely black ( that leaves you with a dilemma, doesnt it?). People like me make it obvious that all that "da white man be oppressin me" excuses are full of shit. I dont blame you for being hostile and defensive. Natural behavior when backed into a corner.

"Go to http://www.kobehq.com if you want to TRY to engage me in debate."

No, that's OK. I'll stay here. You have proven yourself to be a disingenuius-pathelogical liar who cannot answer questions presented to him.

"Unfortunately for you, I am definitely black ( that leaves you with a dilemma, doesnt it?)."

Nope, it doesn't.

"...I dont blame you for being hostile and defensive."

Ho-hum, describing yourself again.

"Natural behavior when backed into a corner."

Lemme see, unable support his arguments, refusing to answer questions, and now escaping to another site, that would be you, hun. Later.

I happen to OWN that site. It gets over 10,000 hits per day (probably because of the free babes galleries I provide). The site has been up since November 2002, and has had over 4 million hits since then.

Like I said, fool, the IMC mods batch delete my posts when I use KOBE SBM because of Stephen DeVoy's whining. You sound so fucking immature.

"Since over a third of black males are disenfranchised because they are in some portion of the criminal justice system. The only other country that has locked up as many black people as the US is apartheid South Africa."

Maybe black people in the USA need to quit committing crimes. Has that ever crossed your limited thought process?

They have the cojones to say "dam, man, you a sellout to da white man" because I choose to walk normally, speak proper English, drive a Mercedes, and lock my doors when any bee-boopin "brotha" walking like one leg is broken, and wearing braids comes near my car. The same goes for wannabe gangster Latinos too. Im a dyed in the wool conservative and proud of it.

"Since over a third of black males are disenfranchised because they are in some portion of the criminal justice system. The only other country that has locked up as many black people as the US is apartheid South Africa."

Maybe black people in the USA need to quit committing crimes. Has that ever crossed your limited thought process?

Yawn, you bore me. Most people in the criminal justice system are there because of drugs. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, whites are 76% of drug users, while blacks are 13.5% and Latino/as are 9.2% of drug users. Combined, these people of color comprise less than 23% of all drug users, but over the past several years, have come to represent 90% of all persons sent to jail or prison for a drug possession charge. (Note: Roughly 75% of all drug arrests annually are possession arrests.) I know you probably can't undestand what any of this means. But perhaps others who read this will learn something. It is clear, though, from this silly little driveby, that you support an apartheid South Africa.

"It is clear, though, from this silly little driveby, that you support an apartheid South Africa."

Clear as mud. Don't tell me what I support and what I don't support.

If your stats are correct, all you're telling me is that black people aren't very good at taking drugs and not getting caught. Solution? Quit taking drugs. Figure it out. How many times does it take until, "Hey, we keep gettin' busted. Maybe we shouldn't be doing this. We ain't that good at it."

"Don't tell me what I support and what I don't support."

I don't have to tell you anything, your transparent arguments speak for themselves.

"If your stats are correct, all you're telling me is that black people aren't very good at taking drugs and not getting caught. Solution? Quit taking drugs. Figure it out."

You're really reaching for straws here. Let me remind you of your original argument:

"Maybe black people in the USA need to quit committing crimes."

White peeople are the ones committing those crimes. So what you meant to say is, "Maybe black people need to quit 'getting caught' for crimes." Sorry, that doesn't fly.

The original point is that black people are second class citizens just like in South African apartheid. As equal, first class citizens, black people would not be racially profiled for crimes they actually commit less of, they would not be given longer, harsher sentences than whites who commit drug crimes in greater numbers, and they would not be disenfranchised in such great numbers. Now you can rationalize your hypocracy and racism any way you want. But realize that most thinking minds here are not fooled.

"I don't have to tell you anything, your transparent arguments speak for themselves"

Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help you. You can read into whatever you want and believe it if you want. You're only fooling yourself. I don't really care.

If someone wants to be a racecar driver, but they continually crash, maybe they need a change of occupation. You grasp the connection?

If blacks are getting popped for drugs, quit doing drugs, that way they don't get popped.

Wouldn't it be better if they weren't taking drugs at all?

You morons are all alike.

"The original point is that black people are second class citizens just like in South African apartheid."

Speak for yourself. Im as first class as any of my white peers, and I am treated as such. I have too much self-respect to fall for that mentality.

"As equal, first class citizens, black people would not be racially profiled for crimes they actually commit less of, they would not be given longer, harsher sentences than whites who commit drug crimes in greater numbers, and they would not be disenfranchised in such great numbers."

HUH? Black people are no different than other people when they stop trying so hard to be "black". PEOPLE of any race dont have to be worried about going to jail or being profiled when they are not guilty of crimes. People dont just get picked up, sifted through the justice system and go to prison for NOTHING. Stop tripping.


"Now you can rationalize your hypocracy and racism any way you want. But realize that most thinking minds here are not fooled."

BWAHAHAHAHA! "Thinking minds" do not waste their time whining about "white flight=white theft" and blathering on about Malcolm X on some IMC board. Yeah, Im here trying to talk some sense to you, kid, but I have my own websites, many years of higher education, and a great job and annual salary to go with it for balance. You are right: "most thinking minds here are not fooled". Most "thinking minds" here ARE fools.

"Wouldn't it be better if they weren't taking drugs at all?"

Not the point...

"The original point is that black people are second class citizens just like in South African apartheid. As equal, first class citizens, black people would not be racially profiled for crimes they actually commit less of, they would not be given longer, harsher sentences than whites who commit drug crimes in greater numbers, and they would not be disenfranchised in such great numbers. Now you can rationalize your hypocracy and racism any way you want. But realize that most thinking minds here are not fooled."

With that said, I think it is time to ignore you? You seem to have trouble staying on topic. Whether or not black people (or any people) should keep taking drugs is beside the point. The point is are they treated fairly and equally. And so far you have not been able to refute the argumet that says they aren't? Continuing to "debate" with you is boring. You stink at it. Go find another black person to play with. Later.

I would like to add that in my world, grass is purple.

In my world, I'm the master of my domain.

No I'm Not!!

Cleanup Aisle 6

Wanna see Anarchism in action?
Go to your local religious institution.
No taxes, Financed by the followers,
everyone collectivly pitches in for building improvements.

Look at the American Indian tribes, look at the Amish people,
look at early American Colonial life.
The original framers of the Constitution had more of an anarchistic mindset than given credit for.
They wanted LESS government involvement in the citizens lives,
and more private rights for the individual to combat tyranny.

ps
go to the libertarian website and see thier position on the legalization of drugs.
Then you'll see the author of this article look quite stupid.
Libertarian? or propagandist?

The Amish? Religious institutions??? Oh yeah....that's really anarchy at work! So, you propose that we discard our air-conditioning, our refrigerators, washing machines, cars, televisions, stereos, designer clothes, supermarkets, malls, satellite TV and cellphones....for anarchy?????

The very thought of one of those hot Amish babes, or a slutty (yet demure) nun in a log black numbere just gets my hormones raging. ...

ANARCHY DOES NOT WORK. Besides, religious institutions, and also the Amish both have heirarchial structures (which means GOVERNMENT), AND THERE ARE DEFINED LEADERS AND SUBJUGATES.

You cannot argue effictively for anarchy, and neither can anyone else...hence, the total and complete absense of a successful anarchist society anytime in human history.

You have never done any research on anarchism or other "communal" ways of living.
It is sad to see pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself, that act as if they are well read on a subject and profess knowledge of a subject....then appear only to look foolish.
People think that anarchism means that you do not have to answer to anyone about anything.
Untrue.

If 6-years of college ending in a Masters Degree in Computer Science, owning a political website which I designed from scratch and on which I discuss politics makes me a "pseudo intellectual", then I guess that's what I am. BWAHAHAHA!

ANARCHY DOES NOT WORK. How much research is necessary to make that statement? There are none now, nor has there EVER been an anarchist society in human history. Even the fossil record shows distinct, incontrovertible evidence that humans have ALWAYS formed hierarchial social structures. Government is merely an evolved form of those structures.

You are an intellectual black hole. With all the information and access to written history available to you, when it reaches you it simply falls into the hole, beyond your mental event horizon, never to be seen again.....

Not every anarchist is a drug using teenager. It's a wide ranging philosophy that, in America, draws heavily from Marxism, pacifism, democracy, Christianity, Jefferson, Thoreau, Buddhism, Taoism, Gandhi, utopian socialism, Nietschze, and other sources.

A lot of people get into it through punk. Some get into it from libertarian or conservative politics. Some people find some social affinity with anarchists and take up the philosophy. It's not a monolithic phenomenon.

I think a lot of kids are rebelling against their parents. A disproportionate number of people in the scene seem to come from families with dysfunctional parents. Through anarchy, they find others in similar situations and a philosophy which, unlike their parents, establishes limits, and encourages discipline. Though drug use is tolerated by some, it's also discouraged at large, and people encourage each other to practice veganism, which is a form of self denial that can build personal discipline.

A lot of anarchists are smart working class people. They feel a bit out of place, philosophically, at the big universities, and take up a political position that validates their own, and their families and communities existence. The academe is extremely elitist and classist, and generally doesn't deal with issues of labor and community. Marxism tends to valorize the prole, but at the expense of prole agency in their own revolutionary practice on a daily basis. (That is, they make the prole work for revolution, but it's still work, it's not revolution.)

Conservatives also seem to enter anarchism because, despite its generally left/liberal position on many things, it's compatible with a number of conservative positions including: the right to bear arms, anti-abortion (right to life), a generally prudish attitude to dress and sex.

The popular image of the "teen anarchist" is just a variation on the "juvenille delinquent" of the 1950s or the "at risk youth" of the 1970s. It embodies all these things that parents fear about their kids: loss of control, dislocation from mainstream society, social marginalization, criminality. Ultimately, they represent a harbinger of social downfall (which never comes).

Observer also makes an interesting point. I think it's close to the mark, but, in LA, it doesn't apply so well because around half of the anarchists in this city are people of color.

I should add that the stereotype of the anarchist being fiscally unsuccessful in the real world is largely false. The ones I know are disproportionately small business owners, contractors, or temps. They tend to be able to make a decent living, and when under-earning, able to live well without much.

And, finally, Libertarianism is interesting, but it holds the idea of private property as "sacred". To this end, they are going to go down the path of capitalist accumulation, which inevitably leads to oppression of the unpropertied. A libertarianism that respects property, but also respects the idea of a commons and a right of the community to take property from the individual will be better able to support rights for more people. Likewise, I personally think that anarchism should respect the idea of property rights to a certain extent.

The idea of "anti-hierarchy" is more about the exercise of power than the existence of hierarchy. Unfortunately, some anarchists are pretty fundamentalist about the idea and reject all hierarchies.

There are different degrees of power that can exist within a hierarchy. There's the hierarchy of tyranny - Saddam versus the Iraqis. There's the hierarchy of democracy - ostensibly, we can get rid of Bush. There's far more power in the former than the latter.

There's the hierarchy of the limited resource over the individual - we all need water to survive, therefore, we will submit to the needs of water, eventually.

There's the hierarchy of ideology, where the individual (voluntarily) submits to the ideology. Anarchists are big on doing this :-)

Anarchism should (and does) advocate that no more power should be exercised than absolutely necessary. This extends to the rejection of ideology, often.

Tyranny operates by taking every opportunity for power and exercising it, in order to display its power and threaten people.

The fact that hierarchy exists and is a necessary aspect of organizing life doesn't invalidate anarchism and it's "anti-hierarchy" position.

ANARCHIST

an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1678
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order.

ANARCHISM

an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.


Anarchism is anarchism. Any other interpretation of anarchism is something else altogether. How did you put it? "The idea of "anti-hierarchy" is more about the exercise of power than the existence of hierarchy. Unfortunately, some anarchists are pretty fundamentalist about the idea and reject all hierarchies" OF COURSE THEY DO. That is what anarchists are SUPPOSED to do. An "anarchist" who supports and is a part of a hierarchy is a walking oxymoron. You cannot take the term "anarchist" and apply it to a conservative who has a high paying job and owns property.

Anarchists and their philosoply are inherent enemies of organized society. Since their ideology is (and has always been) contrary to human nature, it has been totally unsuccessful. As it should be.

thats your argument?
Masters in Computer science?
What did you take for your "political" website?
Fascism 101 (turn back time)

What is Anarchism?

Although the word anarchism is understood by many in its classic sense (that defined by dictionaries and by anarchists of history), the word is often misused and misunderstood.  Anarchism, because of the threat it imposes upon established authority, has been historically, and is still, misused by power holders as violence and chaos.
 As anarchist historian George Woodcock put it, "Of the more frivolous is the idea that the anarchist is a man who throws bombs and wishes to wreak society by violence and terror.  That this charge should be brought against anarchists now, at a time when they are the few people who are not throwing bombs or assisting bomb throwers, shows a curious pure blindness among its champions."  
The claim that Anarchism is chaos was refuted long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote:
I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism is not.  It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos.  It is not robbery or murder.  It is not a war of each against all.  It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man.  Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

PS
call up your alma mater and see if you can get your money back.
LOL

What is the goal?

What will change?

how will it affect me?

TELL US and I may vote for it!

See no answers.

Three simple questions......

1What is the goal?
A1 Single payer health
B1referendums on government passage of laws and abolition
C1a non commercial public BW
D1revoking 14th amendment rights from corporations
E1monetary laws against fiat currency derivative speculation
2What will change?
A2 Public awareness and involvement will increase outside commercial filters
B2 interest rates and deficit spending will (see D1, E1) end together with the incumbent corruption.
C2Your services will improve, your tax rates will lower if you are in the lower 75%
income range. Numbers baby, numbers.
3how will it affect me?
A3( see above)
4TELL US and I may vote for it!
A4 (see above)
......
..

>>>OK... what is anarchism in 2003

>Single payer health

And who oversees this? The government? In anarchy, there is no government.

>referendums on government passage of laws and abolition

What government passage of laws? In anarchy, there is no government. What would be the point of revisiting laws that are part of the past?

>monetary laws against fiat currency derivative speculation

What money? Money has value because the government says it has value. In anarchy, there is no government.

>interest rates and deficit spending will end together with the incumbent corruption.

You mean the interest rates on the money that doesn't exist because there is no government?

>Your services will improve, your tax rates will lower if you are in the lower 75% income range.

What taxes? You mean the taxes paid by the money that doesn't exist to the government that doesn't exist because in anarchy there is no government?

------------------------------------

Com'm anarchist!! Answer the questions.

Interesting thread - despite the intermittent noise level.

My 2p:

Face it, folks, anarchy is a means to an ends - it is not an end in and of itself.

Anarchy is a tool that is used to remove one hierarchy so that it can be replaced with a new one. Adam Weishaupt and his followers - who perpetrated the horror of the French Revolution - understood this very well.

Shelley's Frankenstein was a metaphor for anarchy and revolution. The monster did far more damage than good.

As one of the above posters said, Primates, including Humans - have always organized themselves into hierarchical social structures.

The organizational ability of a group has a direct impact upon the ability of the members of that group to compete for reproductive resources.

Give us an example of an isolated non-hierarchical "anarchist" human society that has survived for, oh, let's say - ten generations?