Total Posts:238|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe they get defensive when you act like its only in anarchy that this happens?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's an anarchist point of view? Huh.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:10:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:08:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Maybe they get defensive when you act like its only in anarchy that this happens?

It basically is. Any government that functions like this might as well just be a big corporation that people supported with their wallets/votes.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:16:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

The idea that human beings are objects to be owned (if only by themselves) is offensive to many. Human beings are subjects of rights who can wield them over objects of rights, and to make them into property opens a can of worms.

Not to mention that most anarchists are using the word property in a rather different way than is usually used in philosophy, law or even common speech. When something is your property you have various rights of disposition over it, including the right to sell it to another person, relinquishing that right to property in his or her favor. Most people, anarchists included (anarchists especially) would frown upon the idea of selling oneself into slavery. So emptying fundamental characteristics of property and using the same word ends up being unhelpful equivocation.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:18:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

You do understand that the 2nd tenet of Anarchism is that all members of society have access to all of society's wealth, right?

You can't just pick and choose the ones you like and then ask why no one is an Anarchist. It would be anarchy.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TrasguTravieso
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What I mean to say is that the objection stems from the original proposition, not from the "no one being able to own you" bit. We all agree with that. The difference is that most people affirm the second proposition by firmly denying the possibility of the first.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:18:39 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

You do understand that the 2nd tenet of Anarchism is that all members of society have access to all of society's wealth, right?

You can't just pick and choose the ones you like and then ask why no one is an Anarchist. It would be anarchy.

Pigeon-holing makes you look fat.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:32:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:16:10 PM, TrasguTravieso wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

The idea that human beings are objects to be owned (if only by themselves) is offensive to many. Human beings are subjects of rights who can wield them over objects of rights, and to make them into property opens a can of worms.

I don't see that. Property merely signifies right to exclusive control. So only 'I' can control my body, not you or someone else because it's my property. I don't see anything prima facie offensive about that.

Not to mention that most anarchists are using the word property in a rather different way than is usually used in philosophy, law or even common speech. When something is your property you have various rights of disposition over it, including the right to sell it to another person, relinquishing that right to property in his or her favor. Most people, anarchists included (anarchists especially) would frown upon the idea of selling oneself into slavery. So emptying fundamental characteristics of property and using the same word ends up being unhelpful equivocation.

I wouldn't speak so quickly about that. Some right anarchists actually do support the right to sell yer selves into slavery. I think Walter Block takes that position, though in fairness it's a minority position within a minority position (anarcho-capitalism).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:36:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

Kinesis and someone else (methinks it was Vbaculum) brought up a point in some vegetarianism thread a while back. It was basically that moral intuitions stem from unseen practical and social considerations. So while the case for animal rights seems appealing to many, no one flinches at eating meat because we mostly can't conceive of a way not to. But with technological developments possibly reaching a point where we could grow our own meat-products, moral intuitions will likely follow suit making us all (or at least predominantly) vegetarians at some point in the future.

The same principle I think applies to anarchism. People aren't going to be morally swayed towards a position which they can't properly conceive of. It's like jumping right in rather than easing your way into a pool. It just makes people uncomfortable.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:27:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:18:39 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

You do understand that the 2nd tenet of Anarchism is that all members of society have access to all of society's wealth, right?

You can't just pick and choose the ones you like and then ask why no one is an Anarchist. It would be anarchy.

Pigeon-holing makes you look fat.

Corn-holing makes you sound gay.

There are real tenets to anarchism. It's a package deal.

If you want to drive the Suburban off the lot, you gotta deal with the bad gas mileage. You don't just get the spacious cabin room.

To say otherwise is spurious.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think many people care more about 'are we better off with or without government' than 'does the government violate this abstract principle of self ownership that libertarian ethics think we have'. Ordinary people think about the concrete world, not about abstract rights, and when you remove rights from the real world people get confused and suspicious of your arguments.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:39:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:36:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:27:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:18:39 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

You do understand that the 2nd tenet of Anarchism is that all members of society have access to all of society's wealth, right?

You can't just pick and choose the ones you like and then ask why no one is an Anarchist. It would be anarchy.

Pigeon-holing makes you look fat.

Corn-holing makes you sound gay.

There are real tenets to anarchism. It's a package deal.

If you want to drive the Suburban off the lot, you gotta deal with the bad gas mileage. You don't just get the spacious cabin room.

To say otherwise is spurious.

(a) Ye didn't even try to show why. Why must anarchists fit into a pre-cut model? Can I say the same for Statists, liberals, conservatives, even Christians? Probs not.

(b) I am gay.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:44:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:39:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:36:24 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:27:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:18:39 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

You do understand that the 2nd tenet of Anarchism is that all members of society have access to all of society's wealth, right?

You can't just pick and choose the ones you like and then ask why no one is an Anarchist. It would be anarchy.

Pigeon-holing makes you look fat.

Corn-holing makes you sound gay.

There are real tenets to anarchism. It's a package deal.

If you want to drive the Suburban off the lot, you gotta deal with the bad gas mileage. You don't just get the spacious cabin room.

To say otherwise is spurious.

(a) Ye didn't even try to show why. Why must anarchists fit into a pre-cut model? Can I say the same for Statists, liberals, conservatives, even Christians? Probs not.

(b) I am gay.

gay, in this usage, having nothing to do with your sexuality or gender identification, which I know you know, because fat had nothing to do with your perception of my weight.

Do I have to go out and prove a correct statement about Marxist philosophy? Do all Marxists fit in a mold?

Perhaps not, but the basic tenets of their philosophy are known (sort of) so when you toss one out, no one asks you to "prove it".

This one is fundamental and basic, however, and asking me to prove it simply shows that you know nothing about Anarchism.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:37:43 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I think many people care more about 'are we better off with or without government' than 'does the government violate this abstract principle of self ownership that libertarian ethics think we have'. Ordinary people think about the concrete world, not about abstract rights, and when you remove rights from the real world people get confused and suspicious of your arguments.

1. Libertarians believe in government. That's why they're Libertarian, not Anarchist.

2. Self-ownership isn't an abstract principle, it's very real. It's the difference between, can x person tell you what to do or not and to what extent.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:51:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

Cause you won't get off their f*cking lawn.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:53:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically, Anarchists, if one were to look for an example throughout space and time, would resemble the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest, prior to the Lewis & Clark expedition, except they'd have a rowdier soundtrack and less luck catching fish.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:53:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you?

That's an anarchist notion?

I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

I think it is embraced by most people, just didn't know that made them anarchists.

Crap, so I'm an anarchist now? Does this mean I have to post innane unrealistic detached from reality ideas all the time?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you? I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

Actually, Anarchy allow businesses to buy as much land as they want, so the USA could be WalMartia. Doesn't sound free to me.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 6:56:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The no ownership of your body goes hand in hand with the no ownership of property.

I wasn't pigeonholing them. I was correctly espousing their core philosophy.

And now I will show how straight edgers don't do drugs, or is that just me "putting Baby in a corner", because I've heard no one does that...or that they shouldn't, anyway.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:53:13 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/11/2013 5:54:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is so offensive to people about the anarchist notion that you own yourself and nobody has the right to claim ownership of you?

That's an anarchist notion?

I don't understand why that idea is not embraced by more people.

I think it is embraced by most people, just didn't know that made them anarchists.

Crap, so I'm an anarchist now? Does this mean I have to post innane unrealistic detached from reality ideas all the time?

Here's two simple questions to determine if you are or not.
1. Do you believe that everyone should be free?
2. Do you extend that belief to the economy?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:44:22 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

gay, in this usage, having nothing to do with your sexuality or gender identification, which I know you know, because fat had nothing to do with your perception of my weight.

Not to get side-tracked but I was talking about weight lol.

Do I have to go out and prove a correct statement about Marxist philosophy? Do all Marxists fit in a mold?

Perhaps not, but the basic tenets of their philosophy are known (sort of) so when you toss one out, no one asks you to "prove it".

Egalitarianism is to anarchism as socialism in one country was to Marxism. Some anarchists agree with it, others disagree. But they're still bound together by anti-statism, literally being against the State.

This one is fundamental and basic, however, and asking me to prove it simply shows that you know nothing about Anarchism.

I've spent the last year and a half studying everything I can about it. Not to toot credentials though (which I know you're a fan of) but you're still asserting without evidence.

Hurr durr you can't be a liberal and be for the death penalty amirite? Disagree, gaaaw you know nothing of liberalism!11!!!!one!!
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:10:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Think about it this way WSA. Vegetarianism is both in line with most people's base moral intuitions and is extremely viable both existentially and financially. Yet most people like their meat. The same applies to the self-ownership principle, only it's even less existentially viable (socio-politically) in most people's eyes both because (a) people are more disposed to looking past status-quo atrocities if they can imagine something worse that *could* happen under the alternative and (b) because people on balance distrust large scale change of any grade.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:11:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 6:53:13 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Crap, so I'm an anarchist now? Does this mean I have to post innane unrealistic detached from reality ideas all the time?

Status quo bias is a hard thing to shake homie.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:17:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:07:28 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/11/2013 6:44:22 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

gay, in this usage, having nothing to do with your sexuality or gender identification, which I know you know, because fat had nothing to do with your perception of my weight.

Not to get side-tracked but I was talking about weight lol.

Do I have to go out and prove a correct statement about Marxist philosophy? Do all Marxists fit in a mold?

Perhaps not, but the basic tenets of their philosophy are known (sort of) so when you toss one out, no one asks you to "prove it".

Egalitarianism is to anarchism as socialism in one country was to Marxism. Some anarchists agree with it, others disagree. But they're still bound together by anti-statism, literally being against the State.

Who said anything about Egalitarianism. I simply said that all of society's wealth should be available to all people. I didn't say it should be equally distributed to them.

like I said, anarchists are akin to the Indian Nations of the PNW. Not to tout credentials, but I looked into this sh!t ages ago. This is why age is something I sometimes ask of people. It explains why you'd have spent the last year and a half on the topic, and I spent a year looking into it two decades ago.

This one is fundamental and basic, however, and asking me to prove it simply shows that you know nothing about Anarchism.

I've spent the last year and a half studying everything I can about it. Not to toot credentials though (which I know you're a fan of) but you're still asserting without evidence.

Hurr durr you can't be a liberal and be for the death penalty amirite? Disagree, gaaaw you know nothing of liberalism!11!!!!one!!

"liberal" is a word which means many things. Anarchism is a societal philosophy with specific tenets.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"right anarchists" "anarcho capitalists"

those aren't anarchists. those are people who have co-opted something beautiful and turned it into a for-profit cult.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:21:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:17:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/11/2013 7:07:28 PM, Noumena wrote:
Egalitarianism is to anarchism as socialism in one country was to Marxism. Some anarchists agree with it, others disagree. But they're still bound together by anti-statism, literally being against the State.

Who said anything about Egalitarianism. I simply said that all of society's wealth should be available to all people. I didn't say it should be equally distributed to them.

Something smells like egalitarianism but I can't quite put my finger on it.

like I said, anarchists are akin to the Indian Nations of the PNW. Not to tout credentials, but I looked into this sh!t ages ago. This is why age is something I sometimes ask of people. It explains why you'd have spent the last year and a half on the topic, and I spent a year looking into it two decades ago.

Yawn. Proof for yer claims? No thanks I suppose.

I've spent the last year and a half studying everything I can about it. Not to toot credentials though (which I know you're a fan of) but you're still asserting without evidence.

Hurr durr you can't be a liberal and be for the death penalty amirite? Disagree, gaaaw you know nothing of liberalism!11!!!!one!!

"liberal" is a word which means many things. Anarchism is a societal philosophy with specific tenets.

Ya know I could ask you to back that up but you'd just post some quip about how old and wise you are.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:22:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:20:58 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
"right anarchists" "anarcho capitalists"

those aren't anarchists.

Pro-death penalty "liberals" aren't liberals either. Trust me I read about it.

those are people who have co-opted something beautiful and turned it into a for-profit cult.

For profit? Lolwut.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 7:17:21 PM, malcolmxy wrote:


"liberal" is a word which means many things. Anarchism is a societal philosophy with specific tenets.

Can you name these tenets? I would think that anarchy (meaning literally the lack of a state) is also a word
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 7:24:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To be blunt, my main problem with anarchism is, idiots complain about corporations buying their freedom right now and owning the country. In an anarchism, corporations and private entities would literally OWN the country. Also, how does an anarchism work? What if the majority eventually decides they want a gov't? Do we just start from scratch all over again?