I don't have ask how serious a question that might be -- people are fighting flamewars over it right now. Out on the Left, people have bled and died answering it, after framin' some of the most preposterous definitions I've yet to read.
But geesh, what a stupid question. Either you're the kind of anarchist who will leave other people be, or you're some kinda archist and it doesn't make any diffo how jet-black is your flag.
--If you followed the first link above, it describes all manner of expropriation and non-consensual pushing-around bein' done by self-styled "anarchists." It's the sort of thing that makes a limited government look like one heckuva good idea. The problem is, they don't stay limited. Which is how come I call myself an anarchist -- and why I'm willin' to go along, reluctantly, with a certain small amount of government. Would 1% of what we've got now be enough for you? Could we significantly reduce sovereign immunity and occasionally hang the bastards when they get outta line? Pleeeeze?
Me, I wouldn't like even that much government. But I'd like bein' herded into a Workers Syndicate a lot less. Surprise, it turns out the purpose of the world is not to make me happy -- or you, either. That, we've got to work out for ourselves.
Introduction to Sim
1 month ago