DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

I agree with your stipulation that it depends on what kind of anarchist one is referring to. If we're talking about a bunch of immature and violent people who use anarchy as a shield to hide behind, then such folks are a danger. If we're talking about true anarchists — those who believe in not harming others — then they pose no threat at all and, in fact, are GOOD for society.

I believe it does. Anarchists have caused a lot of damage worldwide, especially around 100 years ago.

What do they bring that is beneficial and in what method are these actions achieved?

Anyone who wants to take the lives of innocent people don't deserve to live.

I think they would suffer more if imprisoned for life.

Being imprisoned is not living, so I guess that's fair to say.

Solitary confinement is the worst too. They all go crazy and eventually just die anyway.

So I’m guessing you do not want to be humane with them, lol can’t blame you.

Anarchists pose less of a threat to society than society does. Really, the anarchists make more and more sense every day. And Islamic terrorists aren't anarchists, neither are communist revolutionaries. They are rebels who want to set up a different form of governed society. Real anarchists don't want any government at all. I don't agree with them, but it's important to know what we're discussing.

All these terrorists that are around, are against the government. That's why they hate America so much. They pretty much are after governments, and the people suffer.

I believe that there are two extremes, and while anarchy is a horrible state to be in, the government of America is restricted the rights of Americans too much in the name of avoiding anarchy. Did you know that Obama has given himself the power to shut down any website he doesn't like. This is a page taken right out of the Nazi playbook. Step One control what people think. So I don't think America has to worry about anarchy.

You're an idiot, sorry but that is not even what you could call an anarchist society. You assume that just because Somalia is a free-for-all means that all anarchist societies will be like that. Ever heard of the Paris commune, the American-Indian societies and anarchist Catalonia in Spain during the Spanish Civil war you uneducated buffoon?

You're mentioning small sects, or communes with limited numbers of people. People who chose to be there(which is very important) What you are failing to realize is that if the entire country was a place of anarchy, i.e. somalia, then you have an entire society without law. It's not a small group of people living quietly in a commune with no formal system of government. It's a huge population and it includes, murderer, and rapists, and mafia dons, and corrupt cops, and drug dealers, and whore, and pimps. And they want a piece of the action. On a large scale an anarchist country would turn into Somalia.

But I also feel the "anarchists" here in america are mindless morons who don't actually kow what they want….

I'm sorry but you're just ignorant. Just because a society is not without a state DOES NOT mean that society will be a lawless one. As I have said before, please discern what anarchism really is all about. It's not a "fuck society" movement but rather empower the community type of movement. A state is simply replaced with society and the people themselves will be the ones to enact what rules and laws the community will follow, not brainless politicians who will rule the people from top-down.

If you want to envision how such a society functions then imagine the American -Indians with their communal living together with modern industrial technology. People work together as a whole, as a community – not for profit but for society as a whole. Cooperation, not competition is the key under an anarchist society. Again, you assume just because Somalia isn't under state rule means an anarchist society will be like that. I suggest you read what anarchism really is all about and I suggest you start with Bakounin's point of views.

Again, your example of the American indians is citing a very small sect or community. Single tribes were not huge numbers of people. Sick minded people could easily be controlled since they were such a small overall population the number of maniacs/murderers/whatever was even smaller, and thus manageable. I'm talking about a lawless society of MILLIONS of people… larger number of individuals, larger number of maniacs. The model doesn't work in a larger number, in an area of land that isn't a commune.

>>I'm talking about a lawless society of MILLIONS of people

read what I wrote, anarchism is not about a lawless society. I'm done here, this topic obviously flies above your head. Again just because there is no state DOES NOT MEAN there are no rules to follow. If you really think that Somalia is the prime example of what anarchism really is then be my guest, but I suggest you read more about the theory before you make yourself look more like an ignorant fool.

And BTW, Anarchist Catalonia is what you would hardly call a small population when it numbered MILLIONS! But you're obviously a closed-minded twit since you have already made up your mind on what anarchism is about despite not even reading on what anarchism really is all about.

Wow three insults in as many post. Well you convinced me. I completely see your point now. How can I even answer back in the face of such scathing logic.

Anarchist Catalonia lasted less than three years before it fell.
The Paris Commune lasted all of three months before getting wiped away.
It doesn't work man. It's not a long lasting system.
I read everything you wrote, I read all about the societies you pointed out. Are you that surprised that it didn't sway me to your side of the argument? I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that you don't debate, you merely insult.
Whatever, ass.

I can guarentee that zealots have caused more damage worldwide, thousand-fold.

Terrorists are not Anarchists. Terrorists aren't against any form of government, they are against democracy. Anarchists, on the other hand, are against ALL forms of government. They want absolutely NO government, NO leaders. Islamic Terrorists do have leaders, which Anarchists are against. Just because they don't like a certain countries government does not make them Anarchists. If they were, they would be called Anarchists.

Good question… Well, if Anarchists ever decided to form a Militia in the United States or Canada, then yes. But until they actually start to do stuff other then protesting and putting up posters. Then no, they aren't a problem

what about Freetown Christiania?

Terrorists can actually be against any kind of government. Terrorism is a tactic used by many kinds of people. Guerilla warfare could be called one branch of terrorism, and it has been used by people on all sides- even the side of what is commonly called "democracy".

individual anarchist and voluntaryists challenge the false dichotomies and illegal laws society has placed on itself. So there is that. Lysander Spooners challenge of the postal service is legendary. But anyone whop understands the moral philosophy of voluntaryism is probably ten times more compassionate than your average statist.