Dear anarchists,

[NGNM85]

I'd just like to point out once more, that when asked to produce an example of a prosperous, functional anarchy, this guy cited a fictional book.

First of all theres' a problem with the inherent logic of what you're saying. You're saying, or at least implying, that because you think there has never been a substantial functioning Anarchist or equivalent social structure, that means it cannot possibly exist. Even if the first presumption was true, because a thing has not been done in no way proves that it is impossible. Lots of things are impossible, until they happen. As for real world examples, several on here, myself included, brought up Post-Revolutionary Spain which I think is one of the best examples, I'd also mention as I think I had before, the Israeli Kibbutzim.

[Satanic_Surfer]

Christiaina in Denmark should qualify pretty well i think?

[wheelchairman]

Christiania is a great place to buy hash, but if I had to chose between their vigilante justice and the police, the police here would win every time.

Besides, they have their own government.

[NGNM85]

Christiaina in Denmark should qualify pretty well i think?

I forgot about that. Yeah, thats' also a great example, although much smaller than post-revolutionary Spain, it has many similar characteristics.

[NGNM85]

This is a very, very false statement. In my opinion, if you leave any two persons alone in any situation, one will eventually lead the other. Man's natural state is much more complex than that; it is more natural for the human being to form hierarchical organizations than the contraire. Another form of organization would require, in my opinion, a higher level of thinking. Better humans if you will. Almost perfect humans, one might say.

You say this as if it were incontrovertible fact. This tends to be the popular wisdom, which is not in any way a testament to it's authenticity. Also this is the position held by contemporary policymakers that the "bewildered herd" need to be brought to heel by the elite minority, "the people who own the country." That this is entirely self-serving to authoritarians alone is sufficient reason to question it's validity. (Beyond that one should just sort of look critically at everything, anyway.) I mean, I doubt you'd take a used car salesman solely at his word. Second this rests on a perception of humans as inherently savage. It's like when I argue with religious people and they keep asking the stupidest questions like "Well if you don't believe in God and sin and don't follow the ten commandments,..why don't you kill people?" I've got to say, "Think about that for a second. If the threat of eternal damnation from a mythological figure is the only thing preventing you from committing homicide that says very little about me, and speaks volumes about you."

We live in a world with enormous amounts of violence,..but why? Again, I'll cite the survey of the New York prison system which found about 75% of NY criminals came from the same seven neighborhoods, which were cesspools. Is this coincidental? Of course not. Or look at the greatest violence:war. Who STARTS wars? Politicians, but they don't fight in them. Thats' for the common rabble, and when enough of us are dead or maimed somebody declares victory and the official history is skewed in their favor and so forth. Then theres' religious violence; the crusades, spanish inquisition, if you want modern examples Al Qaeda, the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, etc. I believe it to be, and there is a very compelling case to be made, that the issue is not human nature, it's monolithic concentrations of power. That they are fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-human. That they devide us into conflicting groups, seperating and turning us on eachother.

Humans don't "disregard" power, we pursue it.

Some more than others. I'd also draw a clear distinction between power over my life and power over everybody else's.

...it only seeks to redistribute that power equally among the members of the society, which is the ultimate form of tyranny: too many people with power but no knowledge of how to use it correctly.

I have problems with this. First of all we live in such a highly managed society. Our political/historical education at least in the public system is woefully inadequate and more propaganda than anything else, our media is controlled by a handful of influential corporations who essentially tell us what the elites want us to think. People are very deliberately and systematically marginalized. This can be no indication of human potential. Also, I think the fundamentals are something everyone can understand. I'm essentially paraphrasing Chomsky, but, like, you don't need to read the Camp David accords in total or whatever to understand the Israeli Palestinian situation, anyone who can understand domestic abuse can understand the important parts. Moreover, I think the people are much farther ahead on some key issues. There are very reliable polls that show the majority of the American public want us out of the Middle East, they want national healthcare, they want better environmental protection and sustainability. then we hear from John kerry, (Who I did vote for admittedly.) that there isn't sufficient "political will." Of course he's right, among the wealthy elites, the people who actually matter. We're just supposed to accept it and be quiet. So in many respects the people are very capable. Moreover, nobody's suggesting we go immediately to a stateless society tomorrow, theres' an evolution.

This situation always gives origin to chaos and injustice. Like in an angry mob seeking "justice", without rules, without leaders, without any formal organization, bloodshed and insanity are the only certain outcome of the lack of law and law enforcement.

Again, this is a questionable assertion at best. Repeating it over and over does not make it so. It's like Larry Craig professing to be a heterosexual, you can't spin it into reality, unless we want to go into metaphysics which is a whole different ball of wax. There have been plenty of solid, real world examples that would indicate the contrary, several examples have been cited, by others, too.