4 ms·

That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns?

• tokenizer 13y ago
  Again, this is about the political theory of anarchism not the mainstream definition connoting chaos. Thanks for championing debate against your parent post, but to say they make an accurate description of a philosophy that challenged Franco in Catalonia, is one of the most anti-war philosophies out there, AND one of the only political philosophies that don't agree with our current structural narratives and attempts to offer solutions, is also doing it an injustice.
  • jheriko 13y ago
    i do think that in a pedantic way he is right - you can never do away with government if you define it in that way. i'm just not sure what the value of such an observation is...
    • tokenizer 13y ago
      I think there's an important distinction to make between governance and government. One being the actions that govern things, the other being an institution with monopoly on violence and tax revenue. I think this kid says it all best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q So to me a government isn't just one person, nor is it a small collective. Any other form of socialism or large scale governance that isn't based on confederation in the loosest sense with small collectives respecting each others differences, simply has too much power IMO.
• nailer 13y ago
  > You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? I'm not the OP but it seemed clear to me. Right now governments conflict with each other using guns (and missiles, and drones, etc), if/when diplomacy fails. If the law is the law of the individual, then each individual would be obligated to have his own 'defence department' if/when diplomacy fails.