Capitalism: What do you think?

I ain't arguing... so sir, I's discussssssing.

... people follow religion, which has no logical backing... I'd rather have them follow a government's laws than the ideological laws of Muhhammmmmed.

 

So long as religious people do not force the unwilling to accept their laws what is the problem with letting those who sincerly do believe in religion to practice what they believe?

 

But that would mean there would have to be people in charge and able to have control over the others...Wait......sounds like...the government!

 

Have you not heard of the Al Qaeda, the KKK, or the Crusaders?

 

So if someone were to break into my house right now and I shot them that make me the government?

 

Did I say absolutly no religious people ever wanted to force their believes on others?

 

Yousa not too familiar with the fundementalism of Christianity and Islam, are ya?

 

While not a theologian I am familiar with religious fundamentalism. But I still do not see a problem with religious fundamentalists forming their own communities, in an anarchist society those who found such a community unacceptable could leave.

 

No, but you said...

...and those "few people" you talk about, will in fact be acting as a governing group.

 

That's exactly my point. If people do it now, have done for centuries, what's stopping them from doing it in the future and in an anarachist state? Who's to attempt to control these people without acting as a governer? And how would people deal with them?

 

They will murder the heathens.

The KKK will murder the Jews and blacks.

Jesse Jackson will plant a nuclear divice in Alabama.

George Bush will go on a rambo rampage to get every Mexican.

 

Besides the fact that there is no guarantee that such people will continue to punish people or would concern themselves with conflicts that do not directly concern them and thus no guarantee that they would form a permanent government, a government is an institution that has the monopoly on the use of force over a given territorial region that encompasses a society.

A group of people defending their community from a murderer does not fulfill these criterion and is not a government. There is a clear difference between what most people call a government and vigilantes.

 

Ergh... you are just going into semantics now.

You can call it a government, vigilantes, a clan, whatever.

It is still an organised set of people controlling or at least watching over other people, which goes against the basic concepts of anarchy.

 

why you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you don't have to be a government to pick up a gun and shoot people that are fucking up society is completely beyond me.

 

Correction it goes against your concept of anarchy. While I can't force you to accept my definition of anarchy I will point out that historically my definition is closer to what the prominent anarchist thinkers have defined it as.

 

...Wow...I don't think I have to even say anything to that.

Please don't let me be the only one who can see how idiotic that statement is...

 

"Prominent anarchist thinkers".... ahh man... that's a good one

You go on and play your anarchy game while I enjoy this representative republic.

 

You gonna pop a cap in someone's ass?

 

I am merely trying to point out how abserd it is that you guys beleive that anyone who shoots someone else magically becomes a government.

 

Did I say that?... or did you assume that?