Hunters are 'serial killers'.

[Hepcat]

I would imagine that any attempt at a debate would be met with a wave of insults, rantings and usual anarchist rubbish. You may as well ask the animals for their opinions because you would get a much more reasoned statement.

For example:
"So Mr duck, what is your opinion of hunting and the effects on the ecology. There are those who claim that murdering animals should be a crime. What do you say to that?"
Quack

There, that is much more sensible than anything the Greens have to say.

[doc_bean]

See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals !

Liberty or death ? Not for cats !

[Aenlic]

These Green nutjobs give anarchism a bad name.

I somehow missed all of the anti-anarchism posts. I feel obligated to correct some misconceptions.

Anarchism as a political system is not the same thing as anarchy used as another word for chaos. The far too common misconception that anarchism = no order and no government is a sad result of the word anarchy having come to mean violent every-man-for-himself chaos. Thus Lemur's comment about Road Warrior. I can understand why people make that error. Anarchy in common usage has come to mean lack of government, lack of order, lack of society. By that isn't anything resembling anarchism as a political system. It doesn't mean violent chaos. It doesn't mean a bunch of snot-nosed punk rockers who just want to be obnoxious and have no rules.

Also, anarchism - and I'm going to repeat again, this is in the usage of anarchy as a political system not the misconception of it meaning no goverment and no order - does not mean anti-society. In fact, anarchism is all about society. See the first quote in my sig. That sums up the anarchist view. Society is good. Government is bad. But government is a necessary evil. How do anarchists deal with that? By reversing the hierarchy. Instead of rule from the top down as in most political systems including so-called "representative" democracy, anarchism - as a political system, not as a another word for chaos - is all about rule from the bottom up. The essence of anarchist political theory is democracy and freedom. See the second quote in my sig by the so-called "father" of anarchist thought.

And communism is no more or less utopian and idealistic than free market capitalism. Show me a true free market and I'll show you a capitalist economy in which one corporation or a cartel of companies which has not yet managed to drive all of its competitors out of business so it can eliminate the costs of a free market and profit from a monopoly or price fixing or laws protecting it from a free market. Free markets are purely transitory, they can't be the end product of a system which encourages and even rewards the elimination competitors. Any corporation which says it prefers a free market over a monopoly is lying.

If you are still confused over why anarchism is not the same thing as anarchy=chaos, then feel free to read this Anarchist FAQ.

[Hepcat]

But it won't work. Give me an example of somewhere where anarchists have enacted an effective government.

[Aenlic]

Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.

If you want to learn more about the anarchists in Catalonia, you can read a book which fondly remembers it all by someone who was there during that period. The book is called Homage to Catalonia, written by Eric Arthur Blair under his pen name, George Orwell.

And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...

Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions

Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.

Ready. Begin.

[Redleg]

Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.

Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.

And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...

Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions

No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.

Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.

Ready. Begin.

The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.

The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

[Aenlic]

Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.

I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.

No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.

And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.

The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.

Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.

The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.

Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?

And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.

[King Henry V]

See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals !

Liberty or death ? Not for cats !

I just love the unrelenting BS that these people write:

We don't have pets in our home. We have a family of companion animals. What is the rationale of your position? What would you offer as a resolution to the negative consequences of not having any means of population control for these animals? They are not able to consider these consequences themselves, let alone resolve them. That's our responsibility. Really, this is quite serious.

Companion animals have the right to a comfortable, dignified, quality life and it is our responsibility to provide that. You use the expression "wipe out." Do you believe spaying/neutering is some form of passive biocide/genocide? If so, consider the active extermination of those poor animals who have spent their last hours of life pressed against the cage doors waiting for some one to take them to a home and care for them.

Who is to blame for that? If you want a really poignant answer, ask those who are in the position of having to deal with this miserable situation on a routine basis. The grief they feel provides them with a ready answer, I'll tell you that! Please reconsider your position, Carrot. If you can't, then you and others who oppose spaying/neutering: Get busy and find all these innocent victims a home!

Sounds like an ironic caricature of the worst type PC word wrangling, yet the funniest thing is that it's true!

Hey, who wants to have some fun and form a kind of alliance to go and annoy these snotty nosed greenies?