2007-12-05 05:26:56 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Only if its the correct definition of anarchy and not just the "survival of the fittest" rubbish that people confuse it with.
After all, the most successful military unit in the Spanish Civil War were the anarchists. With no elected leader they would explain to an individual in the group what needed to be done and it was up to that person if they wished to do it. Nine times out of ten the "request" was carried out. Seems to me a better debating or rationalisation of needs than other systems that supposedly do this.
2007-12-05 05:39:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Will not use the word Anarchism---but this fall some Eastern states and southern states had a meeting in Chattanooga, Tennesse for the purpose of studying the Secession Movement now afoot. I can see some political motivation for such a movement and could become a force to get the attention of the crowd in Washington.
2007-12-05 13:35:00 · answer #2 · answered by doubleolly 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whose philosophy of anarchism are you referring to? If you mean Chomsky-style libertarian socialism, I'm totally supportive of that. So what school of anarchism are you supporting?
2007-12-07 18:52:45 · answer #3 · answered by Pull My Finger 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like on Mad Max? That was an awesome set o' movies. Road Warrior was the best one.
I think it would never come to pass because if there is no govt who prevents people from organizing one of their own?
2007-12-05 13:34:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Somalia was considered an anarchistic country several years ago. I would highly doubt you would enjoy living there.
2007-12-05 13:36:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that any rational person would support total Anarchy. Who would enforce it?
2007-12-05 13:34:50 · answer #6 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
not me, but go ahead and tell me why you believe this way.
2007-12-05 13:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋