Originally Posted by Odin

People have differing opinions about what is moral and just and so there would be chaos if too many people ignored laws they disagreed with, that's how civil wars start.

I see what you're getting at, but that's some independent criteria. If the Titanic hits an iceberg and some random charismatic person is organizing everybody and telling people where to go, it might be right to follow his orders, even if you disagree with what he is saying, because the cost of confusion is too high at that moment.

If you don't agree with a law you try to convince enough people (via civil disobedience, such as the Underground Railroad, or smoking a joint, or dumping tea into Boston Harbor, if necessary) to push through what you think is right, or at the very least force a compromise. Just because I obey a law doesn't mean I agree with it.

This is what I'm getting at about surrendering your moral autonomy. Conforming to government laws simply because they are government laws (I'm not accusing you of this) is an acceptance of the State's claim to authority over your person; i.e., the kind of authority where compliance is expected of the State's subjects because they are the ones who are ruled. Now, most reasonable people in modern society, after a little bit of prodding, would probably wind up rejecting the notion that the State should have supreme authority over the individual because it seems like we have moral obligations that transcend government. But that still doesn't mean that people act that way in their daily lives.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Justin



I taught in the Detroit inner city for 34 years and I can say with complete honesty that there are plenty of people who would be more than willing to do all sorts of terrible things on a daily basis if there were no laws against them and all they had to do was overpower a victim. I can imagine the rejoicing in gang culture should such an anarcho/libertarian dream ever come to pass.

Its a society I would never want to live in. I do not want to become a living character in a Tennessee Williams story who depends on the kindness of strangers not to take advantage of me and my family.

I tend to agree with this. True anarchy to me is the worst possible scenario. There is a reason that government exists in the first place. A world with no government at all is simply chaos. People would simply band together into tribes and gangs to provide protection, which is pseudo-government anyway. It seems to me that anarchists tend to forget that there are bad people in this world. You want to see what anarchy looks like, simply look at the various third world countries around the globe, does that look appealing to anyone?

Now if the anarchists around here are talking about removing the federal gov't and simply relying on state or local level gov't, well, even that just seems like a step back as well. It'd be like the dark ages all over again with small tribes and factions constantly warring over territory and resources. I don't see any advantages in going backwards.

If any anarchists around here would like to explain their position to me I'd be glad to hear it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Justin



I taught in the Detroit inner city for 34 years and I can say with complete honesty that there are plenty of people who would be more than willing to do all sorts of terrible things on a daily basis if there were no laws against them and all they had to do was overpower a victim. I can imagine the rejoicing in gang culture should such an anarcho/libertarian dream ever come to pass.

Its a society I would never want to live in. I do not want to become a living character in a Tennessee Williams story who depends on the kindness of strangers not to take advantage of me and my family.

I've read of a study that said that 35% of college-aged males would commit rape if they could get away with it!!! Look at all the people that non-nonchalantly flout the traffic laws because they know the risk of getting caught is low (something that drives my aspie self nuts, the traffic laws are LAWS, not guidelines! ). There are plenty of people whose moral sense is stuck in the "fear of punishment" phase.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The classic moral position on disobeying laws on moral grounds is this: You do so in order to change a bad law, in full knowledge and acceptance of the penalties, in order to make a moral point, and you follow through with that. That is, the Selma marchers were quite prepared to go to jail for their beliefs, and Nelson Mandela accepted imprisonment for 28 years, even as he fought - from prison - to have the apartheid laws changed.

Nothing I have seen or heard either in person or in debate has persuaded me to change my mind on that subject.

I agree completely!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It also reflects a profound misunderstanding of human beings and society as a whole. People share -- even from shortly after birth, it is starting to be shown -- a vast commonality on the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. When one looks not at people in all, but at groups of people all raised in a similar social context, that commonality is even stronger. Accepting the justice of people ignoring rules they found wrong would (assuming they were not being insulated from the consequences of their actions in their society) hardly change the main of human interaction at all.

I would agree that people do share an intuitive 'golden rule' basic understanding of right and wrong... within their own social group. As the Stanford experiment shows, this basic understanding falls apart entirely if individuals are understood to be hostile, from outside one's own tribe. If one creates a single society -- where all consider each other brothers, sisters, comrades, whatever -- the golden rule will basically apply. However, maintaining a feeling that all men are brothers, that humanity is one big happy family, is not a trivial exercise. Not everyone is ready to sing Kumbyah. People certainly won't all suddenly spontaneously all start singing Kumbyah together on a shared whim. It will require a lot of work. One might argue it to be an impossible utopian goal. There are lots of deep seated historical reasons why this group of people dislikes that group of people. Such history isn't going to be lightly forgotten.

If one abandons the notion of creating a single society with a single set of rules that applies to all... it will all fall apart. See the Stanford experiment, Abu Ghraib or the Rape of Nanking. Mankind is capable of hating, of causing great harm to one another. Visit the Spiral of Violence thread again. People standing on principle can convince themselves it is also quite proper to stand on the other guy's throat.

I am not saying that the modern state is the only possible way to harness the basic hunter-gatherer drives that structure human civilization. There is much room for change and improvement. I'd just suggest one might get closer to utopia working with the hunter gatherer imperatives rather than trying to fight the patterns they enable.

Meanwhile, I'll sure listen to any practical suggestions on how to reduce coercion or make tax schemes more fair.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That is the very definition of "surrendering moral authority"

It also reflects a profound misunderstanding of human beings and society as a whole. People share -- even from shortly after birth, it is starting to be shown -- a vast commonality on the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. When one looks not at people in all, but at groups of people all raised in a similar social context, that commonality is even stronger. Accepting the justice of people ignoring rules they found wrong would (assuming they were not being insulated from the consequences of their actions in their society) hardly change the main of human interaction at all.
Think about it: would you, or anyone you personally know, simply jump right into murdering and pillaging if the laws against those were removed? If 'all' they had to suffer from injuring others was the hatred of the people around them, the possibility of one of their would-be victims taking action against them, and the awareness that society in the main would approve of what the victim did to them?

People are social creatures. That means that we are hard-wired (to the extent that that phrase has any meaning) to operate in society -- in fact, that social relations are a necessary resultant of us being together.

the sociopaths and other amoral types would band together and terrorize the rest.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

You want to see what anarchy looks like, simply look at the various third world countries around the globe, does that look appealing to anyone?

I must say, your logic is astounding!

If any anarchists around here would like to explain their position to me I'd be glad to hear it.

Well if your definition of anarchism is "the state of affairs that exists in third-world countries," "a reversion to state and local governments," or "forgetting that there are some bad people in this world," then I am equally glad to provide an explanation:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Tucker

This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men [sic*] should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

*though Tucker was normally quite good on gender for a man in his day

Originally Posted by Odin

I've read of a study that said that 35% of college-aged males would commit rape if they could get away with it!!! Look at all the people that non-nonchalantly flout the traffic laws because they know the risk of getting caught is low (something that drives my aspie self nuts, the traffic laws are LAWS, not guidelines! ). There are plenty of people whose moral sense is stuck in the "fear of punishment" phase.

Horrible, no? People behave selfishly and stupidly today because things like community and respect for persons are drowned out in a culture of statism and rule by force, economic, political, and social inequity, corporate liberalism and consumerism, militarism, a trio of sexism, racism, and classism that is fostered by powerful interests, and so on. Fear of punishment has replaced love thy neighbor as a code of action, and I'd be lying in anarchism didn't have a thing or two to say about these things.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I must say, your logic is astounding!

Well if your definition of anarchism is "the state of affairs that exists in third-world countries," "a reversion to state and local governments," or "forgetting that there are some bad people in this world," then I am equally glad to provide an explanation:



*though Tucker was normally quite good on gender for a man in his day

Why thank you I thought my logic was quite good as well.

Human nature does not allow true anarchism to work. The only logical conclusion of anarchism is a rough, brutal way of life. Honestly, what makes you think, in the however many thousands of years that people have walked the earth, that people can possibly coexist without some type of government keeping them from slaughtering each other? People aren't like animals. They don't kill for only what they need. People are greedy, selfish. They want more, more, more.

Government is necessary. Whether it is officially accredited as "the state" or not, some type of central authority is necessary even if it is only on the local level. Again, just look at history to see how well anarchy works. Not everyone is enlightened enough to peacefully coexist for any long period of time, in fact very very few are. And those that are enlightened will simply be killed by those not so nice people who decide you have something that they want.

Look I'm all for maximum freedom wherever possible. I share many of the same beliefs as libertarians. I'm all for maximum personal freedom. But we also have to have freedom from each other.

Again, please explain to me how it would be possible for anarchism to work in the real world.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Horrible, no? People behave selfishly and stupidly today because things like community and respect for persons are drowned out in a culture of statism and rule by force, economic, political, and social inequity, corporate liberalism and consumerism, militarism, a trio of sexism, racism, and classism that is fostered by powerful interests, and so on. Fear of punishment has replaced love thy neighbor as a code of action, and I'd be lying in anarchism didn't have a thing or two to say about these things.

You have a much more positive view of human nature than I do. Probably a socioeconomic difference, I grew up in an economically depressed rural area. You, IIRC, grew up in a decently well-off suburban area.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

Human nature does not allow true anarchism to work. The only logical conclusion of anarchism is a rough, brutal way of life. Honestly, what makes you think, in the however many thousands of years that people have walked the earth, that people can possibly coexist without some type of government keeping them from slaughtering each other? People aren't like animals. They don't kill for only what they need. People are greedy, selfish. They want more, more, more.

Huh. Not only do you not know people; you also don't know animals, either (hint: animals are just as greedy and selfish -- plus they lack the strong instinct to form society that people have).

As for the main point where you miss people, it is simple enough to point out that civilization arose prior to government (this is practically tautalogical, since without the trappings of society, the concept of 'government' is meaningless). Therefore, history itself demonstrates -- in fact, has several times -- that lack of government not only does not equal chaos, but in fact is one of the preconditions for order to arise and increase in the first place.

The rest of your post is simply reasserting in various forms your basic incorrect postulate. You end, however, with

please explain to me how it would be possible for anarchism to work in the real world.

I've learned, talking to ideologues of your stripe, that the question is meaninglessly broad without some commonly-established concrete sense of how you are using the word 'work'. Responses can run the gamut (depending on what you are trying to ask) from:

No statist system has ever 'worked', either.

to

The way an-archic social dealings 'work' today, all the time, in my, yours,... everyone's lives.

with quite a bit in between.

Please clarify your question so we can be sure we are not wasting time speaking at cross-purposes with each other.

Originally Posted by Odin

You have a much more positive view of human nature than I do.

I fail to see how one's opinion of 'human nature' makes a difference at all. The better one presume human beings are, at base, the less the argument that they need to be ruled holds sway. The worse one presumes that human beings are, at base, the more absurd it is to propose institutionalizing the power of some of them over others.

And in the case of 'humans at large are scum', then a democracy (wherein merely the greater number rule) would be absolutely the worst of all possible options. Even a random dictator might end up not being as bad as humanity-in-general; but a democracy is always going to tend in the direction of human nature.

Wrong the anarchist position may be, but unlike what is argued against it, it at least has the virtue of being internally consistent.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've read of a study that said that 35% of college-aged males would commit rape if they could get away with it!!! Look at all the people that non-nonchalantly flout the traffic laws because they know the risk of getting caught is low (something that drives my aspie self nuts, the traffic laws are LAWS, not guidelines! ). There are plenty of people whose moral sense is stuck in the "fear of punishment" phase.

It is equally human nature to make rules and break them. So therefore it is equally human nature to make governments and break them.

Thus may the Microcosom and Macrocosom be proclaimed. For humans neither desire an overbearing parental figure of a government nor the death and absence of such a figure. People would rather have a government there to fall back upon when times are hard, and throw off its yoke when times are good. To each its own season and turning. Thus it has been and unless we either turn animal (Anarchist) or robot (Statist) neither extremist state of government which you all argue and debate about shall come to pass.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well if your definition of anarchism is "the state of affairs that exists in third-world countries," "a reversion to state and local governments," or "forgetting that there are some bad people in this world," then I am equally glad to provide an explanation:

I think we had all best differentiate between...

1. The perhaps mythical Garden of Eden state of nature sort of anarchy that might have existed before history or the state,*
2. The failed state ugly historical anarchy that occurs fairly regularly in the real world, and
3. the benevolent future utopian anarchy which some people believe might come.

The word 'anarchy' might appropriately be applied to any of the three, but alleging that one who seeks a future utopia is actually advocating a failed state would seem to me to be a strawman argument.

To avoid confusion, I have been and will continue to refer to 'failed state anarchy' and 'benevolent anarchy' as two entirely different things. If anyone would care to suggest clearer or more politically correct labels, I'll listen.

I do note that Al Qaeda sometimes uses a strategy of making it impossible for existing states to function, then sending in 'charity' organizations that perform the tasks the government is not being allowed to perform. Thus, creating anarchy is sometimes a deliberate strategy, the short term creation of chaos in order to eventually create a theocratic totalitarian state.

But I don't believe anyone here would approve of that flavor of anarchy.

________

* Note. I'm not convinced that the state of nature pre history flavor of anarchy ever existed.

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

Human nature does not allow true anarchism to work. The only logical conclusion of anarchism is a rough, brutal way of life. Honestly, what makes you think, in the however many thousands of years that people have walked the earth, that people can possibly coexist without some type of government keeping them from slaughtering each other? People aren't like animals. They don't kill for only what they need. People are greedy, selfish. They want more, more, more.

Look, there's no point in us having a discussion if we're going to be talking past each other. I have a strong aversion toward arguments that assume an immutable human nature that emphasizes bad behavior: it is philosophically and scientifically unsound. I'm also not fond of historical illiteracy and absurdism. People have walked the earth without government preventing them from killing each other. That's what we do. (There are also plenty of historical examples of anarchism, and they fare better than you (and Bob) think.)

Government is necessary.

For what?

Again, please explain to me how it would be possible for anarchism to work in the real world.

What Justin said. Having heard this type of question before, I think I have an idea of what you are saying. To get this across quickly, I will say that the absence of government does not mean the absence of rights-protection. There would almost certainly be associations and institutions intended to deal with criminal actions.

Originally Posted by Odin

You have a much more positive view of human nature than I do. Probably a socioeconomic difference, I grew up in an economically depressed rural area. You, IIRC, grew up in a decently well-off suburban area.

Yeah, Fairfield County. Ugh... Not the best place to get a glimpse of the good in humans.

But, again, I don't like arguments that assert that humans are "naturally" bad or good. Social environments and human cognitive capability matter more than wiring.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

But, again, I don't like arguments that assert that humans are "naturally" bad or good. Social environments and human cognitive capability matter more than wiring.

It's not really about people being (or inherently tending towards) 'good' or 'bad'. The primary fact is that people are fundamentally social. That means that, whatever is hard-wired -- to the extent that it is, which it turns out is quite a bit -- into people, it makes them tend rather strongly to do things which result in the creating and maintenance among themselves of society.

That is, people are not necessarily (or at least, do not have to be) good or bad; they will nevertheless always come up with ways to live with each other. It's what we do. Bats use their sonar to catch bugs; octopi change color to hide better; people create order from nothing [more than themselves].

What's more, the fact that we're still here doing it after several thousands of generations' competition with other survival strategies sort of strongly hints that we do it well, and that (as I have posited elsewhere) civilization is a successful survival trait. Which itself tends to support the contention that, with the possible exception of a relatively insignificant number of truly defectives, every person has the civilization trait.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Look, there's no point in us having a discussion if we're going to be talking past each other. I have a strong aversion toward arguments that assume an immutable human nature that emphasizes bad behavior: it is philosophically and scientifically unsound. I'm also not fond of historical illiteracy and absurdism. People have walked the earth without government preventing them from killing each other. That's what we do. (There are also plenty of historical examples of anarchism, and they fare better than you (and Bob) think.)

For what?

What Justin said. Having heard this type of question before, I think I have an idea of what you are saying. To get this across quickly, I will say that the absence of government does not mean the absence of rights-protection. There would almost certainly be associations and institutions intended to deal with criminal actions.

Forget it. This is stupid. I'm tired of debating. I don't know why you feel the need to insult my intelligence and knowledge of history. But whatever. That's fine, you can go be an anarchist as long as you like. It doesn't make any difference in my life. I wish I hadn't gotten sucked into a ridiculous theoretical ideology debate in the first place.

It's kinda funny actually. A lot of my own beliefs actually match up with with libertarianism. I believe in maximum personal freedom wherever possible (if you want to put a label on it, a center-left social libertarian). I simply believe that government does fill an important role and I feel that pretty much any institution that provides these needs will become somewhat of a pseudo-government anyway, whether it's labeled as such or not.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's not really about people being (or inherently tending towards) 'good' or 'bad'. The primary fact is that people are fundamentally social. That means that, whatever is hard-wired -- to the extent that it is, which it turns out is quite a bit -- into people, it makes them tend rather strongly to do things which result in the creating and maintenance among themselves of society.

That is, people are not necessarily (or at least, do not have to be) good or bad; they will nevertheless always come up with ways to live with each other. It's what we do. Bats use their sonar to catch bugs; octopi change color to hide better; people create order from nothing [more than themselves].

What's more, the fact that we're still here doing it after several thousands of generations' competition with other survival strategies sort of strongly hints that we do it well, and that (as I have posited elsewhere) civilization is a successful survival trait. Which itself tends to support the contention that, with the possible exception of a relatively insignificant number of truly defectives, every person has the civilization trait.

This sounds exactly right to me. This is what I was trying to say in my posts, but I guess I just did a bad job at putting it in writing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It's not really about people being (or inherently tending towards) 'good' or 'bad'. The primary fact is that people are fundamentally social. That means that, whatever is hard-wired -- to the extent that it is, which it turns out is quite a bit -- into people, it makes them tend rather strongly to do things which result in the creating and maintenance among themselves of society.

That is, people are not necessarily (or at least, do not have to be) good or bad; they will nevertheless always come up with ways to live with each other. It's what we do. Bats use their sonar to catch bugs; octopi change color to hide better; people create order from nothing [more than themselves].

What's more, the fact that we're still here doing it after several thousands of generations' competition with other survival strategies sort of strongly hints that we do it well, and that (as I have posited elsewhere) civilization is a successful survival trait. Which itself tends to support the contention that, with the possible exception of a relatively insignificant number of truly defectives, every person has the civilization trait.

It is not as simple or as a one dimensional notion that people can be put on a line with perfectly pure good on one end, vile evil on the other, and that the broad general distribution is towards good. An individual might love, cherish, protect and share with those he loves, and at the same time oppress, threaten, harm and kill any who might be seen as opposed to those he loves and his desired way of life. I tend to believe that 'large' or 'great' men who do much moving and shaping societies are both loving and hating at the same time, doing much for their own people, while crushing others. Review prior crises for examples. Taxation with representation is tyranny. No compromise with slavery. Four Freedoms, everywhere in the world.

I thus agree that mankind has civilizing traits. I believe the anarchists would do well to learn a good bit more about what these traits are, and work knowledge of them into their arguments.

Modern states are expressions of these civilizing traits. Many social structures use the modern state to protect and enable those loved, while suppressing those that are threats or hated. Leadership, discipline, affection among the group, hatred of the other, an urge to unite and protect... Many emotions push humans towards states in a traditional cultural 'that's how we've always done it' way. Social inertia is not a trivial force. Conservatives groups clinging to traditional norms of how things have always been done is also very human. Bodies at rest are going to stay at rest unless one provides a great all mighty shove. A progressive of any stripe trying to move the culture up hill is going to have to drag a bunch of kicking and screaming conservatives up that hill. Humans form groups which select leaders that establish cultural norms. If the cultural norms aren't ideal, well, start forming a group, select a leader, and push for new norms. Lotsa luck. When forming your new group, don't forget the notion that the Confederate south 'died of a theory' that government power should be decentralized and weak.

Modern states aren't necessarily the best of all possible ways to do things. I'm a whiggish believer in progress. I'll be the last to say we shouldn't be striving for better. It's just that I don't believe we will move off current methods for nurturing those we love while suppressing those we hate until advocates for some new path can more clearly articulate something better. At this point, I might argue that the best way to support and spread benevolent anarchy would be to argue against benevolent anarchy, and continue to do so until the arguments for it become vaguely coherent and maybe even convincing.

Both Matt and Justin seem to be arguing from a theoretical perspective based on certain assumptions about how they view people both as individuals and as larger members of groups. They believe certain things and then make conclusions about the larger world we live in based on those beliefs and axioms. Some here have expressed frustration with the increasing abstract nature of this position. I join in that.

To both Matt and Justin..... can you show through actual historical evidence that anarchistic societies of large numbers of people living in relatively close proximity to one another in the Industrial and Technological age of man have actually existed and provided security and peace for the people who live there?

Without such evidence to show it was and is possible in the world we live in, it is all just wishful thinking as one very perceptive poster wrote last week.

So how about it Matt and Justin? Where is the evidence that you can have a anarchistic society in the modern world and such a anarchistic society can indeed be peaceful, secure and orderly?

Originally Posted by Jordan '88

This sounds exactly right to me. This is what I was trying to say in my posts, but I guess I just did a bad job at putting it in writing.

No problem. I, myself, eleven years ago still lacked the mad writing skillz I display now. Practice, practice as they say.

Of course, if we both see the fundamental situation in the same way, it becomes even more interesting to see how you end up concluding from it that humans must be ruled (by humans, natch) or else everything civilized will collapse. I mean, that's pretty counter-historical and counter-evidential...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

To both Matt and Justin..... can you show through actual historical evidence that anarchistic societies of large numbers of people living in relatively close proximity to one another in the Industrial and Technological age of man have actually existed and provided security and peace for the people who live there?

Is that your standard of 'work'ing? "providing peace and security for the people who live there"? (No even moderately informed sane person would argue that non-state societies never 'existed'...)

How about you start out, then, by identifying for me a single statist society that was able to achieve your target. Then we'll see how the various non-state societies measure up against your baseline (if you can even find one).

from Justin

No even moderately informed sane person would argue that non-state societies never 'existed'...

Most excellent Justin. That should make your job very easy then to cite the evidence of such. Again, my challenge to you

To both Matt and Justin..... can you show through actual historical evidence that anarchistic societies of large numbers of people living in relatively close proximity to one another in the Industrial and Technological age of man have actually existed and provided security and peace for the people who live there?

And I will accept your challenge....sure. And I do not demand perfection which is not possible with human beings. So I will not hold you to an impossible standard.

I am 60 years old and have lived in the USA for that entire time. For me, and for the vast majority of the people here, we have lived in peace and security for the vast majority of that time.

So there you have it, the USA of today.

Your turn to demonstrate an anarchistic based society without government that can boast of the same economic, social and other standards as evidenced in the USA... or you can include other nations like England, France, Germany, Japan if the USA is too high of a standard for you to meet...... more or less.

Justin - I do not want this to be a game of "gotcha". That is silly. Just show me where we have a society which seems to get along rather well under anarchy.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Most excellent Justin. That should make your job very easy then to cite the evidence of such. Again, my challenge to you

We'll get to that in a second. (below)

I am 60 years old and have lived in the USA for that entire time. For me, and for the vast majority of the people here, we have lived in peace and security for the vast majority of that time.

So there you have it, the USA of today.

So, if I get you right, you want an example of a stateless society that, in the course of 60 years' time, managed to build up, then collapse (or are we not including the last decade in those '60 years'?) a house-of-cards economic system; one that saw a continually-increasing gap between the richest and the poorest; one where the middle class inexorably slumped from hope to debt-slavery. A stateless society that featured race riots, despoiling of lands, waters, and air, and the growth of a prison population to outstrip by several times any other rivals. A stateless society that, from behind the practically impenetrable shield of thousands-mile-wide oceans, attacked and invaded nineteen countries, killing several millions in total to keep at bay threats (real, imagined, what difference?) to its peaceful way of life? The one where, today, goons with badges are empowered to torture and kill with impunity?

That's the bar you really want to set?

If so, then the only real difficult condition you put forth is the '60 years duration' one. What time periods am I allowed to pull from?

Justin - I do not want this to be a game of "gotcha". That is silly.

What an absurd thing to say. All you do in your postings addressed to your feared libertarian and//or anarchist boogeymen is play 'gotcha'.