Talk:Anarchy/Archive1

Philosophical angle
This article doesn't really address the philosophical deez nuts angle of anarchism at all. I'll have to add something about that when I feel motivated.--Bobbing up 14:27, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Reality angle
This article is irational and based on faith in the present order, confirmation bias, as it were. 19:21, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * As the author of this article, I object to the anonymous and badly-spelled slur on my good character. It is based on time-honored and repeated empirical observations of the nature of any anarchic system.  Seriously, have you seen the mess in Somalia/Iraq/etc.? Researcher 22:41, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * As an anarchist and a human fairly skilled at spelling, I must object to how your article repeatedly insults myself and those in whose footsteps I have chosen to follow. I don't have time to do a very detailed follow-up at the moment, but I assure you such as Emma Goldman probably had a better concept of reality than either you or I. Yes, anarchists are idealists who dare only dream of accomplishing all their goals, for the most part - but in many ways, we've come quite far, in the United States at least. Freedom of the individual is our goal. Is it incomprehensible that we might have a cooperative society which does not rob its members of their fundamental rights? Indeed, anarchy's ultimate goal may be utopian, but we can work to free the minds, needs, and conduct of individuals from government control in many more practical fashions. Anarchic systems of education have proven at least, if not more, effective than traditional schooling (Montessori method and "unschooling" being examples; see Francisco Ferrer). Please look into this further; I'll try and help...eventually. Assume a!=a 17:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)
 * As a political scientist, I stand by my observation about anarchic systems. There has yet to be any kind of anarchic system on a large scale that has worked.  (Some small, Utopian communities where everyone is there by choice don't count as a "large scale.")  Perhaps it is possible for humanity to change and for anarchism to be possible in the future--I expect that most people in the Middle Ages would have considered a system like the United States (with it's emphasis on impersonal law and rights) to be a dramatic failure as well.  But, for now, all evidence points otherwise.  (For the record, I am somewhat familiar with Goldman, as well as other anarchic variants.  I'm not convinced.) Researcher 04:04, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Problem here is, you're not taking it from an objective view point. Ok. You're a political scientist. But so was Rothbard, Nozick, Von Mises (well, an economist, but pretty solid in politics), among hundreds of others. What of Francois Tremblay? What of Pierre Proudhon? What of Mikhail Bakunin? Are we to just reject the actual insights and arguments of Anarchism because you perceive it as utopian? Jesus Christ man, you called Marxists anarchist, when they're nothing even close! Marxists and Anarchists have a history for being at each others throats, and for good reason! To even act like you have some sort of authority to decide what is and isn't a tenet of anarchism is just sheer unacademic. AnarchoJesse
 * Another space I shall watch with some interest.--Bobbing up 17:04, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Ireland??
How does the country that provides so many awesome legends about kings count as anarchy?? Researcher 01:31, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Check wikipedia: says it was anarchist with source and which says the kings you speak of were elected prior to feudal times:

In historical times, the offices of high and low kings in Ireland and Scotland were filled by election under the system of tanistry, which eventually came into conflict with the feudal principle of primogeniture where the succession goes to the first born son.

139.133.7.37 10:15, 5 April 2008 (EDT)