I let the first anarchy article slip by me since it was a new item and despite technical errors I wanted to see an anarchy article published.
I won't let this one, however. Even if it is satire. QPT, you REALLY need to do a better job of explaining this as I fear the average person is going to read this, say "Yeah, he's right" and then move on without reading comments. Or you'll get people like me that almost vote it down cause it has the term "capitalist pig-dogs".
And, my official refutation in case anyone does agree with what he has to say:
Destroying the world's governments will only be the first step; remember, anarchy is not merely freedom from laws and government, but freedom from all forms of coercion.
Wrong. The true definition of anarchy states nothing regarding rejection of anything but government. Granted, there are different breeds of anarchy, but not all of them believe that more than government should be rejected. In order to establish your claim you must also refute the existence of anarcho-capitalists (of which I've been called a number of times due to my opposition of legislation and proposition of litigation with strict tort laws).
Our task is a daunting one, however. Between the world and anarchy, there are millions of aggressive capitalist pig-dogs with guns.
Unh-hunh. I'm sure that every successful capitalist owns a gun, and I'm quite certain that every owner of a gun is a successful capitalist. Try again if you agree with qpt's statement on this.
I've yet to hear the theory of anarchy working when the anarchists (or others) don't use tools of destruction to achieve it. I think the best hope for a world-wide turn to anarchy would be world-wide mass slaughter by a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. Since I don't advocate the usages of such a weapon, I think that anarchy is a ways off yet.
Once anarcho-socialists or socialists themselves turn militant in the same respect that facists do, it would represent a *significant* change however, and would lead to some interesting results worldwide. I still think this is a long ways off yet, though.
Only when anarchists hold the majority of power in the world's governments will it be possible to permanently outlaw coercion.
Let's see, Libertarians (who are organized) have had only a small affect on big government. A bunch of anarcho-socialists are going to accomplish something before then? I hope anarcho-socialists *never* feel they are going to hold "majority power", but qpt might be right.
It would make sense to me that if Libertarians start to pick up votes like they have been, eventually some will get elected, and there is the possibility that the Republican party would be usurped, including a lot of Democrats that aren't "tax and spend". The natural reaction to that would be that an anarcho-socialist party would arrise (Maybe a collection of Socialists, Greens, and Democrats) to form the Libertarian political rival. At some point the parties would probably become reminenscent of today's Republican and Democrat parties, but there'd be a while of low government coercion bliss that we'd benefit from, assuming the parties stuck to their principles, something I'm quite certain Libertarians are prepared to do at least till they start to *lose* elections after holding them for a long time.
Gaining power will be easier than one might suppose, since politicians and voters alike are exceedingly foolish. After all, were they otherwise, they would be anarchists.
Yeah.. if you're not an anarchist, you're a fool! Telling people they are fools is *not* going to make them empathetic towards your cause. I would hope anarchists don't believe this way.
Obviously, then, the revolutionaries must establish an organization to forcibly oversee the absence of coercion. This company must be ever vigilant, and ready to stamp out the first sight of organized bullying, wherever it might appear on the world scene. While this proposal may seem paradoxical, it is best to ignore any apparent inconsistencies. When anarchy is forced upon the world, all of humanity will be far too overjoyed to be put off by the fact that our glorious strategy does not make any sense at all.
I haven't been able to discern satire from anything else lately.