Anarchism

[Something completely different]

Nothing personaly, but over a period of time i have started to dislike people who use "quotes" to underline their points.
This mans quote, might be in terms with this man`s views.
But I am certain you are aware that people oftern missuse quotes.
Which is why, when the works of a individual, perfectly explain my point.
I quote the book and give a clear description on where to find that quote.
I`m not going to demand from you to end quoting your favorite philosophers daily conversations. But if you believe that you have read the works of an individual who perfectly underlines your views.
I politly ask you to quote that book, and if that is not possible (which i would understand) leave me title, author and publisher.
Yes I would actualy be ready to read into that if it would help me understand a point.
small quotes or quotations from small conversations, can be used in so many dishonest ways, that in time i have simply started to ignore them when they are used to represent a individual point of view.
You might not be one of those, in which case i ask you to provide titles of studies of your philosophy.

@ The_Germans_are_coming
Statism (French: étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Statism might ideologicaly be the opposite of anarchy, but from a objective point of view, they are not that different.
The one tries to enforce all under collective , the other tries to force everyone out of collectives.
The "force" stays within the description, in both ideologies there`s no space for a pragmatist, nor for any change. You cant choose a middle way, one has to accept one of both extrems.
A democracy in which the current state of affairs can change and policies concerning influence of collective actions can be weakend or strenghtend with the change of the administration is missing.
And change of administration is a necessity within a functioning sociaty.

You don't live in a totalitarian state huh? What happens if you don't pay your taxes? An anarchist won't show up at your door with a gun to lock you in a cage, but men in suits will.

But i can choose to demand that i am no longer willing to pay taxes within the framework a democracy offers. If i am convincing enought to get votes, i can then abolish taxes, if this results in success, it will be seen as such by the public and other elected goverments will not change that "progress".
If this policie is a failure, the upcoming election will depose me and the "failed" policies will be undone.
This is the great benefit of a democracy which no other totalitarian aproach to create an utopia can offer, the concept of change in case of failure, which keeps ideologies from inforcing their utopia.

Also, my idea of a utopian society isn't one that's "perfect", but "free". You've still yet to explain as to what reason government has a right to enforce these rules upon me. You cannot, because they have no right to. Therefore, my point that a "free" society is the only "fair" society stands.

ohhh come on. your just playing with words again, like an addvertising agent. changeing perfect into free. This doesn`t make any difference since your idea of a perfect sociaty is a "free" sociaty.
I am not saying it has the right to inforce those rules. What i am saying is that within a democracy you have the right, to through popular support, change the goverment and thereby change what the goverment can inforce.
But if you ignore the framework that democracy has and simply outright demand your views without popular support, stating that your "free" sociaty is the best and is not in need of democracy, you aren`t any different that any other totalitarian utopianist.