: Jesus Gideon you must have it in for stu, I'm glad to hear your left wing but without a state there's no law, without law (even if it is reduced or different) you get violent criminals going unpunished.
I don't particularly have it in for Stu, or Mike, or any of the "other side". They're perfectly free to hold their views, as I am mine. It's when they say something that I find unacceptable that I respond - you'll notice that nearly all of my posts are responses rather than original posts. But in RL I'd happily shake them by the hand - the fact that they're my opponents in the Great Debate doesn't mean that they're inhuman or lesser beings. We just have different agendas.
With regard to the "law and order in anarchism" point, it's a potential weak point with Anarchism - I'd be wrong if I pretended it wasn't. However, when it comes down to it, anarchism isn't against laws. It's against heirarchies. If a group of equals agree to abide by a law set up for the common good, it can still be anarchist and a law. So, for example, "thou shalt not kill" is a fairly obviously sensible "law".
(Ironically, the most massive breaches of obvious "laws" like that are committed by states and governments. Obviously "thou shalt not kill" is conveniently forgotten when it comes to making war...)
It would be naive of me to say that this isn't open to abuse - power heirarchies are the most insidious things on Earth and have a habit of creeping into well-intentioned things like trade unions. Yet I think that it is a goal worth aiming at. As for violent criminals going unpunished - Pol Pot died of a heart attack.
It is my opinion that the most violent criminals are the ones who rise above their fellow humans and use this artificial elevation to arrange the deaths of millions. Harry Truman might not have killed anyone directly, yet as a result of his actions, 60,000 civilians died in a few minutes. Similarly, Hitler took advantage of a nation that was rudderless and looking for someone to tell them what to do. I don't need to point out the consequences.
My point; street-level violent killers are babes-with-arms compared to the systematic effects of a government on the loose.
: The government that governs least is the best, but within those sphere's of governance (violent or anti-social acts, environment etc.) it's rule should be guaranteed.
My beef is with "government". Co-operation; no problems. But when people use force or the threat of force to make other people do things, and the people split into the rulers and the ruled, I see red. There isn't a realistic opt-out clause of a government.
For a minor example, a man (in Leicester, I think) last week declared his own personal secession from the UK. The response from the State was to send armed police to arrest him. We're imprisoned in our own countries for trying to opt-out, even though the country is supposedly a democracy.
: As for stu well would he prefer the rule of three or four mega corps which arent in the slightest accountable to the public, who can employ private "security" armies and survallence? Cause that's the alternative to which we are heading I might add.
To me, anarcho-syndicalism just doesn't cut it. To assume that big corporations would be any more beneficient than big governments is just plain daft to me. My vision of dystopia is life as a Microserf.