I'm a Civil Libertarian. That's not the same thing. I do have "The Anarchist's Handbook" though.
New Group for anarchist.
Sort:
It won't work. Too many crazy people. The world will go back to the Middle Ages. A government may have cons, but the pros outweigh them (depending on the type of government and who's leading them)
The states do have private armies and the governer is the commander and chief, it called the National Guard. Not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States....
Are you referring to the militia?
Yes,It was called the Malitia, but now called the National Guard. Same group, different name.
Ah ok. I wonder how often they are used...
The state militia is for emergencies, such as hurricanes , floods, land slides, blizzards, or, other state catastrophes. Depends on each state needs....
Ok. Thanks!
I'm getting the sense you are a anarcho-capitalist?
As Frederic Bastiat wrote in his treatise; The Law-
As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice - all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.
If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?
In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?
In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?
In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?
In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?
Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?
And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.
But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people" - and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure - which, alas! is more than probable - there will be an equally inevitable revolution? 
Sub headings for anarchism. I think we need committees to keep them all straight and write their by-laws. Then elect a board to oversee them all and collect yearly dues and put the money to fund education for each group. lol
Isnt that how this all started our government? LOLOLOLOL
Close but no cigar. Technically there will always be some form of limited government. Natural laws govern the universe. In the end though all anarchy is is a self enforcing system of social interactiveness. The Internet is a form of anarchy.
Good thing I dont smoke them then...lol So many schools of thought on anarchy and what it means to each group.. Hard to keep up whit them all...
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. - H.D. Thoreau
One problem: if there is no government, and we can make our own little armies to protect ourselves, whatts to stop the crazies from killing everyone? At least we vote on our government in America, not whoever has the biggest private army.
Agreed.
"At least we vote on our government in America, not whoever has the biggest private army."
How many people, in fact, have been killed by government violence in the 20th century? Not deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments — the intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control? The answer is: 169,198,000. If the deaths of military combatants are added to this figure, governments have killed 203,000,000 in the 20th century.- Death by Government by R. J. Rummel
And just what do you call the State Department?
Tell that to the Super Pacts. No, instead try to outvote lobbying groups. Better yet, trust the corpocracy system to hire companies like Blackwater. One could always trade in liberty for security and fool oneself into believing that Democracy is not mob rule. Better yet, connect the dots and see how Anarchists generally maintain that ethics are a personal matter, and should be based upon concern for others and the well being of society, rather than upon laws imposed by a legal or religious authority including revered laws such as the U.S. Constitution.
First, we are not nor have been a Democracy. By definition we are a Republic. The rest is a truth that cannot be denied.
But even if government didn't cause those deaths, the deaths would still have happened for other reasons. No government, or, any other form of society cant stay dormant without having rivalries amongst it people that eventually lead to the demise of the society as a whole. With war and pestilence not far behind. We would just have something else to blame the deaths on. Even Utopia would have laws to govern them, and punishments. Does it make a difference where they come from? Not really. Good Laws or Bad laws still come from people in the end analysis.
Howdy! I just started a group called Anarchist Kitchen for people who are anarchist or for people who would like to learn about anarchy.
The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard