New Group for anarchist.

"A society can function without a ruler."

I would like to see an example of that.  When you break it down, no society has ever done that by choice.  If you think about it, since it derived from greek, you can imagine that rulers can be assasinated, die, or are indisposed for whatever reason.  In this case, a regent takes over in place of that ruler. 

Conquistador: a comparative example can be shown by examining George.

President George Washington, through voluntary action abdicated his position as leader of his newly formed country. King George III died at Windsor Castle after sixty years of rule. No one force Washington from his position at the top. Only death could coerce Frederick from his. Upon hearing of that once former rival would decide to retire by his own free will, the good king is  quoted as saying, " If he does that,  he will be the greatest man in the world."

A ruler owns his subjects. A leader represents his citizens. I was raised in a part of America that had a strong  North American aboriginal influence as well as an international one... 

Here, read the link below and reflect on your avatars namesake as well as your question:

http://firstpeoplesvoices.com/lives.htm

Are you subjugated by the Government anymore than you would be by any community that would be doing the same by whatever laws or moral code that they would set down for the whole group?   Control will always be control, no matter if it's one person making the conditions for you to live under, a group, or a government. 

Tear down and uproot are the same thing.  If you uproot a tree, it's torn down.  Semantics is a fun thing but lets not play that game.  Torn down, uproot, destroy, obliterate, do away with, all mean the same.  It doesn't really matter what words you want to use to make it sound better, the results are the same.  What you went out to uproot, is still gone. 

Then by what you are saying is that every man has the right to uproot whatever he thinks is subjugating him. That he alone may pass his own laws and is answerable to no one but himself so he wont be subjugated by any group, government, king, or individual that he sees as curtailing his personal freedom and liberty.  

The legitimacy of any government is given by the people who follow it and support it.  They give it birth, watch it grow, then they left it on its own and left it to it own devices.  They let it create all that the people wanted with all the ramifications that go along with it.  Taxes, laws, armies, navies, air forces, all designed to protect all from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Never dreaming that the Monster they created could one day be used against them.  Meaning if the masses get out of control, those things could be used against them to quail any disturbance they decide to make.

The standard used to to judge it's legitimacy, are the people who are willing to defend it to their deaths if need be, against all others who in the same community or a different community that would want to uproot it.  Same as for any king, or group.  

Your saying a lot knightspawn5, but I am not sure what you are trying to argue.  All I have been saying is that anarchy in its truest form does not exist naturally.  Whether or not you support the government is reflected in who you vote into positions of power.  If you choose not to vote, then obviously you like the current system and would prefer it to remain the same.

As for tearing the entire system down, while that is nice to say, what you are basically saying is that I have not read through all the different sub-systems, entities, and the power distribution, and would rather just take out the entire system without looking or thinking about any part of it.  That is a pretty reckless thought, just like the idea by Hermain Cain that we change all taxes to 8% across the board without looking at the possible ramifications it might have on government income (which affects infrastructure, military spending, energy, ect.), the income of the different classes, the business side, or the economy in general. 

You can choose to live by your own rules, except that by definition, is a form of government.  It is not semantics, it is just simply the definition of what you are describing.  So you are not really an anarchist.

I would like to also mention that while the idea of a man answering to himself and following his own rules is good, you have to also liable to the consequences of your decisions, negative or otherwise, and offer the appropriate punishment.  Since most people would not do so unless they were forced to, the Criminal Law Code in the United States and its other forms around the world and history were created to offer a sense of order.

Not trying to argue, just giving my opionion on what pawnsolo wrote above in his statement.  I havent looked at your statement yet at all...

I agree Conquistador: there are no absolutes. But I am an anarchist as much as one can be one and not be an idealist. Idealism is corruptible.

An example of a functioning anarchistic system would be Alcoholics Anonymous.

Realistically, there are far too many people living in America today for a pure anarchy to function; with a smaller population the means could justify the ends, but with so many vested interests involved, there has to be a structure in place to ensure stability and civility.

Good governance is achieved is through compromise and dialogue, where humanity can best serve humanity's common interests. More often than not, the State does not operate thus. For example, look at the gridlock found on the Federal, State, and local level bodies of government.

The question is, is the behemoth that is in place opperating for its own bennefit or for the bennefit of the people? Only you can answer that for yourself. I know my answer. It (the public sector) is not for the bennefit of the people (the private).  The portion of the system that is opperating thus, is doing so for  a very very small percent, and they have sole influence on the machine. The government has become a souless leviathan, such is its nature.

Knightspawn: the difference is that tearing down is a top down action where as uprooting is a bottom up one. You can tear down and the base still exists. When you uproot, the base as well as the structure is altered.  I would love to uproot the IRS, not tear it down. But tearing down the military industrial complex is far less reckless than uprooting it. 

As someone who sees a very limited legitimate role for the state (the acceptence of that role making me not an anarchist), I would be interested in joining a libertarian group, and suspect (via the explosion in popularity of Ron Paul and Austrian economics on the internet) that a number of others here would as well.

I note that there is already a group associated with the (US) Libertarian party, though I suspect that its association with said party has limited it's scope and outreach, indeed it has only 11 members and only one thread not created by myself, with none of the other members currently active within the group.

I cannot make a group of my own at this point (I am presently in debt and don't use electronic currencies or credit cards), but would be happy to join and contribute to a broad based libertarian-minded group should one be created, assuming that a decent level of intelligence, civility and respectfulness was upheld within said group.

Should anyone reading this post be interested in forming such a group, please send me an invite.

What's the name of it. Maybe we can resurrect it.

Worth a shot perhaps...

It's name is "Libertarian Chess", found @ http://www.chess.com/groups/home/libertarian-chess

As per the OP, I would suggest the work of Stefan Molyneux for a lot of good books and videos on the political philosophy of anarchism. Check him out on youtube (user name Stefbot), or via www.freedomainradio.com where he has many of his books free for text and/or audio download.

There are also plenty of other intelligent authors and commentators as well on libertarianism and anarchism on youtube as well for those interested in looking into it more.

Anarchy is one of those words like bee's; whenever people hear it they mindlessly swat at the air and run away shrieking. Chances are, if you leave it alone it won't hurt you, unless of coarse it has become africanized. 

Jesus christ. If anyone is actually interested in anarchism: Lao Tzu, Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakhunin, Kropotkin, De Cleyre, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, Bookchin, the Diggers and Ranters, the Spanish Civil War, Makhnovist Ukraine, Krondstadt, The SI, May 1968...and on, and on. Here I was, hoping for a fun little chess variant in which mate did not rest upon the king. Sweet fuck.