Quote from: Verbatim on January 29, 2015, 05:20:27 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on January 29, 2015, 05:03:57 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on January 29, 2015, 03:41:37 PM

but if i were honest, i'd probably say social anarchist

but do you really think anarchy could work

not as long as people keep asking questions like this

it's an ideal, more or less

well we kinda have to ask if itll work, otherwise, is it really worth considering as an ideology

what conditions would have to be met for anarchy to be an effective form of social organization (or lack thereof?) what evidence is there that we wouldnt just rip each other to shreds? or is that the natural goal of an anarchist's ideals?

If the goal of government is to provide a safe framework for people to live their lives and conduct business without unreasonable disruption due to violence or coercion, then it has failed miserably.

I suppose under the current 'Murican™ climate I'd be considered a moderate-liberal.

Classical-liberal, techno-philic, anti-theist, hawkish, free-market technocrat

I like what I see.

African American

I guess I'm a fiscal conservative with a side of cultural conservatism.

Don't have a problem with gays getting married, but don't spend tax dollars like a drunken sailor on "feel-good" projects (Looks at Ontario Liberals).

And I consider myself a Canadian. Not a Hyphenated-Canadian. And especially not a Canadian-of-Convenience who picks up dual citizenship, flies back to whatever 3rd World country they came from, and then begs for our government to help them and their family when they piss off the tin pot dictator or 4th Century Theocracy that runs the place.