Bradley Manning is a true American hero.

[Odysseus]

Anarchists are inherently Right wing. A socialist who is calling himself an anarchist is delusional. They are incongruent for you cannot be a socialist without establishing the use of coercion and force on others. Anarchist's believe in free market and free association without coercion.

Totalitarianism/Collective is the far left and Anarchist/Voluntaryism is the far right. I thought you were a big fan of Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism?. He touches on it a bit and you should have gotten this from it. But I think someone like Feebmaster would be better at educating others about it.

I'll just add that I agree for the most part, but the founders had a deep distrust of government so much that they didn't want a Federal government. I'm for the smallest most unobtrusive government I can get. I do not believe there will ever be no government, but I'd not shed a tear if about 3/4 or it went away. I am indeed anti-government and it is indeed Conservative to be so. What we have today is nothing like what the founders envisioned.

One can be self-described anarchist and delusional. Many anarchists believe that socialism will occur once the corrupting influence of man-made institutions is purged from us. The Jacobins took this line of (tortured) reasoning from Rousseau, but it has been an ongoing thread among leftists who seek to destroy anything that they cannot control. Throughout history, anarchists have self-identified with the left, and the destruction of legal structures, constraints on conduct, property and institutions of Constitutional government has always dovetailed nicely with the left's utopian goals. After all, once law and public order have been erased, it's not that hard to establish a leftist dictatorship. Anarchy is simply one means of getting there.

[txradioguy]

Anarchy is simply one means of getting there.

And it's a favorite tool of the left to speed up the process of implementing their agenda.

[Molon Labe]

And it's a favorite tool of the left to speed up the process of implementing their agenda.

I don't know why they would want anarchy since it does the exact opposite of what they want. Anarchy is incongruent with central power. Socialists want complete "control".

Growing the Federal government does this. Being able to pick the pockets of ALL Americans can only be done by centralizing power structures. Placing central control into the DC power structure does that. Do you honestly think that if we had 300 million people running around during total anarchy, the socialists could control all the pockets of resistance that would enevitably spring up?

I think some get confused on how the media portrays True Anarchists as left wing. The ones you see at these Seattle conventions throwing glass and rocks are simply socialist thugs. From my experience, most Anarchists live by 3 principles. Voluntary relationships, Free markets, Non Aggression principle.

Socialists don't believe in any of that.

When I hear dipshit Noam Chomsky talk about being a Democratic Anarchist, I laugh because he talks in circles. He wants more freedom and power for himself....but he has no problems with some central body being able to confiscate property. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Odysseus]

I don't know why they would want anarchy since it does the exact opposite of what they want. Anarchy is incongruent with central power. Socialists want complete "control".

Growing the Federal government does this. Being able to pick the pockets of ALL Americans can only be done by centralizing power structures. Placing central control into the DC power structure does that. Do you honestly think that if we had 300 million people running around during total anarchy, the socialists could control all the pockets of resistance that would enevitably spring up?

I think some get confused on how the media portrays True Anarchists as left wing. The ones you see at these Seattle conventions throwing glass and rocks are simply socialist thugs. From my experience, most Anarchists live by 3 principles. Voluntary relationships, Free markets, Non Aggression principle.

Socialists don't believe in any of that.

When I hear dipshit Noam Chomsky talk about being a Democratic Anarchist, I laugh because he talks in circles. He wants more freedom and power for himself....but he has no problems with some central body being able to confiscate property. The two are mutually exclusive.

The Anarchists of your experience are the exception, not the rule, and most are hopelessly naive. The founders knew that men were not angels, and anarcho-capitalists presume that they can act the part without the existence of laws and enforcement mechanisms. For example, the existence of individual rights requires an enforcement mechanism, independent courts, police and a very basic governing body, responsive to the people, which will act within its limits. The arguments against such an agency, that it will grow corrupt and powerful, as just as valid when applied to private police, which lack the consensus that gives government its sole legitimacy. No solution is perfect, because nobody is perfect.

Chomsky is, in his own mind, an anarchist, in the same way that a teenager considers himself an anarchist when his parents tell him to clean his room. However, when that teenager wants the car, or his allowance, he's a socialist. The two ideas go hand in hand, in that they want someone to provide a room and board, but with no obligations in response. These are the anarchists that you see at Occupy events. They believe that the absence of authority will free people to be the best that they can be, just as the anarcho-capitalist does, but they believe that people will suddenly stop wanting to keep stuff and share what they have, while the anarcho-capitalist believes that people will suddenly stop coveting each others' stuff and seeking ways to manipulate rather than build. Both end up creating a lawless place where the demand for centralized authority to stop the ensuing chaos leads to dictatorship, but the difference is that the socialist wants the dictatorship, while the capitalist doesn't.

[Molon Labe]

The Anarchists of your experience are the exception, not the rule, and most are hopelessly naive. The founders knew that men were not angels, and anarcho-capitalists presume that they can act the part without the existence of laws and enforcement mechanisms. For example, the existence of individual rights requires an enforcement mechanism, independent courts, police and a very basic governing body, responsive to the people, which will act within its limits. The arguments against such an agency, that it will grow corrupt and powerful, as just as valid when applied to private police, which lack the consensus that gives government its sole legitimacy. No solution is perfect, because nobody is perfect.

Chomsky is, in his own mind, an anarchist, in the same way that a teenager considers himself an anarchist when his parents tell him to clean his room. However, when that teenager wants the car, or his allowance, he's a socialist. The two ideas go hand in hand, in that they want someone to provide a room and board, but with no obligations in response. These are the anarchists that you see at Occupy events. They believe that the absence of authority will free people to be the best that they can be, just as the anarcho-capitalist does, but they believe that people will suddenly stop wanting to keep stuff and share what they have, while the anarcho-capitalist believes that people will suddenly stop coveting each others' stuff and seeking ways to manipulate rather than build. Both end up creating a lawless place where the demand for centralized authority to stop the ensuing chaos leads to dictatorship, but the difference is that the socialist wants the dictatorship, while the capitalist doesn't.

Hmm.....

I believe Ben Franklin understood it to be a natural consequence of moving farthest to the right when he said:

Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us.

I am no anarchist, but I'll call myself a Classical market liberal. ( A VERRY Limited government pro market stance)
In my beliefs, there is only

pure Individualism on the right

or

pure Collectivism on the left.

What people voluntarily do in those spectrums is of no consequence.

I prefer these charts to explain right vs left.

[Odysseus]

Hmm.....

I believe Ben Franklin understood it to be a natural consequence of moving farthest to the right when he said:


I am no anarchist, but I'll call myself a Classical market liberal. ( A VERRY Limited government pro market stance)
In my beliefs, there is only or What people voluntarily do in those spectrums is of no consequence.

Franklin was a consummate wiseass. I prefer Madison's explanation:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

I prefer these charts to explain right vs left.

Even though the charts conflict with each other, and are not internally consistent?

This chart might have been workable with an objective numerical criteria that evaluated the true positions of the various cited individuals. For example, Hitler's economics were left of center, not right, even by the definition of the chart (the Nazis opposed the economic insecurity of free markets). Khomeini's Islamist economics are equally leftist, in that the Iranian revolution constrained economic activity in order to prevent what it considered Un-Islamic practices, such as interest for loans. The arbitrary placement of anarchist at the top of the diamond doesn't deal with the fact that there are anarchists who believe in socialism, but think that the state will "whither away" (in the words of Marx) when socialism is realized. This one isn't exactly logical.

This one places anarchism at the free end of the freedom spectrum, but fails to identify how individual rights are guaranteed. The anarchist favors the abandonment or elimination of all government, but the rights of the people are only guaranteed through their common protection by consensual government. The anarchist's endstate results in the abandonment of individual rights, as the strongest end up preying on the weakest in the absence of laws and their enforcement.

This one also has its blind spots, because it shows a failure of understanding its terms. Capitalism is about free markets and property rights. Fascism opposes free markets and subordinates property rights to collective authority. It is a collectivist enterprise. Fabian Socialists aren't less collectivist than outright communists, they're just more patient, and seek to impose their agenda piecemeal. Radicalism is not a political position, per se, but an extreme of a position. One can be a radical Marxist or a radical Libertarian, for example. And the chart places the anarchists on the collectivist side of the box, while putting it in the individualist side as well, which means that an anarchist in this case is an extreme individualist and an extreme collectivist, which would be mutually exclusive, unless you accept the idea of the anarchist as the teenager who wants his parents to give him autonomy, to get out of his room, but to still let him have the car and an allowance.

[Rockntractor]

The whole idea of a center is ridiculous, all it consists of are people who are too stoned, ignorant, or uneducated to form an opinion of where they stand, it isn't a center, it is more of an intellectual coma.

[txradioguy]

The whole idea of a center is ridiculous, all it consists of are people who are too stoned, ignorant, or uneducated to form an opinion of where they stand, it isn't a center, it is more of an intellectual coma.

QFT

[Molon Labe]

The whole idea of a center is ridiculous, all it consists of are people who are too stoned, ignorant, or uneducated to form an opinion of where they stand, it isn't a center, it is more of an intellectual coma.

Yep. That usually represents the Average voter. There's about 50 to 70 million of them i'm guessing.