http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism

Do your homework, yall.

Obviously, anarchists don’t agree with your assessment or they wouldn’t be anarchists. My point is simply that anarchists do not necessarily oppose organizations; many of them envision a world with even more organizations than we have now.

You think they’re foolish and I don’t care to change your mind about that, but there’s nothing inherently contradictory about what they’re doing.

Thereby ruining the anarchists impossible dream. The entire idea of anarchy is completely done away by any sort of organization. Which is, even though you can’t seem to grasp it, hilarious.

I have been to anarchist gatherings and the one constant theme is wishing for a lack of organizations. Talk about how everyone should run their own lives how they see fit completely devoid of interference from anyone at anytime is the one overriding theme of all anarchist events I have attended.

What you continue to describe is individualism. There’s a fair amount of overlap between anarchism and individualism, but there are important differences.

Read some of tarran’s writing if you want to learn about an anarchist who is not an individualist. This post in particular makes it clear that he has no problem with private organizations imposing rules upon their members.

I state again, the concept of a group of people who advocate a society free of overarching organizations CREATING what appears to be an overarching organization for the express intent of furthering their goal of a society without overarching organizations is comedic.

Thank you for playing Kiy.

If there were an anarchist society, and not government to do all the things it does (poorly I might add) people, anarchists, would have to be organized in order to provide for themselves.

Your statements on anarchism show about as much understanding as a thirteen year old who thinks it’s all about chaos and partying.

Jeff, you are not forced to associate with anyone, unless you are considering sharing citizenship as association. Considering shared citizenship as association is absurd, especially in a nation of 300 million plus.

Yes, sharing citizenship is an association. Anyone who shares USA citizenship is subject to hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that govern most parts of their lives. It’s an association that one is born into and is very hard to renounce.

If this association is as trivial as you suggest it is, all you have to do is pass a law making it easy to renounce all of the fees required by and services provided by the various governments. If you managed to do so, anarchists would have absolutely no beef with you.

But therein lies the problem. You insist on certain compulsory geographic associations. Private, voluntary associations have nothing to do with it.

Anarchists wish for no rule of law and complete lack of governing bodies. They crave a lack of societal structures, such as organizations like DNC Disruption08.

Do you really not see the humor in an association of anarchists?

My point is any organization forming for any reason whatsoever is inherently against anarchism

You can’t learn anything if you cling to your preconceived notions. Read Webster’s definition.

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

The key to anarchy is that there should be no compulsory associations. The national government of the USA forces you and I to associate with each other. I can’t dissolve my association with you without moving to a different country, and even that would just be exchanging one set of compulsory associations with another.

The problem with government, according to anarchists, is that I am required, by the very fact of my birth, to associate with those proximal to me. They maintain that this should be voluntary.

Anarchists say we should only have to associate with people that we choose to associate with. If I want to join a certain organization of people and subject myself to that organization’s rules, that’s perfectly fine.

It’s a radical philosophy, but its radicalism is about free will, not rugged individualism.