User talk:Anondoesnotforget

September 2010
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Anarchist Manifesto, but some of your recent actions differ from the way things are normally done at Wikibooks. Using Wikibooks can be helpful in learning more about conventions. We cannot accept original research and this is not a soap box for your personal opinions. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for your information. Use a blog or web host to express personal opinions. Thank you. QU TalkQu 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above, WB is for text books, not your personal views about the government. QU TalkQu 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it on your userspace and expressly grant permission for others to contribute. The NPOV can be exacerbated to prevent any type of work on Wikibooks, the issue is how you present and allow others to complement your view.
 * In any case using your userspace will protect the ability for you to express your opinion, later on you may find a better location if the work doesn't belong on WIkibooks. "Power to the People" --Panic (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete Text
Government is an inherently evil and repressive institution. Whether large and totalitarian, as in Russian Communism, or small and regulatory as in American Capitalism, the philosophy of the Ruling class has been cynical and Machiavellian; that the common people do not know what is good for them, and thus must be kept in line by a higher power. In the United state, two parties clash over the size of government. In the Middle East, oppressive regimes wield the power of government to enforce irrational and made-up nonsense. In China, government prevents citizens from having access to vital information and executes dissidents at will. The list goes on. Look at all the grievances that government causes us. Here's a revolutionary idea for you; how about no government at all?

Corporations are no better.Unlike a government, a corporation does not even pretend to look out for the welfare of the populace. Without government, we would be subject to profit-hungry monster with no laws holding them back. Can the corporation be permanently eliminated?

It is my belief that humans are, for the most part, inherently good. I would like to think that do not need government to be good citizens, we are capable, as good and moral human beings, of following natural law and maintaining order to the extent that we may be able to build a civilized society in the absence of government. The issue is that we have been taught that we need a great surveillance camera to watch us, a great policeman to punish us, and a great legislator to decide for us what is right and wrong.. Some will point to incidents like the 1955 Montreal Police strike, when the city erupted into chaos, or the present-day nation of Somalia, where with no government warlords are free to ruthlessly battle for power. These cases are not anarchism as I imagine it; they are example of what happens when a government collapses and leaves a dangerous power vacuum. The docile Canadians and civilized Somalians were taught that should something go wrong, law enforcement would correct it. Denizens of an Anarchist America will be taught from an early age that they are responsible for their actions and their impact on society. It boils down to the Golden Rule; treat others as you would like to be treated. Stealing, for example, would work for me as a lone selfish individual, but I should not wish that everybody take up stealing. Obviously, I do not want my shit stolen. Anarchism is about leaving such decisions up to the individual. Perhaps the biggest change in an Anarchist Revolution would be how we educate our children; rather than giving them and artificial reward/punishment system, we must teach youth to have integrity. Because there are no laws to break, it will be up to the individual citizen to decide if, say, shoplifting, is justifiable in a particular case. If Anarchism is ever about to become a viable political force in the United States, it would be necessary for a charismatic leader to emerge; perhaps as a presidential candidate, to institute a system of "re-education" in order to ween the American public off of the necessity of government institutions such as law enforcement and public school. You would be surprised how many social programs can be eliminated in favor of private, non-profit ones. The educated can school neighborhood kids in their homes. Lawyers could appeal to local vigilantes on behalf of the accused. Doctors could heal their sick neighbors for barter. WE DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT.

On an economic level, there is no reason that we need currency. What with the abolition of the Gold Standard and all, a dollar is just a fuckin' piece of paper anyhow. Citizens can use a combination of tangible assets for bartering and personal checking for trade. The Notary Public will be a valuable asset to the community, as people use self-written contracts and IOU's increasingly in the absence of paper currency. In an Anarchist America we would undoubtedly see an immense urban sprawl as people need more land with which to produce a greater percentage of their own food, now that major food distributors are a thing of the past. Through a system of IOU's, bartering, and subsistence farming, Anarchism could be viable not only as an ideology, but as an economic system as well.

Anarchy is not the vandalism by loading arms or explosives as in the chaotic nature of 1790s France but it is a simplicity philosophy of far east that sourced of Lao-Tze or Taoism. But still on the contrary to the others, anarchy is not a style of constructing general agreement(choosing the one of the sames)

Wars are very unlikely to occur within an anarchist system, which may sound like zealous wishful thinking because it appears to imply that there will be no conflict between people because of an absence of authority (many would consider this paradoxical in itself). The reason wars are unlikely to happen is because to start and continue a war an individual must have a personal interest in it, kings, presidents, popes, lords and generals (autocrats and oligarchs) all have such an interest in practicing warfare for various reasons. Insurrectionists will also have an interest in continuing a war but will only have the objective of ending it, autocrats and oligarchs will usually wish to continue the war for as long as possible. The more important distinction between the two is that an insurrectionist is likely to be in personal danger of being killed during the war whilst the autocrat or oligarch have the possibility of assassination but are otherwise not in danger. To illustrate the distinction of an anarchist society, suppose there was an anarchist city with two neighborhoods, for whatever reason they do not share what they have with each other, so neighborhood A decides that they want to take what they like from neighborhood B and to do so they will go to war with neighborhood B (incidentally this is capitalist/fascist rather than anarchist reasoning not but it will have to suffice for this example). Everyone in neighborhood A that wants to go to war will have to be involved, to play the part of the insurrectionist, to kill and probably die for what they want. This is a very different scenario to the one the autocrat/oligarch find themselves in where they are not personally willing to die for what they want but are willing to sacrifice others for it. So it can be seen that in an anarchist system someone would have to be willing to die for their desire to start a war in order for one to begin at all.