Your stance in the political spectrum

[Voidwalker]

So, what the title says. What's your stance in the political spectrum?

I consider myself a rightist, sometimes center-right. I don't agree with many leftist politics from liberalists and socialists. I think liberalism goes too far away from cultural traditions and values and socialists are, for me, some dudes that want spend too much time in Dreamland or lie to the people to establish some totalitarian communist state.

Notice that by these topic I don't mean whether you support either the Republican or Democratic parties in USA. I'm not American and I didn't make this thread to see which of those parties you agree with, just what you consider you are in the political spectrum.

BTW, I wasn't sure if Anarchism should be included in Far-leftist or not. I decided to put it aside.

BTW #2, avoid mindless flames and trolling or I'll just call a moderator to shut this thread immediatly.

 

[Arvedui]

I put center-right, though I'm fairly more conservative than most people but i can usually see both sides of the aisle, even though I may not agree with the other side.

You are correct in that most leftists want to set up a socialist totalitarian system.. which = bad.

Disagree with me as you want

 

[Ghan_04]

I would say that I'm a Libertarian.
You should have added an "Other" category at the least.
I would be happy to add that if you wish.

 

[Arvedui]

Yes Libertarian should be up there.

 

[Zombie]

I made a mistake D: I mischanged left with right lol

 

[TDR]

please put an "Idontgiveafuckist" option there.

 

[boomwolf]

Right VS Left is a wrong why to look at things from the firstplace. there are multiple issues and there a multiple ideas how to answer each. your way of thinking is flawed as ti truly allows only two answers to everything combined, and you must be somewhere between.

 

[annoying]

I walk straight into the center here. I'm Swedish, and we don't usually pick a side if we can stand in the middle

 

[Hakeem]

please put an "Idontgiveafuckist" option there.

Just vote "Anarchist" like I did.

I don't know what any of the other options are, I don't care, and refuse to learn. Also, I may support anarchy, apparently.

 

[Mince]

I am a democrat. Democracy is highly rated in Serbia. And I hate Radicals.

 

[TDR]

Just vote "Anarchist" like I did.

I don't know what any of the other options are, I don't care, and refuse to learn. Also, I may support anarchy, apparently.

but I couldn't care less about anarchy either, that's the thing. fuck'em all.

 

[X.e.r.e.X]

Seriously add the "Screw politics" option

 

[The Dark Wizard]

I like to the in the center of both sides.

 

[emperor_d3st]

The political spectrum does not tell much details about one's point of view but if I have to docket myself then I'm a liberal thinker.

This thread makes no sense since political threads are about flaming and you said no flaming in this thread.

People who say they support anarchy have absolutely no idea what's anarchy and how badly would affect their lives.

The cultural traditions and values you speak of are crap, mostly. You want to cling onto things created by people a long time ago to make up for their stupidity. Your cultural traditions and values take away individual freedom. Anyone saying that he is proud of being InsertYourNationalityHere is stupid. Why? Because you claim other people's achievements as your own and deny other groups of people's achievements.
I'm not saying there are no nice or fun cultural things in the world but those things do not conflict with liberal thinking.
By the way, socialism and communism are two radically different things. I'm going further: even communism and communism are different.

 

[Hakeem]

People who say they support anarchy have absolutely no idea what's anarchy and how badly would affect their lives.

This is what I thought too, but I no longer think this is the case. Please give an example.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

This thread makes no sense since political threads are about flaming and you said no flaming in this thread.

That's also what you said about religion to oppose my Christian Group.

You utterly fail at deduction.

Do you even know what flaming is? Flaming is calling other people's ideas "stupid" and "crap". Until you, no one has been doing such.

Or is it because you're just a hotheaded little punk who can't tell the difference between a debate and an argument, and just wants to pick a fight?

Yeah, that's probably the case.

You assume that ALL anarchists are such and such, ALL Christians are this and that way, and then you say only people following your train of thought are open-minded. Get off your high horse.

[QUOTE="Into My Own" by Robert Frost]ONE of my wishes is that those dark trees,
So old and firm they scarcely show the breeze,
Were not, as ’twere, the merest mask of gloom,
But stretched away unto the edge of doom.

I should not be withheld but that some day
Into their vastness I should steal away,
Fearless of ever finding open land,
Or highway where the slow wheel pours the sand.

I do not see why I should e’er turn back,
Or those should not set forth upon my track
To overtake me, who should miss me here
And long to know if still I held them dear.

They would not find me changed from him they knew—
Only more sure of all I thought was true.[/QUOTE]

 

[Arvedui]

MSBB wins.

 

[PurplePoot]

This poll is rather meaningless, since every country has its own idea of what the terms mean.

 

[emperor_d3st]

No, MSBB, I think the little punk who likes to pick fights is you. You always post offensive posts no matter the subject. I just don't like when people are acting stupid around me and spread false information.
I don't feel like writing an essay about anarchism but go ahead and do some research. The easiest way is Wikipedia.

Let me quote some lines:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

This means you are FREE TO DO ANYTHING you can get away with.
And by anything I mean: this; and this or this and hey, the most fun. Don't you think it's great?
But there is no police and hospitals and schools would work much like in those western films.
If you want freedom support liberalism, but not anarchy.

PurplePoot is right about every country having different ideas about political directions. There are definitions though, I doubt even the opener of the thread is aware of.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

No, MSBB, I think the little punk who likes to pick fights is you.

I never said I wasn't. Don't tell me shit I already know, Aristotle.

You always post offensive posts no matter the subject.

No. Not always. The subject doesn't matter, but the gratuitous amount of ignorance you shed irritates my eyes. This is just my way of dealing with it.

I just don't like when people are acting stupid around me and spread false information.

So you call their ideas stupid, their traditions crap, and their religions based on flaming. Okay. Totally see where you're going with this.

This means you are FREE TO DO ANYTHING you can get away with.

1. If other people let you.
2. Way to take things out of concept, jackass. Wikipedia said

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]

This doesn't mean that one type of anarchy speaks for all other anarchists in the universe.

In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority).

I'm not an anarchist, but don't go acting stupid around me and spreading false information.

 

[emperor_d3st]

Actually all your "corrected" arguments say what I said and your other arguments don't say anything at all so I don't have anything to reply to. The only thing I have to say is that I shed close to 0 ignorance.
[1]; [2] - I thought that it says it all, not to mention that I linked the source I CnPed from.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Actually all your "corrected" arguments say what I said and your other arguments don't say anything at all so I don't have anything to reply to.

The only thing I have to say is that I shed close to 0 ignorance.

[1]; [2] - I thought that it says it all, not to mention that I linked the source I CnPed from.

---

For the integrity of this thread, I'll make an effort to bring it back on topic.

I consider myself a leftist. I, like the typical American my age, am in a political bubble, with a minimal understanding of the world around me, so I don't really understand the leftist train of thought, but many of my views coincide with that of leftists, so I therefore consider myself one as well.

 

[Velmarshal]

I think far right.

 

[Hakeem]

This means you are FREE TO DO ANYTHING you can get away with.
And by anything I mean: this; and this or this and hey, the most fun. Don't you think it's great?

Yes, this is what I thought for awhile. However,

If other people let you.

While you are free to do those things, 6 billion other people are free to retaliate, and I'm way more than willing to bet someone's gonna do just that.

there is no police

Now everyone is the police.

 

[emperor_d3st]

So you say that 13 year old Lil' Jimmy from around the corner with his glock is qualified to bring out justice? Or the guy who has just found out that his girlfriend is cheating on him? Or the local racist group? Or religious zealots (*BOOM*)? Or the local drug band?
Anarchy would be ruled by crime groups and terror. Some guys would bust your door, rape your sister, have your belongings and walk away when they would feel like walking away.
What could you do? Nothing. They would have great numbers, they would have great power.
Anyways. Crime would skyrocket in anarchy and you should have to say goodbye to many of those things and services you like so much.

 

[DrazharLn]

Anarchy would only work in The Culture. Or, rather, that is my opinion.
As to my political beliefs, I am far left. This does NOT mean that I support the so-called communist regime in China, nor did I support the USSR [in arguments, I was very young when the USSR collapsed] as I don't believe that either of those governments are actually communist. I am a communist at heart, however I do not believe that the majority of people are ready to accept that change, so when voting I would go centre left.
The Culture [link above] is my idea of a perfect society. This also means that I am pro AI and that I am an athiest [it is implicity stated in one of the books that the Culture sees religion as a disease to be cured in primitive societies]. Not that you have to be an athiest to support The Culture, I was just putting some of my background in to attempt to explain my views.

Thanks for reading, I apologise for any spelling mistakes, I'm using a cramped little laptop keyboard, it's horrible.

[Edit] I find the posts you have made, MSBB, to be excessive. You did not need to post a load of facepalm messages for what was, in all fairness a fairly good post.

---

I have some time, so I thought I would elaborate on why the Culture is the only possible anarchist society in my opinion.

First off, the human citizens of the Culture are all genofixed to a large degree, there are no mentally ill people, no one is disabled unless they choose to be. There are billions of eccentrics in The Culture, but no crazed madmen.Secondly, the society is run by machine intelligences, these are vastly more intelligent than humans and they have their own egalitarian society. This means that no one Mind [the name of one of the machine intellgences, as opposed to a mere AI] can ever gain power over the others, there are always others watching.Thirdly, anyone can have anything they want, with the exclusion of other people [although you could create a simulation if you so wished], no one owns anything. The people are not brought up that way, they do not think in terms of belongings.Lastly, the people are fixated on the notion of hedonism, they don't have time for wars, they're too busy enjoying themselves.

 

[power_shaman]

What about a "militarist" category? Like "Their president insulted ours!!! Let's go conquer them!" That ain't funny but in some parts of the world it is reality.
Politics= Damn, it SMELLS real bad!!!

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Being controlled by AIs is what one might call a "perfect" society. And it really sort of is. It's not exactly an anarchy, but rather, a totalarian dictatorship. However, in my opinion, no dictatorship is worth living under. Freedom is really what gives meaning to intelligent life. To eliminate such would be to make life pointless in my opinion. I'd rather a flawed, unstable world than a boring one.

I find the posts you have made, MSBB, to be excessive. You did not need to post a load of facepalm messages for what was, in all fairness a fairly good post.

The only way that post could possibly hold any intellectual value is if he was trolling. No one alive can, within human ability, misinterpret my words as horribly as he has done.

 

[DrazharLn]

Not controlled by AI, the society is run by AI for the sole reason that they are good at it. The Minds [Culture term for the advanced AI as opposed to the less intelligent drones] don't rule you. You can do whatever you want. They just run the day-to-day mechanics of stuff.
People getting bored is a common theme in the books [it is refuted]. People can live forever in The Culture, but they choose not to. There are even a sect of people who choose to lead lives without being backed up [this means if they die, they will stay dead]. On the most part the people of the Culture seem to have enough fun with a huge variety of different sports, sex, academic interests and travelling. I don't think life in the Culture would be boring.

I was emphatically not trolling. I presented my views as I saw them. I won't say anything more on that subject.

 

[Arvedui]

He wasn't talking about you trolling, but emporer_d3st.

 

[PurplePoot]

Just to elaborate my previous comment that every country defines it differently,

• Liberals used to be right-wing, now people call left-wingers Liberals, at least in North America (In Europe it's different).
• The exact same is true for Conservatives.
• On an American political test I scored "Anarchist"
• On a Canadian political test I scored moderate left

 

[Hakeem]

So you say that 13 year old Lil' Jimmy from around the corner with his glock is qualified to bring out justice? Or the guy who has just found out that his girlfriend is cheating on him? Or the local racist group? Or religious zealots (*BOOM*)? Or the local drug band?

Doesn't matter if they're qualified. Think about it, if they have a gun, then what're they gonna use it for? Are they gonna go shoot someone for the heck of it? No, they'd really only use it in self defense.

Anarchy would be ruled by crime groups and terror. Some guys would bust your door, rape your sister, have your belongings and walk away when they would feel like walking away.

You have to remember, everyone has guns now. They can't just come into your house, because they know you have guns to protect yourself, because everybody does.

What could you do? Nothing. They would have great numbers, they would have great power.

And you'd have a basement full of ammunition. In an anarchy, you'd have to try real hard to protect your home and invade another's at the same time.

you should have to say goodbye to many of those things and services you like so much.

You think there's not a single person who would run these things and services?

 

[Sansui]

This is what I thought too, but I no longer think this is the case. Please give an example.

You give an example showing us your understanding, instead of trying to act smart asking for examples.
Seriously I'm tired of how annoying people are when they do that.
It does not make you look smart, and it is not valid argument tactics.

Prove your point first, we shouldn't have to disprove something you have not tried to prove.


From your last post I see you don't understand anarchy.

Doesn't matter if they're qualified. Think about it, if they have a gun, then what're they gonna use it for? Are they gonna go shoot someone for the heck of it? No, they'd really only use it in self defense.

The problem is people will join groups and forc their will on the others. The zealots and racist fucks will use force and fear to control large groups.

Just to elaborate my previous comment that every country defines it differently,

• Liberals used to be right-wing, now people call left-wingers Liberals, at least in North America (In Europe it's different).
• The exact same is true for Conservatives.
• On an American political test I scored "Anarchist"
• On a Canadian political test I scored moderate left

There is no anarchist on a REAL political test.
if you are a moderate in canada, you ARE a moderate in the USA.







edit:
TBH this is stupid, the whole left to right thing is too simplistic and can not be used to truly base someones beliefs. You also need that vertical aspect of the politcal spectrum as well as the horizontal.

People can be just as "left wing" but completely different, Stalin and Gandhi for example. The extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian scale is something that clarifies this difference.

 

[~Void~]

I hate the government. All they do is screw up everything. So until they get a half-decent candidate that people actually vote for, I promote anarchism.

 

[DrazharLn]

You have to remember, everyone has guns now. They can't just come into your house, because they know you have guns to protect yourself, because everybody does.

I find it very sad that this is the case in the states [I assume you live in America]. Why do these people need weapons of death? I don't walk around town with a knife or sit at home polishing the guns in case someone attacks me. Have faith in your fellow humans, we don't need these guns.
[end mini rant]
~Void~, are you in America too? I thought there was great faith in Obama there?

 

[Arvedui]

I find it very sad that this is the case in the states [I assume you live in America]. Why do these people need weapons of death? I don't walk around town with a knife or sit at home polishing the guns in case someone attacks me. Have faith in your fellow humans, we don't need these guns.
[end mini rant]
~Void~, are you in America too? I thought there was great faith in Obama there?

People want "weapons of Death" to protect themselves. I don't know or care where you live. All I know is that every day there's news of some kidnapping or robbery. Some could be averted if you choose to defend yourself. What happens if that person robbing your home carries a gun? Are you going to charge him/her with your bare fists? No, you're going choose to defend yourself and your home and your family.

There is no faith in humanity anymore because humanity is fucked up.
And there is no faith in Obama. All he does is preach about change, but never offers what that change is. The Democratic party is the party of no ideas, and the Republican party is the party of bad ideas.

Obama is a fake, just like every other politician.

 

[emperor_d3st]

Are you going to charge him/her with your bare fists? No, you're going choose to defend yourself and your home and your family.

Some 3 year old girl just shot herself to death with a gun, read the news. I wish I had a gun here at home too so my 5 brother could shot himself or someone else in the family. Guns so rock.

 

[Sansui]

how the fuck does a 3 year old get their hands on a gun in the first place.
I grew up with many pistols and other guns in the house and no one ever shot themselves or someone else. Hell my entire town EVERYONE has a gun and the only person who was shot was someone who cam fro ma city and robbed the local gas station.

Don't give me that shit about guns being a problem.



Oh and no one likes Obama because he is full of it.

 

[Arvedui]

Some 3 year old girl just shot herself to death with a gun, read the news. I wish I had a gun here at home too so my 5 brother could shot himself or someone else in the family. Guns so rock.

You're an idiot and your argument is ignorant. Obviously a 3 year old girl shooting herself is bad. Does that mean guns are bad? No. It means that the retards of parents who let the gun out, are bad.
Please think before posting. I never said that everyone should own a gun. I was making the point that guns can save people from being robbed/mugged/killed.
Do the few cases gun-mishandling outweigh the good that guns have done for some people? No. I know people who would have been robbed and killed if they hadn't had guns. What would you say to the people that could be saved by guns? "Oh I'm sorry, you're supposed to die"?
Yes, a 3 year old girl dying is a tragedy. But so is an entire family getting killed, or a bank teller getting killed, or a convenience store clerk getting killed.
The 3 year old's death could have been averted by her parents being better parents and not letting the gun out, it's not the gun's fault.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


And that wasn't even the topic of the thread, so you fail again.

 

[Hakeem]

You give an example showing us your understanding, instead of trying to act smart asking for examples.
Seriously I'm tired of how annoying people are when they do that.
It does not make you look smart, and it is not valid argument tactics.

Prove your point first, we shouldn't have to disprove something you have not tried to prove.

See, I'm not supporting anarchy. I'm just here to argue the negative attitude people have toward anarchy. Anarchy is automatically under attack, and I am simply asking for valid reasons to back up why anarchy is inherently bad. I don't think it is, and I think it's a valid option to consider.

And don't go trying to tell me a whole lot of people don't automatically have negative attitudes toward anarchy.

The problem is people will join groups and forc their will on the others. The zealots and racist fucks will use force and fear to control large groups.

I question that. In an anarchy, people know they are the only ones who will protect themselves. They wont wait for the police to arrive, and they wont worry about being prosecuted.

Also, in an anarchy, people would avoid groups because they know that a group is corruptible. You are most likely not the most powerful person in the group, and never will be.

I find it very sad that this is the case in the states [I assume you live in America]. Why do these people need weapons of death? I don't walk around town with a knife or sit at home polishing the guns in case someone attacks me. Have faith in your fellow humans, we don't need these guns.

Let's just all get rid of our weapons? Sure. Why not? It's not like there are dangers other than corrupt humans that we need protection from.

how the fuck does a 3 year old get their hands on a gun in the first place.
I grew up with many pistols and other guns in the house and no one ever shot themselves or someone else. Hell my entire town EVERYONE has a gun and the only person who was shot was someone who cam fro ma city and robbed the local gas station.

Don't give me that shit about guns being a problem.

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.
You too, Arvedui.

Also, if you really want to debate about guns, please take it to a new thread, where I'd be more than happy to tell you why guns are not bad.

 

[DrazharLn]

I apologise for sidetracking the thread.

 

[emperor_d3st]

Okay, I'm going against a stonewall here.
You are right, anarchy is great. You are right, guns are great.
You didn't even read what others wrote, yet you ARE supporting anarchy.
I just can't understand why people can't think some things over twice, why can't you see that even in a government where there is law and police force and court and prison we still have crimes and corruption.
Where do you live? Don't you have people there with ill intentions? People don't steal there? People don't rape kids and women there? People don't blow World Trade Centers there? Dammit, US would be a huge dump of ash if there was no crime fighting force there (just like most parts of the world).
And I'm not going against weapons. I'm on the same opinion about guns don't kill people, people do. But it's just not right that any idiot can buy guns. You go into walmart and say "A Glock and a pack of chewing gums please". Awesome.

 

[Arvedui]

But it's just not right that any idiot can buy guns. You go into walmart and say "A Glock and a pack of chewing gums please". Awesome.

As far as I know, there are laws in place to prevent that happening. There's a background check and also a waiting period. Also, I've been to Wal-Mart and there's no gun section

You didn't even read what others wrote, yet you ARE supporting anarchy.

Well, I, for one, do not support the idea of anarchy, or no government. People are stupid and for the most part need to be led. They need to have rules and guidelines to live by, otherwise we would just revert back to the middle-ages, or the Dark Ages, or the fucking cro-magnan era.

Not all governments are good, but not all governments are bad. You're going to have mistakes in government because they're human too. For some reason we put politicians up on some glorious fucking pedestal an in our naivete think that they will do no wrong. Then when they do mess up we get outraged! How dare that human make a mistake! We must kill and ridicule them!

Anyway. Guns are good in the hands of non-retards. Governments are generally good, as long as you don't believe that they won't mess up, because they will.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Do you even know what flaming is? Flaming is calling other people's ideas "stupid" and "crap". Until you, no one has been doing such.

As a matter of fact, flaming is calling people stupid, which he did anyways.

No, MSBB, I think the little punk who likes to pick fights is you. You always post offensive posts no matter the subject.

<3 Delicious irony

And by anything I mean: this; and this or this and hey, the most fun. Don't you think it's great?
But there is no police and hospitals and schools would work much like in those western films.
If you want freedom support liberalism, but not anarchy.

You know, if you are free to get away with something, people are free to stop you. Anarchy is not some sort of system of absolute chaos and zero morality, there is just no governing body to organize/fuck up things.

So you say that 13 year old Lil' Jimmy from around the corner with his glock is qualified to bring out justice? Or the guy who has just found out that his girlfriend is cheating on him? Or the local racist group? Or religious zealots (*BOOM*)? Or the local drug band?
Anarchy would be ruled by crime groups and terror. Some guys would bust your door, rape your sister, have your belongings and walk away when they would feel like walking away.
What could you do? Nothing. They would have great numbers, they would have great power.
Anyways. Crime would skyrocket in anarchy and you should have to say goodbye to many of those things and services you like so much.

Your unbelievable cynicism in humanity is astounding. Why don't you begin the mass suicide that Mother Earth so richly deserves? Set an example, show humanity that humanity must be purged of humanity! People are better people than you give them credit for, just look at America: Laws hardly stop people from being less than people, but if that isn't enough for you, think about it this way: Everybody can retaliate for anything. If you shoot somebody, he's got three buddies that are going to shoot you. You've got three buddies that are going to shoot them, etc. Sooner rather than later, people are going to realize that they can't really do anything they want, because there's going to be people who are going to do anything back.

Some 3 year old girl just shot herself to death with a gun, read the news. I wish I had a gun here at home too so my 5 brother could shot himself or someone else in the family. Guns so rock.

That's because nobody taught that little girl how how dangerous guns are. The mentality is generally keep bad things way the fuck away from children, instead of telling them why those things are bad.

Okay, I'm going against a stonewall here.
You are right, anarchy is great. You are right, guns are great.
You didn't even read what others wrote, yet you ARE supporting anarchy.
I just can't understand why people can't think some things over twice, why can't you see that even in a government where there is law and police force and court and prison we still have crimes and corruption.

First off, <3 Delicious irony @ "think some things over twice". Secondly, that's exactly the point of anarchy. If there is no government, there is no corruption within the government. There are no regulations that prevent corruption within groups that do form to be dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Where do you live? Don't you have people there with ill intentions? People don't steal there? People don't rape kids and women there? People don't blow World Trade Centers there? Dammit, US would be a huge dump of ash if there was no crime fighting force there (just like most parts of the world).

Again, your cynicism regarding the human race is astounding. If there was no crime fighting force, people would generally be scared as hell to do anything that horrible, because there would be a horde of vigilantes after them. America is full of hot-blooded and well-intentioned Americans that shoot first and ask questions later, there are no large racist organizations that hold actual power anymore.

And I'm not going against weapons. I'm on the same opinion about guns don't kill people, people do. But it's just not right that any idiot can buy guns. You go into walmart and say "A Glock and a pack of chewing gums please". Awesome.

The problem is, in the States the focus is on weapons restriction versus weapons awareness, which would prevent a large amount of deaths.

Back to the thread topic, I would like to consider myself a little more liberal, but I tend to be rather moderate, or have conservative reasons for those liberal ideas.

 

[brad.dude03]

I'm a Humanist, but Center-Leftist is the cloest option I suppose.

We're like Libertarians except our school of thinking isn't fundamentally flawed.

 

[Arvedui]

I

rape kids and women

I think that sums you up.

 

[DrazharLn]

Are you a tabloid journalist part time Arvedui?

I'm still the only far-leftist, eek.

right: 8 votes
left: 4 votes

I stand by my earlier comments on the Culture and Anarchism for that topic.
Given these two points: The people of your anarchist country are all going to have access to weaponry, there are more poor people than rich people.
What's to stop the poorest people forming into gangs and then liberating the rich of their wealth? The rich man might hire security, but against an angry mob determined to do some radical wealth redistribution, they will be outnumbered.

 

[Arvedui]

I could try. It doesn't seem all that hard nowadays.

 

[brad.dude03]

I used to be incredibly far left. Withy 0 being as far right as possible and 100 being as far left as possible, a year ago I scored an 87. But I see things a little differently now. As for Communism, social programs etc, I don't like them, because they FORCE people into helping others, when in reality we all know that most of it is going to waste. If it wasn't, sure, alright, I'll give you a small portion of my income to get your life back on track. But for those living in trailer parks with their cable TV, up yours.

I think this image sums up the far left perfectly:

 

[Arvedui]

Yes, once you actually look at the facts of the world, being far-left is very hard. Yes it would be very nice if socialist/communist theories worked, but they don't. I'm all for helping the poor, I've worked in soup kitchens and shit and I've seen how bad it is, but if you cannot trust the government in general, why would you trust them to run EVERYTHING? I don't trust the government to run everything, I know that they're generally corrupt and too set in their ways.

Most people who actually believe in far-left views are either delusional or incredibly stupid. I hate making references to TV but this was too funny. I saw a report on TV about whether people wanted to drill in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.. I believe) and they were asking people on the street what they thought about it, and one girl, with green hair that was shorter than the hair of a marine, more piercings than should be allowed. In short, she was the typical Green Peace loser, and she said that it was unethical to drill for oil there because it would kill Polar Bears. Ok. That's a valid point, except the fact that there ARE NO Polar Bears in that region, or if there are they don't stay there long, only long enough to have cubs and leave. Only caribou, whose population has risen near other oil pipelines/drills/refineries instead of decreased. It made me lol.

Also what made me lol even more, was the fact that where the drilling would be was in the middle of an ice wasteland that isn't inhabitable by any animal, be it caribou or polar bear.