<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rejecting the Religion of Statism Part 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/03/30/rejecting-the-religion-of-statism-part-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/03/30/rejecting-the-religion-of-statism-part-2/</link>
	<description>The Revolution Will Be Doodled!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:43:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale</title>
		<link>http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/03/30/rejecting-the-religion-of-statism-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-8677</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=999#comment-8677</guid>
		<description>That very long post has a lot of presumptions about my beliefs that simply aren&#039;t true.  It&#039;s obvious from so many of those presumption you haven&#039;t read much of what I&#039;ve written.  You&#039;re arguing with your own strawman.  If you actually care to learn more about the philosophies (plural) of anarchy, even if it&#039;s just to oppose, this is probably not the best site for it.

This site is good for figuring out where I stand if you want to take the time to read some of what I&#039;ve written.  If you don&#039;t want to take the time, that&#039;s fine, but don&#039;t expect me to waste a lot of my time repeating things when I&#039;ve already gone to great care composing my thoughts into articles on this site before.  A good start is &lt;a href=&quot;http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/&quot;&gt;Anarchy Isn&#039;t The Answer&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That very long post has a lot of presumptions about my beliefs that simply aren&#8217;t true.  It&#8217;s obvious from so many of those presumption you haven&#8217;t read much of what I&#8217;ve written.  You&#8217;re arguing with your own strawman.  If you actually care to learn more about the philosophies (plural) of anarchy, even if it&#8217;s just to oppose, this is probably not the best site for it.</p>
<p>This site is good for figuring out where I stand if you want to take the time to read some of what I&#8217;ve written.  If you don&#8217;t want to take the time, that&#8217;s fine, but don&#8217;t expect me to waste a lot of my time repeating things when I&#8217;ve already gone to great care composing my thoughts into articles on this site before.  A good start is <a href="http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/28/anarchy-isnt-the-answer/">Anarchy Isn&#8217;t The Answer</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avalanche</title>
		<link>http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/03/30/rejecting-the-religion-of-statism-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-8676</link>
		<dc:creator>Avalanche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=999#comment-8676</guid>
		<description>You wrote:  &quot;... definition of “anarchist”... one who opposes rulers .... an anarchist necessarily has to be an anti-ruler.&quot;

The problem I see with anarchy is that, instead of people being joined together in &#039;tribes&#039; or &#039;bands&#039; -- which must, of necessity have &quot;rules&quot; (and leadership, and thus chiefs / leaders / generals, whatever you call them), y&#039;all would have the world become every man for himself. You would, I guess, just join together for the &#039;work of the moment&#039; as necessary -- but still without having any leader?

And when some organized tribe or band from over the hill comes to your lone homestead to take your goods (or you!) -- how will you protect yourself, your family, your goods?  Join together with your neighbors? Which neighbor gets to decides HOW to fortify and defend your homes and lands? Oh -- oops -- you aren&#039;t going to HAVE any homes and lands, right?  Cause property is bad?  And none of you will accede to one of your neighbors becoming the general, because that smacks too much of your hated &quot;archist&quot; idea -- your &quot;we don&#039;t need no ruler&quot; crap.  And so, whichever group of folks bands together and wishes to &#039;take your stuff for their use&#039; WILL takes your stuff for their use!  

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will PLOW for those who don&#039;t!!

If you won&#039;t organize into bands, tribes, states -- with all the rules, controls, and management (&quot;archism&quot;) that that entails, then you WILL be taken over and controlled by those who will band together.  &quot;Every man for himself&quot; -- &quot;every man his own leader&quot; is a fool&#039;s choice, because any group of men who decide to band together will ALWAYS win out over the singleton!  

If you want your life to be within your own control, then you need to band together with your *own* people and make sure the government you submit to is YOUR government -- not some foreign oligarchy that uses you, your family, your goods, your friends, for THEIR purposes. &quot;We are the world&quot; is a lovely slave&#039;s song *provided to* the slaves so they will stay quiescent in harness; and &quot;every man for himself&quot; is a lovely diversion to keep slaves individualized and powerless.  &quot;Anarchy&quot; and &quot;we hate all rulers&quot; is what a SLAVE cries -- not a free man!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You wrote:  &#8220;&#8230; definition of “anarchist”&#8230; one who opposes rulers &#8230;. an anarchist necessarily has to be an anti-ruler.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem I see with anarchy is that, instead of people being joined together in &#8216;tribes&#8217; or &#8216;bands&#8217; &#8212; which must, of necessity have &#8220;rules&#8221; (and leadership, and thus chiefs / leaders / generals, whatever you call them), y&#8217;all would have the world become every man for himself. You would, I guess, just join together for the &#8216;work of the moment&#8217; as necessary &#8212; but still without having any leader?</p>
<p>And when some organized tribe or band from over the hill comes to your lone homestead to take your goods (or you!) &#8212; how will you protect yourself, your family, your goods?  Join together with your neighbors? Which neighbor gets to decides HOW to fortify and defend your homes and lands? Oh &#8212; oops &#8212; you aren&#8217;t going to HAVE any homes and lands, right?  Cause property is bad?  And none of you will accede to one of your neighbors becoming the general, because that smacks too much of your hated &#8220;archist&#8221; idea &#8212; your &#8220;we don&#8217;t need no ruler&#8221; crap.  And so, whichever group of folks bands together and wishes to &#8216;take your stuff for their use&#8217; WILL takes your stuff for their use!  </p>
<p>Those who beat their swords into plowshares will PLOW for those who don&#8217;t!!</p>
<p>If you won&#8217;t organize into bands, tribes, states &#8212; with all the rules, controls, and management (&#8220;archism&#8221;) that that entails, then you WILL be taken over and controlled by those who will band together.  &#8220;Every man for himself&#8221; &#8212; &#8220;every man his own leader&#8221; is a fool&#8217;s choice, because any group of men who decide to band together will ALWAYS win out over the singleton!  </p>
<p>If you want your life to be within your own control, then you need to band together with your *own* people and make sure the government you submit to is YOUR government &#8212; not some foreign oligarchy that uses you, your family, your goods, your friends, for THEIR purposes. &#8220;We are the world&#8221; is a lovely slave&#8217;s song *provided to* the slaves so they will stay quiescent in harness; and &#8220;every man for himself&#8221; is a lovely diversion to keep slaves individualized and powerless.  &#8220;Anarchy&#8221; and &#8220;we hate all rulers&#8221; is what a SLAVE cries &#8212; not a free man!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB</title>
		<link>http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2010/03/30/rejecting-the-religion-of-statism-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-7543</link>
		<dc:creator>DB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anarchyinyourhead.com/?p=999#comment-7543</guid>
		<description>Sorry, I made an error in writing my last comment. The author of the book is: Professor James C. Scott. I made a error Riggenbach wrote a review of the book which is the quote I included.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I made an error in writing my last comment. The author of the book is: Professor James C. Scott. I made a error Riggenbach wrote a review of the book which is the quote I included.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

