Comment on Ron Paul is Truth by waterostrich
Btw, I was thinking about your comment. Your idea that anarchy will create war and totalitarianism is based on the unquestioned premise that hierarchy, civilization, and this system do not, when in fact totalitarianism and war are a very product of those three things. You cannot have tyranical behavior in an anarchist society, it is impossible, because it is not an anarchist society, and please if nothing else, address to me how it didn't happen for billions of years with mans evolutionary ancestors but somehow you believe it is all the sudden going to happen now. And also, why did it not happen in Spain, and the other examples. Capitalism leads to tyranical behavior, Christ, look at work alone as an example for this. You also have the assumption that you can be free when someone is telling you what to do. That you can be free when you have to obey laws. I encourage you to read up more an anarchy with the links i gave you, you will find it will provide much more freedom for you than minimul government.
Well, if anarchy existed for billions of years, that hierarchy some how never existed (mind you it will always exist at the family level) then that proves that anarchy does in fact lead to totalitarianism. If it existed, and is what it is now, in the grand scheme, it leads to tyranny. The evolution of government if you will takes billions of years as does the evolution of life. Anarchy does not exist in Spain presently (correct me if I am wrong in this, but the Spanish I've spoken with never mentioned any such thing.) Thus further enforcing my belief that anarchy can not exist (or at least can not maintain.)
I will read the links provided upon my recieving more time (with the holidays and preparations that must be made in my move to Florida, it may be a few weeks.) but I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature.
I will read the links provided upon my recieving more time (with the holidays and preparations that must be made in my move to Florida, it may be a few weeks.) but I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature.
It's inaccurate to say that anarchy lead to that. Anarchy never ended because people voluntarily chose to adapt the way of civilization, but because it was forced upon them. It's two different ways of life that you can't compare, it's like saying because a library ended up being torn down and was replaced with a Wal-mart, libraries lead to Wal-marts. No, hierarchy didn't exist at the family level either, anthropology is an area that I am knowledgable in actually and if you like at it, it teaches us that hierarchy didn't exist in any form before 6,000 years ago. Anarchy still exists in our everyday relationships everytime you have a voluntary relationship, everytime there is equality, everytime decisions are made collectively and no one enforces their will upon another, it's just that it doesn't exist completely, hierarchy has to have anarchy within it, but anarchy can't have hierarchy within it. If you want better examples you can look at ants, honey bee's, and many animal and insect species out there. There was actually an article in national geographic on swarm intelligence in various species, the ants being one example, in which there is no hierarchical authority and they all work together in mutual aid with no centralized authority and no management or anything. The question is, if it can work for animals and insects, and bugs, why can't it exist for humans? Of course it doesn't exist in Spain, there is a government in place, but the point is that it did exist, and it was successful when it did, it was during the Spanish revolution and they maintained it while they were fighting a war, there is also the Paris Commune, and countless other examples, and the Zapista movement currently which has anarchist thought although not completely anarchist. Lets put it this way, you don't trust people, because you have been convinced that people aren't to be trusted, the government has to make you believe that it is there for the protection of the people, because otherwise it is useless and those in power want to remain in power, but as you can see from the billions of years of anarchy existing, there was never a Holocaust, or a World War, or mass genocide, or any of that other stuff we have become familiar with. Anarchy has already existed and does exist, so you cannot say that it cannot exist, that by principle is like saying the Sun cannot exist when it is already there, or that the food that you consumed couldn't exist because you ate it. Hierarchy, civilization, cannot be maintained, they lead to the destruction of the natural world. Once you have power, powre will continue to centralize itself which is why you can't have minimal government, because power is the ultimate of all addictions and the people who love that fix will continue to want more and more power. We must eliminate power all together. It won't have billions of years to evolve, because government won't last that long, this way of life won't last that long, it's just a matter of how long it will last. We'll go back to the stone age sometime, yes, that sounds ridiculous to you probably but it is the only level of technology that is sustainable. I provided you with a link to infoshop.org which is perhaps the most valuable for a basic introduction to anarchy with their faq, although I do not agree with everything they say, and I would reccomend the green anarchy mag and CrimethInc more than anything.
Lets put it this way, if you are going to say anarchy doesn't work then you are going to have to find a way to convince me that the postal service doesn't work, affinity groups do not work, the black bloc does not work, Food Not Bombs groups do not work, Critical Masses do not work, anarchist community squats do not work, the actions of anarchists at the WTO in 1999 weren't effective, etc etc. That's another thing that should be noted, if anarchy leads to totalitarianism then anarchist action would ultimately lead to totalitarianism, but in fact anarchists have been involved in taking down many totalitarian regimes and still are working towards taking them down. We're working towards overthrowing the government and the system which is totalitarian, you're looking at electing someone new.
"I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
This statement makes no sense so I don't know what you're getting at. And in an anarchist State there is no government, and no one tells anyone else whta to do, I cannot tell you what to do, you cannot tell me what to do. As far as the crime thing that you apparently are worried about, "crime" which is completley an arbitrary and manmade thing, but things such as murder and rape, no anarchist is for those things, but the people who do these things do it becuase of the social circumstances which exist, primarily because of capitalism, or they aren't mentally sane, which this culture and system also doesn't deal with mental health in a proper way. Anarchists have set up radical mental health discussion meetings which are free from judgment and are much more successful then just locking someone up or shoving pills down their throat like this system would have us do.
"I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
If people are that untrust worthy, that dangerous, and flat out horrible, well, first of all, lets put it this way, you don't trust people in their civilized way without law, which is understandable as I do not either, in their natural state of nature when they haven't been domesticated, they are different and they aren't at all like you think or this species wouldn't exist today, as the uncivilized human beings lived in a much more peaceful cooperative way. Still, if you don't trust people that much then I'm curious how you really believe that the law is going to stop them from doing anything. Obviously the law has no effect, and jail doesn't do shit to stop people from committing crimes. Also, your argument holds a certain arrogance through all of this as if you are perfect enough to allow this to exist but it is everyone else who is flawed, when it is you yourself who are electing people into positions of power-see the contradiction here?
Lets put it this way, if you are going to say anarchy doesn't work then you are going to have to find a way to convince me that the postal service doesn't work, affinity groups do not work, the black bloc does not work, Food Not Bombs groups do not work, Critical Masses do not work, anarchist community squats do not work, the actions of anarchists at the WTO in 1999 weren't effective, etc etc. That's another thing that should be noted, if anarchy leads to totalitarianism then anarchist action would ultimately lead to totalitarianism, but in fact anarchists have been involved in taking down many totalitarian regimes and still are working towards taking them down. We're working towards overthrowing the government and the system which is totalitarian, you're looking at electing someone new.
"I can't think of any argument that would make me want a government that tells me 'don't kill people!' as I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
This statement makes no sense so I don't know what you're getting at. And in an anarchist State there is no government, and no one tells anyone else whta to do, I cannot tell you what to do, you cannot tell me what to do. As far as the crime thing that you apparently are worried about, "crime" which is completley an arbitrary and manmade thing, but things such as murder and rape, no anarchist is for those things, but the people who do these things do it becuase of the social circumstances which exist, primarily because of capitalism, or they aren't mentally sane, which this culture and system also doesn't deal with mental health in a proper way. Anarchists have set up radical mental health discussion meetings which are free from judgment and are much more successful then just locking someone up or shoving pills down their throat like this system would have us do.
"I don't trust most people in such a natural state of nature."
If people are that untrust worthy, that dangerous, and flat out horrible, well, first of all, lets put it this way, you don't trust people in their civilized way without law, which is understandable as I do not either, in their natural state of nature when they haven't been domesticated, they are different and they aren't at all like you think or this species wouldn't exist today, as the uncivilized human beings lived in a much more peaceful cooperative way. Still, if you don't trust people that much then I'm curious how you really believe that the law is going to stop them from doing anything. Obviously the law has no effect, and jail doesn't do shit to stop people from committing crimes. Also, your argument holds a certain arrogance through all of this as if you are perfect enough to allow this to exist but it is everyone else who is flawed, when it is you yourself who are electing people into positions of power-see the contradiction here?
Billions of years ago the population wasn't near to what is now, or even 6000 years ago. I believe it is the inevitable increase in population, forcing persons into tighter and tighter corners which develop the concept of property, which cause people to begin to mistrust their fellow man, and lead them to seek protection be it in some feudal sense, or a less restrictive one such as minimal government.
You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem.
It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. Where this is good there must be bad. So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence.
You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem.
It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. Where this is good there must be bad. So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence.
"Billions of years ago the population wasn't near to what is now, or even 6000 years ago. I believe it is the inevitable increase in population,"
Yes, that is correct, and we have overreached the carrying capacity, we have too many god damned people and we will eventually have lesser population cause there is no way this population size can ever be sustainable and it will crash. I am not saying lets go and kill people, nor am I saying lets force people to have this amount of kids, just to clear that up, but I am saying that we do have too many people and that will eventually be something that will be no more. We can't have this many people, it is an environmental and social issue, it's not the number one issue but it is one of the many roots of the problem.
"
You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem."
No, hierarchy won't develop, and meeting such as these are already being held in Modesto, California. I never said that a consul is formed, I said it could be one way in which it could be addressed. You must keep in mind that we don't wish to force a new world upon anybody, we don't wish to force a certain way of life or anything at all upon anybody. We have ideas, key word there being ideas, as to how society should be. Obviously however, there are underlying things that make an anarchist society an anarchist society which is that there is no hierarchical authority, everyone is free, communities are autonomous, everyone is equal, there is no law, and there are principles of mutual aid. How a community decides to be isn't up to us, we're not Communists, a community could decide to have principles of green anarchy, or some other form of anarchy, it's not up to us to decide alone, it's up for everyone, how a community will deal with issues is something that community has to work out, I merely bring up examples of how it could work, and how it has worked in the past as examples of how it could work in the future if people so choose. No one would force anyone to show up to the meetings though, no one would force anything upon that person. If someone is raping their wife continuously, and beating their family, saying hypathetically of course this scenario will still be common, then the community can ostracize them and have nothing else to do with them, and then they would have to try and find somewhere else to go. You are desperate to make a connection that everything will come to have hierarchy, and yet you still fail to explain how communities can exist today without hierarchy arising, indeed, communities that have existed for thousands of years such as the Jarawa tribe on India's isolated Anadaman Island which has existed for tens of thousands of years, for more on this you can read [link]
rintIssueId=4&writingId=153 .Furthermore, hierarchy only exists if the people allow it to, just as government only exists if people allow it too, the State itself is an abstract idea just as civilization is. If people agree to be ruled over, they will be ruled over, if they don't, they won't, it's that simple, you cannot impose an abstraction on the masses if they do not comply, that is why people have had to be domesticated and conditioned, they have had to have the thought instilled in their minds since day one that a world cannot exist without hierarchy, much as you cannot imagine that it can't, denying all facts presented in front of you as you grasp for some connection as if life wouldn't truly be better without government.
Lets for the sake of argument say anarchy does have some form of hierarchy (which is completely contradictory to what it is so it would no longer be anarchy) and it does have chaos, and there is murder and such. Do you honestly believe that things would be better with a society based ultimately upon hierarchy than a society based upon anarchy? Fuck, everything successful works because of anarchy, hierarchy fucks everything up. Look at where you work if you work, the higher up the hierarchy you go, the less the mother fuckers do and the more lazy they are, and thye are cashing in off of exploiting you. How much could you get done if not for the boss? Do you and your co-workers sit around and do nothing when the boss isn't eyeing your every action? How about love. Have you ever loved somebody? Hierarchy leads to abuse in a relationship, anarchy within a relationship leads to a strong connection in which both people in the relationship are equally giving to each other and working for the relationship. Um, lets see what else, well, here we go, when you hang out with friends, are you all equal, do you make decisions based on consensus or does one person just do whatever he wants and the rest just follow a long? It seems to me that you like being a tool for the State to use, that you like being used, is this true? Do you like knowing that your life has no worth, no value, other than to help reaffirm the position of the rich? Do you like the idea that your life can be taken at any moment if it constitutes a threat to private property, as obviously private property in this society is held above life itself.
"It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. "
To consult the chaos theory, chaos is order, and order is apparently what you seek. Look at this orderly society we have now, where does it get us? It creates crime, it breeds discontent, it's a fucking mad world out there.
"Where this is good there must be bad."
Perhaps there will always be bad, yes, but you have a doubt in people's ability to take care of things. The people don't do shit in this society because they are reliant on someone else to do it for them, they are reliant on the police or the judge to solve problems for them, instead of solving problems themselves. If there is bad, you have to ask which will bring more bad. When you have someone in a position of power where they have no accountability at all (and don't even give me that bullshit of democracy, if you are even fucking naive enough to think democracy works then I don't know what the hell to tell you) they are going to do whatever they want and get away with it. I'm not advocating a world without accountability, but it's curious where your questoins arise. Look at this way, is it your neighbor, the janitor who is going out and destroying the rain forest? No, it's the CEO of a corporation that is responsible for that. Is it the guy who works at McDonalds who is causing massive destruction to the rain forest? No, it's the people at the top of the hierarchy. Is it the American people who told this government that a war with Iraq has to be had, or was it the government that manipulated the people into going into it? Is it the government wanting to create more nuclear weapons (choose any government here) or is it me and you? Did you give money to the Israeli government to occupy Palestine? No, the government did. Lets look at the terrorist attacks that have happened, what has caused terrorist attacks throughout time? Religion, government, land disputes, nationalism, all hierarchical things, you didn't see the Indians who had no concept of land ownership going out and killing each other because another tribe got to the spot where they were going first, no, they went somewhere else cause they didn't get there first. Was it the Brethren of the Free Spirit who killed members of the Catholic Church or vice versa? Was it atheists who started holy wars? Was it pagans who went out to kill every Christian out there, calling them heathens? In what cause has the greatest genocides every been perpretrated, in the name of anarchy or hierarchy? What creates slavery, hierarchy or anarchy? Who is victimizing children in third world countries so that they will make clothing for a fraction of a cent? What started the civil war? Christ, for that matter, what was the revolutionary war about? Since yo udon't know that last one I'm sure, I'll enlighten you. The Revolutionary War was started over the fact that some greedy assholes (one of them your hero Jefferson) wanted more fucking land than they were being allowed to own, they wanted a monopoly on shit, and with that, the government wouldn't steal all the land that the Indians were living on, the land that they wanted, and they refused to go and kill the Indians (oh yeah, there's another thing for you, manifest destiny, you want to blame that on the Indians?), they wanted more money, and they wnated to be in control, they were true capitalists, the things that you love in the Constitution, the things that your hero loves, they came as a result of compromises because they knew the people wouldn't be satisfied without them, but they weren't too hell-bent on the ideas, and actually opposed to them. I would recommend Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. So you see, there are endless examples, and when has accountability been held for these people? Very rarely, especially if they were Christian, white, and Amerikan. You are afraid of the everyday common man, I am not afraid of the everyday common man unless he is in a position of power to perpretrate these crimes against the people. Hitler didn't perpretrate his crimes as a citizen with no power, it was only when he had power that he carried them out.
"So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence."
Love doesn't imply pacifism. Apparently you have no love? I'm no passavist, and I'm ready to fight to create a better world, it's a hell of a lot better than being ready to die for an abstraction such as the State. Anarchists are the ones who fight regardless of governmental rules/influence, don't act like the people who want government are really heroes. Have you ever herad of the Haymarket Martyrs? How about Sacco and Vanzetti? Have you ever herad of the Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front, or Earth First!? Those are cases of people fighting for things that libertarians would never dream of doing, especially since they are all based on the premises of direct action (that is, eliminating the middle man, something you want to uphold-direct action is what an anarchist society would be based on).
Yes, that is correct, and we have overreached the carrying capacity, we have too many god damned people and we will eventually have lesser population cause there is no way this population size can ever be sustainable and it will crash. I am not saying lets go and kill people, nor am I saying lets force people to have this amount of kids, just to clear that up, but I am saying that we do have too many people and that will eventually be something that will be no more. We can't have this many people, it is an environmental and social issue, it's not the number one issue but it is one of the many roots of the problem.
"
You say 'no one tells anyone else what to do.' You re-affirm that no anarchist stands for those acts, and mention that a consul of sorts is formed to discuss and deal with the mentally ill. Does this consul consist of all parties of the community? or is it decided upon via perhaps a vote? or is it encouraged that all members of the community attend these meetings? or just any interested in deciding how to best deal with such issues attend? In either scenario, hierarchy will develop in some minor form, or so it would seem."
No, hierarchy won't develop, and meeting such as these are already being held in Modesto, California. I never said that a consul is formed, I said it could be one way in which it could be addressed. You must keep in mind that we don't wish to force a new world upon anybody, we don't wish to force a certain way of life or anything at all upon anybody. We have ideas, key word there being ideas, as to how society should be. Obviously however, there are underlying things that make an anarchist society an anarchist society which is that there is no hierarchical authority, everyone is free, communities are autonomous, everyone is equal, there is no law, and there are principles of mutual aid. How a community decides to be isn't up to us, we're not Communists, a community could decide to have principles of green anarchy, or some other form of anarchy, it's not up to us to decide alone, it's up for everyone, how a community will deal with issues is something that community has to work out, I merely bring up examples of how it could work, and how it has worked in the past as examples of how it could work in the future if people so choose. No one would force anyone to show up to the meetings though, no one would force anything upon that person. If someone is raping their wife continuously, and beating their family, saying hypathetically of course this scenario will still be common, then the community can ostracize them and have nothing else to do with them, and then they would have to try and find somewhere else to go. You are desperate to make a connection that everything will come to have hierarchy, and yet you still fail to explain how communities can exist today without hierarchy arising, indeed, communities that have existed for thousands of years such as the Jarawa tribe on India's isolated Anadaman Island which has existed for tens of thousands of years, for more on this you can read [link]
rintIssueId=4&writingId=153 .Furthermore, hierarchy only exists if the people allow it to, just as government only exists if people allow it too, the State itself is an abstract idea just as civilization is. If people agree to be ruled over, they will be ruled over, if they don't, they won't, it's that simple, you cannot impose an abstraction on the masses if they do not comply, that is why people have had to be domesticated and conditioned, they have had to have the thought instilled in their minds since day one that a world cannot exist without hierarchy, much as you cannot imagine that it can't, denying all facts presented in front of you as you grasp for some connection as if life wouldn't truly be better without government. Lets for the sake of argument say anarchy does have some form of hierarchy (which is completely contradictory to what it is so it would no longer be anarchy) and it does have chaos, and there is murder and such. Do you honestly believe that things would be better with a society based ultimately upon hierarchy than a society based upon anarchy? Fuck, everything successful works because of anarchy, hierarchy fucks everything up. Look at where you work if you work, the higher up the hierarchy you go, the less the mother fuckers do and the more lazy they are, and thye are cashing in off of exploiting you. How much could you get done if not for the boss? Do you and your co-workers sit around and do nothing when the boss isn't eyeing your every action? How about love. Have you ever loved somebody? Hierarchy leads to abuse in a relationship, anarchy within a relationship leads to a strong connection in which both people in the relationship are equally giving to each other and working for the relationship. Um, lets see what else, well, here we go, when you hang out with friends, are you all equal, do you make decisions based on consensus or does one person just do whatever he wants and the rest just follow a long? It seems to me that you like being a tool for the State to use, that you like being used, is this true? Do you like knowing that your life has no worth, no value, other than to help reaffirm the position of the rich? Do you like the idea that your life can be taken at any moment if it constitutes a threat to private property, as obviously private property in this society is held above life itself.
"It's not necessarily arrogance, but rather a belief in balance. "
To consult the chaos theory, chaos is order, and order is apparently what you seek. Look at this orderly society we have now, where does it get us? It creates crime, it breeds discontent, it's a fucking mad world out there.
"Where this is good there must be bad."
Perhaps there will always be bad, yes, but you have a doubt in people's ability to take care of things. The people don't do shit in this society because they are reliant on someone else to do it for them, they are reliant on the police or the judge to solve problems for them, instead of solving problems themselves. If there is bad, you have to ask which will bring more bad. When you have someone in a position of power where they have no accountability at all (and don't even give me that bullshit of democracy, if you are even fucking naive enough to think democracy works then I don't know what the hell to tell you) they are going to do whatever they want and get away with it. I'm not advocating a world without accountability, but it's curious where your questoins arise. Look at this way, is it your neighbor, the janitor who is going out and destroying the rain forest? No, it's the CEO of a corporation that is responsible for that. Is it the guy who works at McDonalds who is causing massive destruction to the rain forest? No, it's the people at the top of the hierarchy. Is it the American people who told this government that a war with Iraq has to be had, or was it the government that manipulated the people into going into it? Is it the government wanting to create more nuclear weapons (choose any government here) or is it me and you? Did you give money to the Israeli government to occupy Palestine? No, the government did. Lets look at the terrorist attacks that have happened, what has caused terrorist attacks throughout time? Religion, government, land disputes, nationalism, all hierarchical things, you didn't see the Indians who had no concept of land ownership going out and killing each other because another tribe got to the spot where they were going first, no, they went somewhere else cause they didn't get there first. Was it the Brethren of the Free Spirit who killed members of the Catholic Church or vice versa? Was it atheists who started holy wars? Was it pagans who went out to kill every Christian out there, calling them heathens? In what cause has the greatest genocides every been perpretrated, in the name of anarchy or hierarchy? What creates slavery, hierarchy or anarchy? Who is victimizing children in third world countries so that they will make clothing for a fraction of a cent? What started the civil war? Christ, for that matter, what was the revolutionary war about? Since yo udon't know that last one I'm sure, I'll enlighten you. The Revolutionary War was started over the fact that some greedy assholes (one of them your hero Jefferson) wanted more fucking land than they were being allowed to own, they wanted a monopoly on shit, and with that, the government wouldn't steal all the land that the Indians were living on, the land that they wanted, and they refused to go and kill the Indians (oh yeah, there's another thing for you, manifest destiny, you want to blame that on the Indians?), they wanted more money, and they wnated to be in control, they were true capitalists, the things that you love in the Constitution, the things that your hero loves, they came as a result of compromises because they knew the people wouldn't be satisfied without them, but they weren't too hell-bent on the ideas, and actually opposed to them. I would recommend Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. So you see, there are endless examples, and when has accountability been held for these people? Very rarely, especially if they were Christian, white, and Amerikan. You are afraid of the everyday common man, I am not afraid of the everyday common man unless he is in a position of power to perpretrate these crimes against the people. Hitler didn't perpretrate his crimes as a citizen with no power, it was only when he had power that he carried them out.
"So if I am a pacifist, surely there must be someone whom loves to fight! Regardless of governmental rules/influence."
Love doesn't imply pacifism. Apparently you have no love? I'm no passavist, and I'm ready to fight to create a better world, it's a hell of a lot better than being ready to die for an abstraction such as the State. Anarchists are the ones who fight regardless of governmental rules/influence, don't act like the people who want government are really heroes. Have you ever herad of the Haymarket Martyrs? How about Sacco and Vanzetti? Have you ever herad of the Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front, or Earth First!? Those are cases of people fighting for things that libertarians would never dream of doing, especially since they are all based on the premises of direct action (that is, eliminating the middle man, something you want to uphold-direct action is what an anarchist society would be based on).