There you go RA. Your perfect spouse: ill-informed, obtuse, ineloquent and patronising.

Send us a piece of wedding cake.

I agree with her, (you'll be surprised to hear).
I don't consider myself particularly stupid, just rooted in realism
The reason anarchy hasn't taken off is that it is generally incompatible to homo-sapiens instinctive/natural societal structures.

File it alongside lambs having a kip next to lions. Ain't gonna happen.

Actually one thing bores me to tears on SZ and it is the constant evangelism of the church of anarchy.

btw period man, before you even think about getting your shit-stirrers crowbar out to attempt to create a ruck here, I have immense respect for both oi and mikey but we simple have vastly differing views on this topic.

Just sayin' before you get tempted ok.

[i made the Survival of the Fittest thread long ago....

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1][2] The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Truth is i never stir shit...

I do get what feather says here. Look around and you see few responsible enuff to deal with anarchy.
Yet, anarchy stands out to me as the glaringly obviously best way of ditching the oppressors and living in community.
So I wonder what other candidates offer so much?

All you have to do to achieve Anarchy is convince the people of earth that being greedy is wrong...

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely
unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to
the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to
you?"—"That's my seat, I was there first"—"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"— "Why
should you shove in first?"—"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"—"Come on, you
promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children
as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes diem is not merely saying
that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard
of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies:
"To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not
really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some
special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that
things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which
lets him off keeping his promise.

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real
Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his
promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can
say Jack Robinson.

knobmeup wrote:
Another truism is that huge numbers are lazy, apathetic or ill-equiped and prefer to abdicate decision making and action functions onto others.
That attitude displays itself from politics to fashion.
Do I 'get' why people turn out in droves to celebrate a coronation/election win or why they fret about which colour/shade if 'in' this season?
Yes.
They seek acceptance, and ergo protection, by the pack and favour from the pack leader(s)

Do I give a personal damn about those desires?
Fuck no!

However I accept that my attitude does not alter the majority's desires or insecurities.
I also can't claim they are 'stupid.' Their preference works, (to a degree), but has a cost.

Truth Hurts...