Both political parties have been exposed to be total frauds and they don't really represent anything that we all thought they were. Democrats have not seemed to back down on their big-government views even when it comes to cases like National Security. When it comes to the National Security state the Democrats have flip-flopped and have taken the same views as Republicans when it comes to wiretapping, covert operations, assassination programs, and using bomb threats. Democrats have also flip-flopped on their views in corporations.

While many Democrats have poised themselves to be anti-corporations it is clear that from the legislation that they've passed that they've only wanted reform, but only reform for the corporations so they'll have more stuff, while passing a phony consumer protection bill that is more of a power-grab for the federal government. There was a time when they were their anti-corporate self, when the Supreme Court made that ruling regarding corporations, but now things are back to normal.

We can't really trust most libertarians either. Libertarians have made an alliance with the Republican party and they still seem to think that the Tea-Party stands for limited government. There are those that know the truth and speak it freely, but those are the more radical ones. And as we know the Republican party is still the same as ever, with Jim Boehner being the corporate-politician and not hiding it. What has happened to our country when a politician is in bed with lobbyists? People elect him to be the house speaker of course.

There hasn't been a real investigation about the causes of 9-11 yet and how it happened. I am not a 9-11 truther but I believe there was more to it than just Al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Maybe it even had Saudi financing? Our government refuses to acknowledge this possibility because we're in bed with Saudi Arabia and both parties seem intent on kissing up to their king and not getting us off on oil. Presidents will talk but they don't encourage private investors enough.

Is anarchism the way forward? I'm starting to really get tired of this false-dichotomy, and false two-party system without real representation. We have a voice, and we can vote people in office, but once they're elected they forget the voice of the people that elected them. And the government doesn't ever seem to get smaller no matter even if "limited-government Republicans" get elected.

Is anarchism the solution? I'd say it might be a solution, or at least a temporary solution in order for society to get itself back on its feet and kick out the elites that have been lying to them and have been treating them like dogs. I say we should try anarchism for a while and then remake our system, or until as long as it takes to really just restore the balance back to the people. We can set up organizations for various government agencies like the military and make them private corporations at the mean time and make them accountable to individuals. They can still do things in an anarchical society but until we bring back saneness into our society, we need them to be de-legitimized from their authority position at least in the meantime.

And no, I'm not saying that we should be a society of complete disorder. The various government forces would still be there, and the police would still be there. They just wouldn't have their authority as the head of the state like they've had before and they would have to compete with other people to regain their legitimacy.

I'm all for temporary anarchism. I believe that the state in modern societies has been more or less a parasite on its people. It claims to represent the will of the people while it ignores it and supports the plutocratic elite. It may at times support the people, but they've been proving to us more and more that the people that they care about are the ones that are in business. They want these corrupt corporations to keep going and for only 4% of people to not be their slaves. It's time to end this facade. We can still have companies and corporations and stuff... but we just need to really reform their legal rights and powers through the legal systems.

What are your thoughts? I don't consider myself an anarchist, but I am contemplating that temporary anarchism might be a good thing, if it was done right.

What would you refere to as in anarchism ? Little kids robing the coniniance store ? That is not anarchism.
I would say it;s regarded to living free as an individual, Anarchism can have it's empire where all agree on it to live in some kind of order. It's will out of chaos. Who wants to be part of our empire the rest can go live in the forests on the hills free, and the empire never go's to the hills. It just stays there.

The problem with this empire is that it's created on suffering with tricks behind closed doors, with lies.
Can you imagine how much killing and suffering was craved to get here. It's insanity and there is no where to go, because everything is this big empire. Nothing is free, all is money and money is all.

Sounds so very similar to the Libertarian ideal..

Self reliance

Self responsibilty

If people, as a whole were more self reliant and took responsibility for their actions, the majority of the problems listed in the OP would disappear.

Although I know it is a dirty word on here generally, true Conservatism exemplifies exactly the positions you have laid out..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Sounds so very similar to the Libertarian ideal..

Self reliance

Self responsibilty

If people, as a whole were more self reliant and took responsibility for their actions, the majority of the problems listed in the OP would disappear.

Although I know it is a dirty word on here generally, true Conservatism exemplifies exactly the positions you have laid out..

Semper

You make it sound so easy, people are influenced by control.They make it so hard that you can;'t be that way. As a human you have a level that you can take, then you give in, you don't care. We are not robots, we will never be.

Everything I’ve heard about anarchism is that’s it’s a good way to bring down a country, but a terrible way to run one without it becoming susceptible to tyrants –other power grabbers (like in George Orwell's, Animal Farm where the pigs replaced the farmer as tyrant).

Instead I believe we need a “Charterist” movement; i.e. a list of shared-popular demands, and passive resistance as the main form of protest. Street protests don’t work (other than to put your name on a government database!). We need something where the leaders aren’t definable-singular enough to be corrupted, arrested, or assassinated.

Governing one self and learning to be self sufficient is often a lifetime of experience unless your fortunate to have had it in your life at some point.

No matter the "climate" of the body politic how you govern yourself and what you know about legal fictions is a solution onto itself .. To yourself.

So in so far as a solution? Absolutely, but you have to realize this has to be a personal revolution. Not something you can push int he self help section of the bookstores. or at rally s. You can create personal communities (which might be a challenge for individualists) but in so far as these co ops go they have been around and continue to endure.

So seek. or create them for yourselves.

The thing that I cannot understand is why do people feel the need to be led?.

Why does someone need another he/she considers greater than him/herself?.

Anarchy is only considered to be a negative thing by those who crave control over others.

Anarchy is only bad when those in the world have become irresponsible and selfish,not considering the needs and feelings of others.

Ahhh,that's it.

A bit of anarchy would be good if we all didn't emulate the criminals who rule us.

But,how are we supposed to act?.

Same old thing.