🚀 go-pugleaf

Grizzly wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Is it? Weakling "A" thinks that the village water supply belongs to 
>> everybody in common. Strongman "B" thinks that the well should belong 
>> to him, and has the power to deny water to everybody else. There is no 
>> government to judge who is right and to force the outcome of their 
>> decision. Both are operating under the libertarian concept.
>>
>> It is rule of the strongest, anarchy.
>>
> 
> No it is not anarchy in the purist sense of the word.

There is no purity in practical political philosphy.


>  What you describe 
> is totalitarianism. 

No. That would require a group of "B"s.


>Anarchists contrary to the image put forth by our 
> current government

Current? Anarchist have had a bad reputation since the turn of the 20th 
century. Perhaps even before.

http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/BB/RS073.JPG



> tend to be a peaceable group of folks who go by their 
> own moral code, and tend to disregard laws as written by group think. If 
> it is a just law in their opinion they would follow it whether it were 
> written down or not as it jibed with their own sense of what is morally 
> right. If it is an unjust law, they will disregard it and take whatever 
> consequences for disobeying it come their way pretty much in stride. 
> I've known a few quakers who are anarchists in those terms.

I'm sure some fit your description, but remember you don't get a bad 
reputation without cause. Anarchist have a bad reputation.
http://www.sinkers.org/posters/anarchist_liberty.jpg


> Strongman B 
> getting over on weakling A is nothing more than a petty dictator forcing 
> his will upon another. He may find himself up against an angry mob of 
> thirsty weaklings eventually, and then his dictatorial status over the 
> well will change through sheer force of numbers.


Strongman "B" is just exercising his sovereign rights (as defined by 
himself and the Libertarian Party) as is Weakling "A". Good thing for 
Strongman "B" is he is strong and "A" is weak. The conflict is why 
libertarian (anarchist) philosphy can not work. In human nature 
conflicts will inevitably develop. There has to be some way to resolve 
them, even if not everybody agrees with the resolution.