Comment: ??

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You didn't answer one single (see in situ)


I wasn't trying to answer any questions or make any defense.

I was trying to help you by pointing out that your comments (and questions) don't make any sense.

(Nonsensical comments do not require any defense. Related questions are irrelevant and not worth answering either.)

And BTW, the Europeans made slaves of the Africans because they were uncivilized thugs who were too lazy to live honest lives and build a civilized society. Consequently, they decided to force others to do work for them. (I mean this is the definition of slavery; I feel like I'm giving an explanation to a three-year old.) The idea of government was present in both groups---the Africans and the Europeans. The Africans were no-doubt also uncivilized thugs who would have done the same thing to the Europeans if they had the ability to do it. There was no anarchy involved, it was nowhere in the picture yet. It happens that the Europeans were better organized, had better weapons, etc., in short the Europeans had more force at their disposal. But it had nothing to do with anarchy. If you had a well-organized group of anarchists, and a bunch of thugs tried to enslave them, they would not be enslaved. This happened on April 19, 1775, the anarchists being the British colonists in New England and the thugs being the British regulars. The difference is that the anarchists, were they in possession of superior force, would not use it to enslave others.

Note the comment/explanation of Levi Preston: We went after those Redcoats because we had always *governed ourselves* and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should. In other words, he rejected the idea that someone should rule over him. He was determined to be self-governing. That is the definition of anarchy.

Of course, after April 19, 1775 the non-anarchist, slave owning thugs like Washington and so on showed up, and the flicker of human civilization died. The flicker was strong enough, however, that the historical rhetoric surrounding it has inspired people for more than two hundred years now. The revolution which John Adams recognized, which was won in the hearts and minds of those colonists two or three generations before the first shots were fired at Lexington, was lost simply because there were too few anarchists and they didn't have enough force to defend themselves against the overwhelming force of the uncivilized world around them.

So I hope it's clear that there are two fundamentally different issues. Civilization versus barbarism (government) and weakness versus strength. They can play out in various combinations. Just because the civilized people are small in number and weak, and have been historically, is no reason to embrace barbarity.

It's also no reason to keep spewing out nonsense and asking irrelevant questions.