You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchy is Coming Soon; Is Now!
Anarchy means without a ruler. Leaders do not need to practice violence. Rulers, by very definition, must.
I would be interested to hear your conception of what a "decentralized form of government is."
I have nothing against governance itself.
As long as it is non-violent, I am all for it.
Anarchy does mean without a ruler or chief. Synonyms of Anarchy include lawlessness, disorder, chaos and turmoil. Not exactly what most people want. Sadam was indeed a ruler who did use violence, but without him now, it is far worse. Anyway you slice it, where there is a Administrator/Chief/Ruler there are rules/governance.
I don't believe in centralized/federalized governance. People who are alike in their beliefs should be allowed to form local governments on the county level where the state can't interfere. Likewise the the fed can't interfere in the states business. The constitution allowed for this. Live and let live. It's these Plutocrats who won't allow this with their NWO plans. Violence, if need be, is necessary to maintain this freedom.