a government system has nothing to do whit it.

One could argue, however, that a safe and sound society provided by a stable government gave scientists the environment they needed to produce such advancements. Imagine if Newton had been worried more about keeping a roof over his head, as opposed to wondering why apples fell. Or if Hooke had been fighting for his next meal instead of looking at pond water.

Just look at the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire: 2000 years of art, science, architecture, philosophy, in short, 2000 years of civilization, gone in a blink of an eye as Europe entered into what is now called the Dark Ages.

One could argue, however, that a safe and sound society provided by a stable government gave scientists the environment they needed to produce such advancements

yea thats why i added
"ofcourse whit anarchy this wouldn't have happend and we still would die young." =)

Please read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". A great book that will explaine to you alot about this. About the diffrunce between Centralized government and, well, anarchy or semi-anarchy {where there is some aothority, but its weak and mostly symbolic}.

Sorry if that out as critical. More or less tacking that on with what you were saying. Riding your coat tails, as the saying goes.

Out of curiosity, is anybody actually anything that could be remotely construed as an anarchist?

Out of curiosity, is anybody actually anything that could be remotely construed as an anarchist?

i guess the somalian pirates

(np on the 1st.)

i guess the somalian pirates

(np on the 1st.)

Even the worst of the worst  criminal organisations have a code of conduct.
They simply don't do somethings.

i guess the somalian pirates

I always thought they were funded by warlords. The problem is that you can't have any leader in anarchy, or else it isn't anarchy. Unless you could somehow have some system of top-to-bottom decision making that was somehow not a government.

I always thought they were funded by warlords. The problem is that you can't have any leader in anarchy, or else it isn't anarchy. Unless you could somehow have some system of top-to-bottom decision making that was somehow not a government.

many pirates are fishers who lost their job to the mass fishing of western countries. they were already working together when they were fishers. some started to steal those ships. wich then was escalated to more and more fishers doing so. there wasn't any "warlords"
these pirates have then grouped and are now just a army that has bonds whit the taliban. and uganda is the only country fighting them.

like i said befor, i'm not sure if we can call them anarchist. i guess some are and some are not. the last 10 year it really has grown.

The pirates don't aim for a stateless society. They're only concern is money or material gains.

Completely different from actual anarchists.

I suppose I was thinking of the leaders of the somali pirates as warlords. I dunno.

And isn't the term "stateless society" a bit of an oxymoron?