For those of you who don’t know Anarchism.net, Anna Quist (of the fake Norwegian Anarchist International) is an annoying cancer who routinely blights discussions in order to hijack topics. The following is a response posted in this thread by poster idiom in response to Anna Quist’s recent dribble. He cuts right to the point and it’s well worth a read.

I wished to read the entirety of this obviously heated debate. However after reading a few (if slightly repetitive) posts I decided to just cast my two cents into the fury of the well.

Firstly, I was instinctively appalled at reading about a majority ‘anarchy-court’ on the vindication of ‘criminals’. Let me first say that the founding fathers of our country made a huge mistake. They believed that they could attain through majority vote the best method of representation of the people. Now we do know through practice that majority vote can crush the minorities very important thought or wish. A poor example in recent years would be the essential loss of potential behind ‘gay marriage’. The reason this argument is poor though is that I don’t believe in the fundamentals of selling your rights to another. And the idea that gays (myself being one) would wish to do this is beyond me. It’s a silly church/state notion that needn’t be looked at. But my point, I hope, is clear. Majority rule is oppressive to the minority. And where there is oppression there is no anarchy.

Now: crime. I suppose we’d have to define those crimes. Ask yourself does any one person have any right to deal punishment for a crime? If anarchism were truly realized it couldn’t necessitate a belief that a defense were needed in an organized fashion. The early American traditionalists upon using the ugly s/words of war disbanded as soon as the deed was done. There was no lasting organization, just necessity of the act. An ugly necessity. Long standing rganization[sic] of any militant kind would only stand for everything that threatens humanity; threatens freedom. I don’t have to quote Voltairine de Cleyre’s astute point do I?

Oh.. wait woops

You who argue that anarchists need organized defense; really it’s been proven that punishment of any kind will cause further dissension in groupings of people no matter what. Crime will continue to exist. I know the only way I could react by seeing a crime (if that were a crime only against a person.. not property) is with PITY. I pity the estranged individual who will escalate himself to violence through a.) passion, b.) derangement or c.) desperation. I further pity the person who is made a martyr to a group of people who believe it is in their right to decide the fate of one. We can easily ascertain that persons A; having committed a crime of passion would have to live with conscientious effort of reconciling their act against another human. They: stuck in emotional limbo, living amongst others who upon seeing his/her face could only see the act revisited. Now we address persons B; born with an obvious lack of what it takes to be human. Do I need to say any more than that? Do we become Spartan-like? Do we, upon finding malformations in a child, or misbehavior at that, decide the fate of a child showing potential for future violence? And how do we decide this? If you mean to exterminate – then you are no better than a man killer. And I’ll have no part in shaking the executioners’ bloody hands. Finally persons C: desperation borne out of a lack of necessities to live. Desperation couldn’t exist because in anarchism we find that if one despairs for lack of anything – there is someone who will give it freely. Who will say, you may have food, shelter, you will also toil for it. But you will not starve. For an anarchist is supportive to his/her brethren to the last. And if they are true to the belief of anarchy then crimes against another’s property will not be able to manifest in the long term.

Anarchists are not furies who protect against the possibilities of crime.

You who argue that anarchists need to make a compromise of their individual freedoms and that of a standing militia; this is a joke. You act as if the organization of a defensible militia is a necessary evil; scratch that – a necessary reality. However, as soon as a compromise is struck between freedom and organization of power, you’ll have realized yet again another monster of authority. We know from history that any standing militia with organization eventually centralizes itself. I’ll quote Voltairine de Cleyre here:

“..the logic of Anarchism is that the least objectionable form of armed force is that which springs up voluntarily, like the minute-men of Massachusetts, and disbands as soon as the occasion which called it into existence is past..”
Crimes are reflective of society. If you who believes that anarchy needs a standing violent militia is necessary to prevent future crime, then this means that your society with its court of anarchy is not in any way related to the ideals of anarchism.

Let me make this completely clear: Anarchism IS an ideal. It’s a philosophy. You speak of low level and high level types of anarchism. I can understand variances in beliefs; I can understand where the communist, the individualist and so forth have economic differences. But the beauty (again the IDEAL) of anarchism is that once realized, any one has right to go out and find a place in the wild where they can practice their form of life. We as a ‘group’ cannot split hairs until the possibility to try is realized. I can’t understand our constant inter-warring. Ah well…

You may retaliate in your double speak Anna. I will more than likely read it.. but I will not acknowledge it with a post. Besides, ‘Anna’ you remind me of the “Anna” who worked for the FBI against the eco-terrorists in a recent (yet brilliantly displayed) covert act of government. The Anna who was a part of that crowd was good at splitting hairs. That Anna was gifted at pitching the beauty of authority yet somehow standing in the crowd of people who believed in no government and definitely no capitalism. I distrust you and find you as amusing as her.