anarchism is like religion. it gives you an excuse to be apathetic. Like George Carlin said "I didn't vote so you can't blame me. I didn't endorse the system." yea george but if you don't do anything to dismantle the system then the system is still there. Like Veganism. You can choose to not eat meat but unless you do something directly about the conditions of the farms in your area then you're not doing anything to get those animals better treatment. you personally aren't responsible anymore directly. But indirectly, as a consequence of having been born in a society that you depend upon and that depends upon you , you are responsible.

overmind25 is losing his mind. he's gone anarchist. it's like seeing someone be taken by scientology. it's a hoax. It's the feel good novel of the summer. It's fiction. It's about a guy that lives on a planet where all he has to do is do his own thing and leave the rest of the world to its own devices (nuclear weapons, bioengineering, religious chaos) and everything will turn out fine.

anarchism and socialism are a lot like plato and socrates. its a basic debate. whats more important the question or the answer?

anyways. here's the video

and here's the list of counter points.

1. they taxed foreign goods to encourage people to buy American. and because we were in some what of a cold war with britain.

2. the south had no debts because they didn't have to pay their labor. durh. and they were the cotton and tobacco kings of the world.

3. his views towards blacks were considerably liberal when you Keep them in context with the time in which these statements were made

4. the reason why the north turned ugly was because they'd stood by for TWO FUCKING years while hundreds of thousands of men were slaughtered. All because general McClellan refused to fight. he just set up camps and drilled the men and then sat around all day refusing to do anything about the mounting militia that was forming in the south.And when they would fight they'd lose badly because Mcclellan was an ambitious politician that wanted to make abe look bad. So as a means to an end Abe hired the most vicious drunkard hell bent blood craven lunatics to do the ugly deed of silencing the south. Sherman declared that in order to end the war and have a real victory you have to make it so ugly so that they never want war again. War is hell. its not competition. its hell. and we were killing each other by the thousands. And beyond that what do you expect a General thats at war with thousands of his own people to say in the midst of the bloodiest war the world had ever seen at that point? You expect him to be proper and only state noble things like some kind of angelic God of War? Of course he's gonna say outlandish things to stir up the enemy. He'd say and do whatever was necessary to win the war to PUT an END TO THE WAR. really the debate is about what the war was about. anarchists have a shallow eye towards Abe cuz he's a statesman. He wanted the entire country to resolve and not dissolve. if'n he hadn't been shot. history would tell a much grander story. but instead all we're left with is the war mongerer.

5."Northern Rule." only in taxation. slavery was coming to an end all around the world and the rich bastards in the south weren't budging. They held on to slavery like a spoiled brat would hold on to his favorite toy. the very moment we became our own state we had to squash a rebellion that refused to pay taxes. taxes taxes taxes.
no taxes. no nation no state. no anything. sounds like a dream because it is one. statism is a natural human reaction to life on earth. its as natural as racism or religion or any other genetic habitual trait. the south wanted to sell out the north. let them fall into massive debt because they ended slavery. while the south got filthy rich leaving people in New York to starve because their weren't any jobs or way to make any income. because no one was buying northern american. it was broke. everyone was buying from the south. the south was sort of like wal mart and the north was like an incorporation of independent ma and pa stores that couldn't compete with the souths dollar. slavery had to be ended. it was as natural as anything else thats happened in human history. the fact that the end of it was used as a ploy to make the clash of societies and the inherent destruction of one justifiable is merely means for an end. over 600,000 men died for more then just a flag. or economic reasons. or religious differences. they died in the name of creating liberty. human rights. right and wrong. good and evil. morality. in the end we are what we pretend to be. In some ways I wonder if a hundred years from now if Iraq is stable by then if they'll look at Bush like some do to abe. I don't see him as a saint. But I do see him as a man who had an interest in law and order and economics and in keeping America on a path of progress and in establishing an equal footing on the world market.

6.he didn't free slaves just like how Obama hasn't legalized gay marriage.different issues. same tactic. let it change from the bottom up. to get elected and imediatly demand that slavery be ended would have been thought ludicrous at the time. it was something people were talking about and a lot of liberal activists were socializing about but it was by no means seemingly practical. and plus if he had came out and demanded slavery be ended right off the bat then that would have meant the south would have declared war even FASTER. because even just the election of abe got the south talking about their slaves and their money and their empire. Which in all honesty is all the war was started over. the right for the south to horde their wealth while their northern comrades suffered the penalty of having done away with slave practices.

7. what I've come to think lately is that when half of this country was still indian territory it was most likely viewed the same way we most Americans view Mexico today. Like we want to do something to better our relations but our cultures are so different that it gets lost in the translation. so When the Sioux attacked American territories it was viewed the same way that if a militia of Mexicans attacked texas. We'd slaughter them and the country wouldn't feel the slightest bit remorseful. They would probably only resent mexico that much more then they already do. That's inherent of any population. First we look after our own self interest. then we look out for the interest of our party. then we look out for the interest of the common good.

8. the very few black soldiers that actually got to fight were extremely honored to die for the cause and every generation thats followed them has honored their nobility. this is just straight out slander against brave men that volunteered to pledge their lives in the name of creating a more perfect union.

9. the south weren't seceding. they were selling all of us out to the british empire. the wealthy plantation owners were hording their profits and instituting communist type rule over an enslaved population of workers. the ONLY factor of the south that deserves any respect at all were the men that fought for the south. because they weren't fighting for or against slavery. they were just standing up against an armed force that they were told was coming to burn up their cities and rape their women. the rich started the war. and as always the poor fought it.

for the man of the south it was clearly a matter of self defense. nothing more. for the man of the north it was 3 hot meals and a bath. for the rich in the north it was about making the south own up to their obligation to keep the country strong. for the rich in the south it was a matter of being allowed to keep their wealth. and this debate still lingers today.