Damion

Sounds like it. Did they have currency? Do you have any links? Got anything in particular against Mr. Webster? (curiosity, not a challenge)

This quote is now written on my book bag. Thank you.

It wouldn't be more work at all. As for outside militia... A peaceful society with no central ideology wouldn't necessarily scream "invade me." Unless valuable minerals were found in the area you live or the areas around you were over-populated... I don't really see invasion as a problem. At least not military-campaign style. Perhaps slow encroachment. Hm?

I would recognize your claim, out of respect, if I liked you. Back to the importance of being part of the community. This is all theory, and I hate that. I'm trying to find anything like an example of anarchy in action... Thus the thread. I suppose the crowd here is more into current events than sociological studies.

You would have the option of safeguarding your goods, if you so choose. I just don't think that would happen often.

But you also have to keep in mind that people are communual animals. Not everyone would do the group thing, that's fine. But survival would depend on others. And the sharing of one's belongings is an age-old friend maker.

Structure increases the size of a community. With no control and no centralization, there would be no reason for any community to become very large. In this hypothetical situation, the hypothetical anarchists would hypothetically form hundreds of little communities of maybe a couple dozen people. It would eliminate the need. There would be no personal property. There would be no land-ownership. I think so. Think, indoctrination. If you're going to start an anarchist community, do so with fellow anarchists. Always keep the reasons for the move toward anarchy in mind. Keep the member of the community politically active, in a sense. Also, in such a community, the aid of others would most likely be needed. And people are fickle. If you do anything to harm them, you lose their support. You may even be asked to leave the community -- ideally, you wouldn't be forced to, as that would be control, but you may be pressured to. Either way, it's beneficial to maintain a good relationship with those around you, and sharing a moral standard is a great way to stay on someone's good side. rambleramble

It wouldn't work on a large scale, I don't think. Too many greedy people. But, a small community of people dedicated to freedom... My ideal is a small commune. you grow your own food, or work with others to grow food. Build your own house, or work with others (and on and on). To survive, you would have to be liked by as many people as possible, or very self-sufficient. Community would, by nescessity, take center stage. So would matters of the soul. Without an economic force, science would suffer, but art and philosophy would thrive. Ideally, at least. I think all that would be needed to make anarchy work would be, basically, a fresh start. I can see how government formed -- slowly, with increasing complexity. But, as things have developed, there has been increasing emphasis on freedom. If you had a group of people who agreed that maximum control wasn't nescessary, or even beneficial, anarchy could work. For at least a generation or two.

I wouldn't, either. But, the quote made a good point and did it well. I wanted to use it, I cited the source. It wasn't an attempt to make it seem like there was some anarchy bandwagon. It was 1) laziness and 2) a product of my tendency to read books and websites dedicated entirely to famous quotes and write them down in my ever-present notebooks. I wasn't aware it was a "popular catch-phrase."

I suppose the only way to achieve anything like an anarchist society is to make sure your group is dedicated to the cause.

See the quote (Plato). Also, you can't have crime without law. The three main reasons for committing a crime are convenience, money and thrill. Eliminate the laws, there goes reason 1 and 3. Eliminate the government and the idea of personal property, you eliminate the purpose of money and reason 2. Thanks. This site has quickly become a daily haunt for me.

This was the most relevant forum I saw, and I couldn't find any related threads, so I thought I'd post my first. I consider myself an anarchist at heart. While the subject of anarchy is usually seen as idealistic, barbaric, childish, even (dare I say it) stupid, I can't help but think people are better off left to their own devices. Philosophy and free-thinking are at their best when even the most liberal or conservative thoughts aren't considered radical, and any restrictions, especially those applied by a system of government or political party, only hinder the progress of intellect. Laws are often ineffective and often do more harm than good. As Plato put it, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." PSA aside, here's the subject -- Does anyone know of any experiments in anarchy? The best I can seem to find are references to a French revolution and how successful peasants were at governing themselves, but it's no good for my purposes...

Your question's a bit broad. Each drug harms the brain is different ways, and not all the drugs harm the brain. Some drugs, like ecstacy cause a lot of long term damage, where as some drugs, like pot, don't. Narrow your subject a bit if you want any real answers.

Oh boy. Semantics. Okay, here we go: There were no environmental causes that I'm aware of, even (or, rather, especially) those typically blamed for potentially causing homosexuality that I'm aware of (nor is anyone that watched him grow up are aware of any such incidents). Interestingly enough, though, he had several older brothers, which could serve as proof for some of the little tidbits I contributed earlier. And, for anyone who says homosexuality is infectious, his mother (my great aunt) babysat for everyone in that little town, and he played with all of them. We're all still friends and none of them are gay (or at least not openly so).

I meant after birth. Sorry, should have clarified.

The variation comes from different studies using different methods. The variations from individual studies stay pretty steady at around 2%-4% (in studies done by anti-gay researchers) or around 10% (in studies done by pro-gay organizations). To avoid an argument on which statistic is correct, I simply mashed the two averages together. It was laziness, yeah, but it's not a major issue. The point isn't how many people are gay, the point is whether or not it's a choice. Nature vs. nurture is a broad topic, and all serious studies I've seen have laid the blame squarely on... both. Humans are complex beings with simple instincts, and these two things often mesh in confusing ways. But, someone’s sexual preference isn't like someone's preference for crunchy or creamy peanut butter -- it's a basic, instinctual choice. Ask anyone who has known or raised a gay man from birth. They'll almost universally tell you from the time the kid was four or five it was obvious what their sexuality was. My cousin, the most prominent homosexual in my family, was walking around tiptoe (to simulate stiletto heels), playing with Barbie dolls and hanging out almost exclusively with girls when he was five. Effeminate all his life. He finally came out when he went to college. There were no other homosexuals in the household. He wasn't molested. He grew up in a backwoods town of around 300 people. There was no environmental factor. You're absolutely right. It's possible to abstain from sex, gay or straight. What's your point? That gays should abstain? If that's what you're getting at, it's pretty ridiculous. Gay men or women have the same right to have consensual sex as any heterosexual. Do you disagree? Your sexual preference is NOT a CHOICE. Whether or not you have sex, yeah, that's a CHOICE. But the sexual act doesn't affect the sexual preference. I'm not saying it's 100% due to genetics in 100% of the cases. Genes, though, most likely play a role -- and not a small one. But, for argument's sake, let's say it's environmental. Fine. Sexual preference is still determined before a person hits sexual maturity, and it can't be reversed. It's still not a CHOICE. Homosexuality is not a CHOICE. Whether or not you're going to hide your true sexuality, that's a CHOICE. Whether he should or shouldn't have hidden his sexuality isn't the point. You can choose to start a family with a gay man, maybe adopt some children -- does that make you homosexual?

Which would explain why homosexuality wasn't deleted completely through the evolutionary process, but it doesn't explain why it still pops up. And, the rate of homosexuality doesn't change, no matter what the population size, economic conditions, etc. 2%-10% is the norm, all over the globe, in every place there have been studies or census that I've heard of. It becomes more prevalent with population growth, yes, but not more common. Most reliable statistical information on homosexuality is found on accident. The only people who seem to study only homosexuality are usually doing do for personal reasons and produce data that's skewed in their favor. As a result, most study results are very specific, and are often found out accidentally or as an afterthought question on a survey. I don't know of any studies that have the information you want. It doesn't contradict in the least. Sexual habits are largely genetic. I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a genetic quirk. You can have a genetic, forgive the expression, abnormality that affects your "wiring" in a major way, like causing you to be born homosexual. It doesn't make it a choice. No offense, but that was retarded. I'm sorry -- you're obviously intelligent, but that was really... Rape and homosexuality are two completely different things. If you can't see the distinction, I don't think explaining it further would do any good.

Regardless of how favorable the conditions would be to homosexuality, they can't be blamed. With humans, in industrialized countries, population rarely affects food supplies or survivability. And, all of these species -- hundreds -- that have been documented as being homosexual or, at least, having homosexual trysts, many in zoos where they're well fed and well taken care of... survival needs don't play into it. Sex isn't complicated. It's the most basic of instincts. If it wasn't ingrained in the genes somewhere, our earliest ancestors wouldn't have reproduced. Environment may play a role, but it's not a major one. I actually know a man who did that, and I know his boyfriend. He was always gay, but because of social pressures he hid his sexuality, denied it, and, having been taught it was a choice by ignorant peers, tried to become straight. In the end, he ended up hurting his wife, his children, and himself. He didn't just decide to be gay one day. He decided to stop lying. What environmental factors? Do you have anything, anything at all, to use as evidence for this hypothesis?

The statistic is extraordinarily high. On average, your likelyhood of being gay is around 2%-10% (depending on whose study you're looking at). Compared to that, 55% is incredible. Therefore, indicates some genetic (or otherwise unalterable, uncontrollable) factor. The point isn't whether it's genetic or caused by womb conditions, the point is it can't be chosen. These are things entirely out of the control of the individual. Discriminating against someone because they're homosexual is as wrong as discriminating against someone born blind. They're different than the norm, but they can't help it. That's the point. It's likely linked to the X chromosome. And, whether they were in the home (though they weren't) is irrelevant. You can't catch "the gay." *nod* And, thus, homosexuality is actually, despite the obvious draw back of not producing offspring, evolutionarily viable. 1) The common arguments are sexual molestation or exposure to pornography. The thinking is, sexual perversion must come from sexual perversion, and homosexuality is considered (if considered a choice) sexual perversion. Either way, whatever environmental causes may cause homosexuality in humans are likely not going to be found in, say, a beetle's environment. And, homosexuality seems to be pretty evenly distributed, from everything I've read, so climate, pollution, radiation, etc. aren't a factor. The only possible explanation: it's just a common condition. 2) Yes, they're sexually active. You shudder, but hot lesbian action is hot lesbian action, be it human, penguin or whatever. (It's a joke, it's a joke) As for evidence, just Google it. Set your filter, though. "Gay animals" might bring up some stuff you might not want to inadvertently click on. Someone (I forget who, but it was an earlier comment) had tried to blame dense lab conditions, which is implausible if there’s such a wide array of homosexual animals. Too lazy.

I've never posted a reply on this site before -- I just randomly stumbled on this thread during research for an essay on same-sex marriage -- and I'm not too familiar with sites like this, so I hope I'm replying correctly here. Forgive me if something gets messed up. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Homosexuality is at least partly, some say entirely, genetic. Certain facts found by biologists: identical twins, who shared 100% the same genes, had a 55% likelihood of both being homosexual, and non-identical twins, who share half of the same genes, had a 22% likelihood of both being gay; Gays and lesbians tend to have short index fingers relative to their ring fingers, and 16% more homosexuals than heterosexuals show a surplus of fingertip ridges on their left hands (which seem to indicate that there’s some relation, and, since finger length and number of ridges are both determined before birth, indicate that perhaps homosexuality is determined before birth, also); in the mid-90’s gay men are likely to have older brothers, and each older brother increases the likelihood of homosexuality in the youngest brother by 33%, suggesting that some biological change, possibly an immune response in the mother during pregnancy, can cause homosexuality; homosexuality runs in families, and a man with gay relatives on his mother’s side was much more likely to be gay, whether or not the relatives resided in the household; a study showed that female relatives on the mother's side of homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side, suggesting there’s some genetic factor involved -- and those are just a few examples of possible evidence for a biological cause. Also, homosexuality is found in many species of animal -- beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, macaques, bonobos, dogs, cats, elephants, seals... I doubt these animals (many observed in normal, natural circumstances by animal researchers) had early exposure to pornography or were molested or whatever psychological trauma you think may cause homosexuality. And such a pervasive sampling can't be limited to just humidity or population conditions. It's obvious that homosexuality is a natural condition. I skipped from page 2 to page 6, so I hope I haven't said anything someone else has.