> They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign.
Not in a constitutional form of government, where the sovereign (in most cases the majority of the voters, as represented by a congress or parliament and referenda) is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse.
> is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups.
yes restrained somewhat. But there still are many minorities in the US whose rights are not protected.
> Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse.
I think you have it in reverse. In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all. Unless your argument is that the US hasn't been a constitutional government for most of its history.
Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use to obtain obedience from minorities.
>> Anarchists are opposed to violence; everyone knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the gendarme. For this reason we are the enemies of capitalism which depends on the protection of the gendarme to oblige workers to allow themselves to be exploited--or even to remain idle and go hungry when it is not in the interest of the bosses to exploit them. We are therefore enemies of the State which is the coercive violent organization of society.
> In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all.
That's simply not true. Minority rights are growing, not just in theory but in practice, in constitutional democracies all over the world.
> Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use to obtain obedience from minorities.
That's nice in theory, but you can't run a country on theory.
I don't accept that as the definition of anarchism, any more than I accept "The Best Person On Earth" as the definition of my next-door neighbor. In theory, it would be nice if my neighbor were the best person on Earth, but I doubt very much it's true, and I don't intend to act as if that person were utterly without flaw by removing the locks on my door.
that you say "minority rights are growing" means that you accept that minority rights are short of where they should be.
People don't choose anarchy because they want violence. They choose it because they don't like violence. Those that choose violence want to obtain the "archy"/power for themselves. Sure there are violent power hungry people that claim to be anarchists but that is not the core. They are like the Gay bashing gay people.
If you are not an anarchist, you don't get to decide who is anarchist and what an anarchist believes. That there are some violent anarchists does not mean that all anarchists are violent. It's much better to take people at their word and observe their actions, rather than to impose your own morality on them.
Kind of like telling gays that they are violent rapists and unfit to have families and marriages. As this democracy used to portray them and continues to do so.
> that you say "minority rights are growing" means that you accept that minority rights are short of where they should be.
Everything's short of where it should be. That's reality. Tearing down this system and replacing it with another won't change that.
> People don't choose anarchy because they want violence. They choose it because they don't like violence.
Supposedly. Ideally. That's another case of having a nice theory, which may or may not reflect reality.
> Those that choose violence want to obtain the "archy"/power for themselves.
OK, and how do anarchists stop them without choosing violence?
> Sure there are violent power hungry people that claim to be anarchists but that is not the core.
No True Scotsman. Not very persuasive.
> If you are not an anarchist, you don't get to decide who is anarchist and what an anarchist believes.
And anarchists don't get to decide who I consider an anarchist and what I believe. It goes both ways.
> It's much better to take people at their word and observe their actions
I observe their actions. The G8 Summit in Seattle was very enlightening.
> Kind of like telling gays that they are violent rapists and unfit to have families and marriages. As this democracy used to portray them and continues to do so.
Do you consider all of north-america uniting under one federal government as non-absurd?
how about north and south america?
how about all the rest of the world?
How about if you didn't have borders and didn't need to spend money on militaries to defend those borders, like California doesn't spend much money on the military to defend its border against oregon?
> Do you consider all of north-america uniting under one federal government as non-absurd?
It would be difficult to govern any entity that large effectively.
> how about north and south america?
Ditto, only worse.
> how about all the rest of the world?
Worse still.
> How about if you didn't have borders and didn't need to spend money on militaries to defend those borders, like California doesn't spend much money on the military to defend its border against oregon?
The world accepts the existence of North Korea. What do you think?