I agree with a lot of these things, and put a lot of it in to practise. Friends call me stingy and stupid for NOT buying the expensive shirt or shoes, when I am only going to dirty them or destroy them whilst training. They don’t understand yet, but they soon will I hope, when they can’t afford to live. when they stop depending on their parents.

I’d like to have a good chat with you about these thingies soon =]

I like…some of it. The start and the end is very reminiscent of fight club, for your emboldened last paragraph, it seemed like you were quoting it. “Now, I understand that we all live comfortable lives as we are!” That doesn’t really make grammatical sense, it took me a few read-through’s to get it out.

Now the content.

I like the start; yes, we (as in you and I) do not need those things. Some people may. Some people have no self-esteem, and have the need to be accepted through the clothes they where, the things they buy, etc. Last time i wore a suit, i did so in my 5-10s cause i didn’t have any suit shoes. I do not need suit shoes. I do not need a suit; except that it was a formal. But i did not need to go the formal either. And so there are all these layers of needs and wants and preferences that all exist in some tangled matrix of ‘value.’ But that, I think, is moot; no we don’t need those things from a survivalist perspective. But we don’t need much from a survivalist perspective, and, although valid, survivalist is quite pessimistic. It does not take much to survive; warmth, food/water, and shelter. But we have so many other things, which bring countless other experiences, that make us stronger, happier, healthier human beings. We do not need electricity, but the state of health care would be atrocious without it.

Here is where I think your wrong. Completely and utterly.
“What we need is an anarchists revolution. What is that you say? Anarchy is bad? Lawless? Every man for himself? No. Not at all. Anarchy simply means without dominance.”

You are talking about…humans? This is ideal communism, and that has been proven to fail. Remember, big wall came down in Germany? Mass celebrations? End of the 60 year cold war?

Firstly, You are asking for a society without dominance. Lets rewind back to the good ol tribal days. Survivalist days, because that would appeal to you. The biggest, strongest male was always the leader. Everyone else, followed him, until someone thought they were better. Then if they one the challenge, they would become the leader, and the tribe would become stronger, through stronger leadership. This is how things have worked since antiquity, the systems have just become more refined. Throwing the entire system out the window is a huge leap backward.

Secondly, anarchy is lawless. Anarchy is what is in Iraq right now. With no government accepted by the people, there are just tribal factions duking it out for their own agendas. That is anarchy. That is lawless, bad, and is, more or less, every man for himself. And, ironically, with no one in power, it is, without dominance. But eventually, one fish will emerge that will be bigger than all the others, and he will take over, and we have the first stage of tribalist government: despotism, with family members in the important cabinets of government. Without dominance, humans cannot be lead. Dominance exists in all stable states, only the level of that dominance varies. Push the people too hard, and you have revolution; not hard enough and you have too much crime and delinquency. It is striking a balance. Laws, in a working democracy, are created for the good of the majority of the people, because politicians want to keep their jobs, and they do so by making the people happy. Without a bureaucracy, cumbersome, expensive, and unweildly as it may be, there is no structure for society. Instead, you are relying on the essential goodness of the human spirit. Which is complete trash. Optimism is good, but when it crashes with realism it has a bad habit of getting steamrollered; and in an anarchic system (oxymoron?) immediately someone will take control of their pond, and spread their sphere of influence until they have all the oceans, and can start squeezing.

Apart from your contention, I kinda liked it. Any extreme has a bad habit of being, uh, bad. The middle is also bad, because you stagnate; but a little either way keeps things interesting, and keeps some form of progress being made.

-J