Originally Posted by thechamp
What he was actually doing was grossly misusing the term. I guess an Australian masters in poly-sci isn't all that valuable if this is the sort of statement it produces.
Now I'm not naive enough to believe that the human race is advanced enough to try anrchism, hell, we aren't advanced enough to try capitalism or communism either without thouroughly screwing up each one.
Anarchy has alot more to do with people being socially responsible than it does with some sort of economic system. There's nothing anti-anarchist about trade or recieving value for your labor. These guys aren't getting rich. They're engaged in responsible trade, where in (I'm guessing) the people that build these bikes don't have to live in poverty. There's no contradiction there.
Actually, he's American. *points metaphoric gun to 'thechamps' foot*
Look up the term - what you and the Circle A people are describing is a self defined modernist definition of 'Anarchy', which has very little to do with the actual definition. There's nothing 'anarchistic' about being a humanist with idealistic philosophies. In a way it's ironic that people with such leaning inappropriately use the term 'Anarchist' because it does nothing except marginalise them and send the wrong message to the general public. But hey, why destroy a perfectly good little niche by making it popular, eh?