Is this biased reporting?

[Eirinjas]

The system as it stands today is a fusion of Enlightenment ideas and ideals put into practice, which always suffers compared to theory, and which you, in your narrow, reductionist view choose to characterize as Capitalist -- an intellectually dishonest and fundementally false descriptive to anyone who peels back even one layer of the onion.  Nothing is that pure.

The system is comparatively more Capitalist than Socialist, when viewed next to modern day Sweden, and comparatively more Socialist than Capitalist when compared to  the US in 1895 or the U.K. in the Victorian era.  In those days, the various robber barons and/or aristocrats worked relatively unfettered by regulation, State/Federal regulation, which grew in the 20th century as the influence of Socialism moderated the Capitalist excesses of the 19th century.  The system is far more Humanist than Theocratic, based on our Constitution.

You lose, again, and will continue to do so until you get the other half.

For you to assert that a nation-state would be better off under Anarchy is a sign of your utter ignorance of what Anarchy is, and what it leads to.  For you to excuse acting out violently, in a riot, as a suitable response to social unfairness is an insult to the patience and lawful struggle of lawful activists such as Rosa Parks, who recently passed away and who took the moral high ground (see my much earlier comment) and worked at making a difference and overcoming a social obstacle.  That work was done within the context of lawful activity.  A riot is the lazy criminal's response to the prospect of having to work to make a change.

Go to the back woods of Zaire, perhaps Sierra Leone or Liberia (heck, parts of Afghnistan or Iraq will do nicelyl) and experience Anarchy. 

While you are at it, stay there.  With any luck, you will get shot and die, and the world's aggregate ignorance will decrease slightly.

May I suggest  http://www.travelocity.com/  for your airpline reservations?

Occhi
[right][snapback]93375[/snapback][/right]

Again, I never said that the rioting had an "excuse". I never said the rioters should be "excused" from criminal prosecution for ANY reason. I merely stated one of the reasons for the outbreak of violence - economic conditions. You then decided to twist that as you saw fit. You invent your own perception of reality as you see fit.

It's you who does not know what Anarchism is. Here's a definition for you to be educated (if possible) by:

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of social hierarchy. In place of centralized political structures, private ownership of the means of production, and exploitative economic institutions such as rent and profit, these movements favor social relations based upon voluntary interaction and self-management, and aspire to a society characterised by autonomy and freedom. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes.

While opposition to coercive institutions and socially constructed hierarchies are primary tenets of anarchism, anarchism is also a positive vision of how a voluntary society would work. There is considerable variation amongst anarchist philosophies. Opinions differ in various areas, such as whether violence should be employed to foster anarchism, what type of economic system should exist, questions on the environment and industrialism, and anarchists' roles in other movements.

The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social relations.