Although there's a difference between freedom and anarchy. Freedom protects the rights of the minority, while anarchy doesn't. But, the poster's right in the sense that you can't recognize beauty if you've never seen anything ugly.

i dont think you understand what freedom means.... freedom is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." and it (freedom) is never found when you are ruled by other humans... the most dangerous and deadly government in the history of the world (USA) claims to protect the rights of the minority..... the only way for freedom to exist is in the absence of a ruling class...

I'm quite sure that an academician of kyricom's stature has a thorough knowledge of the meaning of freedom. A democratic society protects the individual freedom of it's populace. Anarchy offers no protection for anyone and would always leads to the suffering of the multitudes and the rise of the most powerful. There is no perfect society as yet but without a country like the USA fascists and dictators would rule and you couldn't make the statements that you have.

i dont think you understand this concept either... some of us believe that education is a tagging system matched with your willingness to submit to authority... the USA rules with murder and threats of violence like any other fascists dictators. i live with a constant threat of violence against me for the things i say and believe. you may want to take a look at the world wide movement towards freedom, although the sides are basically decided already, if you are smart there may still be time to get on board, i am for freedom, and you seem to be a loyalist deeply rooted in statism. there should be no conflict there, unless you believe in using violence to force me to follow the rules you decided to follow...
maybe both of you guys are missing an opportunity to make a poster displaying your propaganda....

You state "i live with a constant threat of violence against me for the things i say and believe." In my world your rights would be protected. In your definition of freedom: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Those wishing to harm you are just exercising their freedom... or do you qualify that definition for your own purposes?

This isn't the proper venue to discuss this subject and I won't continue to do so. I suggest you study the nature of the human animal and how the societies evolved and what motivated their development. In knowledge there is truth.

i already knew this was not the place to discuss this subject, glad you have now realized that....

While I certainly would never hold the US up as an example of a perfect society, anarchy would be further from perfection than it. But your own statements imply the contradictory impossibility of what you dream of. Utopian societies only work on a tiny scale (like some hippy communes in the 60's). You aren't truly naive enough to believe there are no people in your "movement" who are greedy, or bullies etc., are you? And, as Andrew Young pointed out with the laughably unsuccessful Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations, there is a difference between an expression and a movement. Let's see... how many laws changed about banking and Wallstreet? Zero. How many crooks from the banking crisis sent to jail in the US? Zero. But, this "movement" you allude to, if it actually exists, is contradictory to what you purport to want. A "movement," by definition, implies structure, which in turn, has hierarchy. Hierarchy means different levels of influence, which is another term for power. So, your anarchy is simply another term for substituting one power structure for another. You say that "if I'm smart, there may still be time to get on board" for your movement. What will happen to me if I don't? Your movement will do something bad to me? What's the difference (for me) whether the status quo does something bad to me, or if your movement does? Sounds like your movement is every bit as bad as what you declare to hate. And of course, there's the obvious flaw that if I go by your definition I can just kill you and take your stuff. What happens to interstate commerce? We know there are children in our country who don't get enough to eat. How will anarchy get them food? Because of course food is power. Even if you manage to get things organized to take food to them, there's nothing stopping people from hijacking the trucks and hoarding the food. I'm sure fuel and it's shipping will work out great.

Of course, it'd be very easy for you to put your money where your mouth is. Simply move somewhere that already has anarchy. You could move to Somalia. They have no recognizable government (the UN controls, literally, about 3 city blocks). There's no power structure to tell them they can't do whatever they want. I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms, and you could enjoy anarchy to your heart's content. Be sure to send us a postcard! Oh wait. That's right, they don't have any working postal service.

no, i did not claim to force you to do anything, the point is missed in the brainwashing.... you as an American loyalist already use force and violence against those wishing for and demanding freedom.. you miss the fact stated by this poster, if you dont have the right to refuse things that are against your beliefs you cannot be free. i will stress, that by being a loyalist, you are responsible for the violence initiated by your government... my hope is for an end to the violence...

Ohhhhhh, now, now. You're starting to backtrack. Your psuedo-revolutionary rhetoric may make a nice smokescreen for some, but you neglect to address any of the points I raised. I'm an "American loyalist?" You know nothing about me or my beliefs. And, your IP is from Florida, for goodness' sakes. You have FAR more of a right to refuse to do certain things in America, than you do in most parts of the world. If you can point to a country that has the Nirvana of perfection you seem to dream of, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Unfortunately for your vision, human nature prevents it on any large scale. Somalia is a good example of what happens with anarchy, but you don't seem to want to move to your dreamland there. Nobody, anywhere is COMPLETELY free (by your definition). You might want to read about "Social Contracts" from Locke et al. We accept certain restrictions and authority to gain the benefits of civilization. If you don't want those advantages, then go somewhere that doesn't have the social contract (like Somalia). But having complete freedom (by your definition) and the benefits of society at the same time cannot happen. Nice poster, though.

i am just glad i was able to use it to teach you guys something.

You taught something? Not really...you served as a reminder that thanks to the First Amendment, citizens are free to spout drivel without fear of reprisal, though.

i cannot guarantee that you will understand it.....

as a teacher, it is your responsibility to impart knowledge. to claim to have taught and in the next moment claim you cannot guarantee understanding... well, maybe you need to work a bit more. so, anarchy? would you work? would your society have garbage disposal? have you read Utopia? watch the animals... there is order among all species that survive. there is a hierarchy within any social structure. Anarchy is something that most idealistic youth have the opportunity to toss about due to the rules and societal structures that provided them their electricity, sanitation, bread, and hugs, so that they could spew ideologies read from blogs on the internet (also provided by the structured working class) and say whoa is me i am not free. with freedom comes responsibility. when you learn this, you will move to other ideologies. Anarchy is a fun thought for the irresponsible!

Congrats!!

Congratulations bud.

thanks for the congrats and all of the comments, they made this poster successful well beyond the vote....