>> Okay, here is my ideal organization set of rules:
>> All members are equal
>> All members have an equal say
>> Everything will be decided through direct democracy.
>>
>> That's it!
>>
>> Anything else added will be done by the members and tada!  You got
>> Anarchy!

>You got nothing.
>You are not being honest.  You are not using honest discourse.  I
refuse to discuss anything further with you until you provide the
rules that will govern your org.

Martin, I'm being completely honest here.

I think you are in shock.  You cannot believe that such a simple
idea/concept has evaded you.

Remember, the members are social democrats, so what kind of rules/laws would
they pass?

They would pass social ones, that were fair, just and humane.
You know that stupid saying "life isn't fair", but it doesn't try to be
because social democrats(SDs) do not control the current organizations,
instead, they are victims of them.

A organization controlled by SDs(and gives none of the SDs power over
another member) will try to make "life as fair as it can be".

But, what if they make a mistake and their rules hurt others within or
outside the org?

They would do what any SD would do(like you), they would change course.
They would rewrite the law so that it did not cause harm.

It sounds like an organization being very thoughtful, but what else do you
expect from a collective of SDs?

Nothing else, and that is why those who advocate anarchy want the best for
society and actually know what they are talking about.

Eveyone else who advocates another system does so on moral grounds as
well(this is a truism, Chomsky talks about this) but none can reach the
ideal anarchy does.  Instead, they combat the idea as "impossible" and
continue ahead with their rethortic.

Milutin

--
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal