I hate that feature, you should be able to use your ipod on multiple machines. It's interesting as a lock out mech for thieves, but is the main reason why I sold my ipod, and have no intention of using one.
If I can't add, remove, edit songs on any machine I am not interested. I tried open source software for managing it, and that didn't work well at all.
Also, how would this work for reselling? I guess you resell with the same charger, or something.
I seriously doubt he considers their methodology a large step in what he is doing. By the time it would likely be a "success" I doubt he will exist to see it. A shame, I hope I am wrong.
The weird thing is, on their wikipedia page they have one of marketers editing the page, usually rewriting whole portions of text. She identifies herself as such, but you can certainly see the conflict of interest there. She's been fairly neutral, although if there is anything negative she tends to add a ton of extra information around the negative thing to limit it.
What do you people think, is it wrong for companies to use people they pay to edit their page on wikipedia?
Nothing is unfortunate about it. Just the facts. I could list several more that did succeed, although I was just trying to show things that are without question through the declassified record, and show just how often it occurs, and that we do not need a CIA.
It's likely that's why it gets news coverage. I don't think they lie to help the industry along, but they have said in internal documents that they should release some information on the Kennedy Assassination every once in a awhile to divert people.
It seems to work pretty well. A lot of energy spent on things that are unimportant, which is as useful to them as you not paying any attention.
It has been argued that we need some form of intelligence gathering agency, and that the CIA fulfills that role. Maybe. But what the CIA also provides is a decapitation squad, well versed in killing heads of state and others. Here's a partial review of the declassified record. 1. The CIA was most likely behind the attempt to kill Chou En-Lai of China in 1955. An Air India flight that took off from Hong Kong crashed under mysterious circumstances on its way to the Bandung Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. Press reports indicated that a clockwork mechanism was found in the wreckage of the airliner, and that the cause of the crash was two time-bombs that had been planted on the airplane. John Discoe Smith, who was employed at the US Embassy in India from 1954 to 1959, later wrote about having delivered a package to a Chinese nationalist which he later discovered contained the two time-bombs. 2. The 1975 Senate Committee investigating the CIA reported that it had "received some evidence" of CIA involvement in plans to assassinate President Sukarno of Indonesia. 3. In the 1950s, the Dulles brothers misinterpreted a remark by President Eisenhower that "the Nasser problem could be eliminated," to mean that he wanted President Nasser of Egypt to be assassinated. Secretary Dulles cancelled the operation once the mistake had been discovered. 4. The CIA and the opposition forces of the Khmer Serei attempted to assassinate Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia in 1959. The assassin was spotted in a crowd minutes before he was planning to take Sihanouk's life. 5. The CIA unsuccessfully tried to kill Costa Rican President Jose Figueres twice from 1955 to 1970. Figueres boasted that he worked with the CIA very often, especially in the overthrow of Dominican Republic President Rafael Trujillo. 6. In 1975, the Senate's Church Committee went on record with the conclusion that Allen Dulles had ordered the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congo's prime minister. In September of 1960 the CIA sent the late Dr. Sidney Gottlieb to the Congo with a virus intended for use in an assassination attempt against Lumumba. A CIA cable in November of that year revealed that the CIA had been aiding Mobutu Sese Seko's search for Lumumba, who was captured by Mobutu on December 1, 1961. Lumumba was then handed over to his bitter enemy, Moise Tshombe, in Katanga province. Lumumba was assassinated the same day. 7. As early as 1958, the then-CIA Chief of Station in the Dominican Republic, Lear Reed, along with several Dominicans, had plotted the assassination of Rafael Trujillo, which never came to fruition. The CIA armed several opponents of his regime for assassination attempts, which also were never carried out. 8. The CIA has been involved in several plots to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro. 9. In 1975, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story that told of CIA involvement in a plot to kill French President Charles de Gaulle in the late 1960s after de Gaulle ousted American military bases from French soil. 10. The CIA aided Bolivian efforts to capture and kill Che Guevera, who in the late 1960s was leading a miniscule guerrilla movement there. 11. The CIA was directly involved in a failed plot to assassinate Jamaican President Michael Manley in 1976. 12. The CIA proposed a plan to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi in 1986, which resulted in the bombing of Libya by the United States, leading to the death of 40 to 100 civilians and the destruction of the French Embassy. 13. In 1982 and 1983, the CIA was involved in the murder of General Ahmed Dlimi, a Moroccan officer who sought to overthrow the Moroccan monarchy. 14. In 1983, the Nicaraguan government accused the CIA twice of hatching a plot to kill Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto, of which the CIA aborted both attempts.
It allows these organizations to do things that need doing: to make hard lose-lose decisions in the best interest of the country.
This is a mockery of history, and the facts. Was assisting in the coup of the democratically elected leader of Venezuela in 2002 in the interest of the country?
Let's face it - popular opinion isn't about the right decision or what's best for the country.
So you agree with Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman on the topic.
'The public must be put in its place', Walter Lippmann declared... That goal could be achieved in part through 'the manufacture of consent,' a 'self-conscious art and regular organ of popular government.' This 'revolution' in the 'practice of democracy' should enable a 'specialized class' to manage the 'common interests' that 'very largely elude public opinion entirely'..."
"The 'responsible men' who are the proper decision-makers, Lippmann continued, must 'live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.' These 'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders' are to be 'spectators', not 'participants'. The herd does have a 'function': to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election..."
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind," he wrote. His goal was to adapt these experiences to the needs of the "intelligent minorities," primarily business leaders, whose task is "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses." Such "engineering of consent" is the very "essence of the democratic process," Bernays wrote shortly before he was honored for his contributions by the American Psychological Association in 1949. The importance of "controlling the public mind" has been recognized with increasing clarity as popular struggles succeeded in extending the modalities of democracy, thus giving rise to what liberal elites call "the crisis of democracy" as when normally passive and apathetic populations become organized and seek to enter the political arena to pursue their interests and demands, threatening stability and order. As Bernays explained the problem, with "universal suffrage and universal schooling,...at last even the bourgeoisie stood in fear of the common people. For the masses promised to become king," a tendency fortunately reversed--so it has been hoped--as new methods "to mold the mind of the masses" were devised and implemented.
Would you feel better if they released information on current operations?
Yes, with redacted names, addresses, and exact instructions about how they create things like fake identification.
That is a much more reasonable solution than now. Let us see what goes on so that we can defend our rights, and put pressure on those who wish to take them away.
How many lives would it have saved looking at the current declassified record? How much torture could we have prevented? Coups against democratically elected leaders?
I say it's vital for us to have that information so that we can make informed decisions concerning what is going on.
Some of this information has already been declassified, and there is new redactions that didn't exist in the old declassification.
Many documents have been pulled to be reclassified.
And the most notable thing is that very few people actually read them all. There's a lot of information about our terrorist operations that is in plain view, and no one seems to care anymore. Similar to the Pentagon Papers, or Cointelpro
I've been trying for a rapprochement with the American "Libertarians." I feel the same as you, and if you've been here any amount of time you know that I usually show it. It's just that, you know, most of them probably could be real Anarchists if things were explained to them right.
I agree with you, however even if it was impeccably explained their basic system of where values lie make them incompatible with anarchism as we know it. Overcoming those selfish desires, and focusing on where power lies within that system seems like the basic goal, but I have yet to make any real headway with them even when they articulate the very things I want, but for much different reasons. Any suggestions would be helpful if you've had more success.
Originally, what I would call classical Liberalism embraced property rights for the common man. It was a defense against the power of kings and nobles. This was way back, before Anarchism even existed as such. Even looking at the early Anarchists of the 19th century, Proudhon's Property is Theft! certainly upholds its title's point, but Proudhon also admits that private property is inherently anarchistic, saying "The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner." So to be fair, their side has its history, too.
I agree with you until you call it there side. I see no conflict with what Proudhon, Adam Smith, and classical liberalism expresses. I don't see how they follow into an anarcho-capitalist outlook. I do see conflict with Proudhon and Murray Rothbard, or Mises. Otherwise I agree with you, maybe you could clarify?
I've been looking into the roots of what is more properly termed Individualist Anarchism here in the US. You and I belong to the Socialist Anarchist branch. I have always had a bad gut reaction to the Individualist Anarchists. They always seem like apologists for the status quo. You never find a poor Individualist Anarchist, lets put it that way. But their theories have some merit, and of course, there are things that all Anarchists, even Libertarians, agree on.
My understanding from listening to Murray Rothbard, and other anarcho-capitalists is that we agree on why the current system is bad. Concerning what to do about it we deviate wildly. They are more similar to Leninists than Socialist Anarchists in my mind because what they are pushing for is just another place where power lies. Instead of in a Leninist society (the coordinator class), and a Capitalist society (the very very rich), they intend on putting power in a larger group of rich. The general idea being that because they've proved themselves as useful men to be only moderately powerful in the current society, they have faith that if the rich class was much larger that they would lead, and control within that larger class as well.
It's a mistake. It's just another place where power lies, that instead of being excluded (currently) they are included in.
This is the principal problem as I see it.
So I've been trying to find some common ground, and understand their side. I still think they just don't get it, but I'm not going to go around saying "they are all chuckle-headed morons who want to take us back to some kind of techno-feudalism with themselves as the landed gentry," quite as often as I used to. And maybe, like now, I'll throw them a bone once in a while.
They are certainly not chuckle-headed morons. Their analog would be Leninists who saw themselves in the coordinator class. They see an opportunity to increase their individual power within the system by a particular set of changes. Why should the uber-rich control things when the larger class of rich should control them.
The uber-rich allow American Libertarianism to be vocalized much more because it can be used to undermine workers rights, and generally assist them in more control. They would never allow Libertarians to actually gain a lot of power, as that would marginalize their role, although they are certainly willing
I'd like to continue discussions offline if this is fine, I will add to this and only ask so I'm not looking for a topic we both happen to be on to discuss. my slashdot username @ gmail should suffice if you're interested. I appreciate your response, and will respond in kind once I reach my first destination (work) that I am really late for by reading all of my inbox first:)
You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.
I listen to it too, but it's heavily biased. Might as well be named National Corporate Radio!
Oh man, I've sung those songs. While striking, even! That was the Borders Books campaign, if you remember that one. It was pretty big, and I helped set up the world's first cyber-picket. Pretty much any search for Border's Books in '95 would have returned our site first. And I can tell you, at least as of '96 when I was heavily involved, there were still some very awesome women involved.
That's great to hear! We need to do a better job of coordinating and communicating because I'm sure many of us would love to hear tales about your experiences, and well as share our own.
Might as well go down to the local gay cocaine strip bar instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.
Good illustration of your point, however the value of a large mass communicating over public airwaves is more important in my mind than a person's use of those same public airwaves for their own individual use. This is certainly open to interpretation and discussion.
An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.
An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.
There are several I know of, and they work quite well. They let homeless people sleep there, have a library, racks of free clothes for people who need them. Give people a place out of the elements.
There are some problems, like theft from drifters, but the value outweighs the issues in my mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate that feature, you should be able to use your ipod on multiple machines. It's interesting as a lock out mech for thieves, but is the main reason why I sold my ipod, and have no intention of using one.
If I can't add, remove, edit songs on any machine I am not interested. I tried open source software for managing it, and that didn't work well at all.
Also, how would this work for reselling? I guess you resell with the same charger, or something.
I seriously doubt he considers their methodology a large step in what he is doing. By the time it would likely be a "success" I doubt he will exist to see it. A shame, I hope I am wrong.
First they came for the recreational drug users, and I did not speak out.
Here's a link to the discussion page on whole foods market
k et
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Whole_Foods_Mar
The weird thing is, on their wikipedia page they have one of marketers editing the page, usually rewriting whole portions of text. She identifies herself as such, but you can certainly see the conflict of interest there. She's been fairly neutral, although if there is anything negative she tends to add a ton of extra information around the negative thing to limit it.
What do you people think, is it wrong for companies to use people they pay to edit their page on wikipedia?
Unfortunately, you just proved the GP's point
Nothing is unfortunate about it. Just the facts. I could list several more that did succeed, although I was just trying to show things that are without question through the declassified record, and show just how often it occurs, and that we do not need a CIA.
Kind of like how the Pentagon Papers aren't read by most people today, but everyone knows about Watergate?
Excellent.
It's likely that's why it gets news coverage. I don't think they lie to help the industry along, but they have said in internal documents that they should release some information on the Kennedy Assassination every once in a awhile to divert people.
It seems to work pretty well. A lot of energy spent on things that are unimportant, which is as useful to them as you not paying any attention.
They're pretty bad at it though...
It has been argued that we need some form of intelligence gathering agency, and that the CIA fulfills that role. Maybe. But what the CIA also provides is a decapitation squad, well versed in killing heads of state and others. Here's a partial review of the declassified record.
1. The CIA was most likely behind the attempt to kill Chou En-Lai of China in 1955. An Air India flight that took off from Hong Kong crashed under mysterious circumstances on its way to the Bandung Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. Press reports indicated that a clockwork mechanism was found in the wreckage of the airliner, and that the cause of the crash was two time-bombs that had been planted on the airplane. John Discoe Smith, who was employed at the US Embassy in India from 1954 to 1959, later wrote about having delivered a package to a Chinese nationalist which he later discovered contained the two time-bombs.
2. The 1975 Senate Committee investigating the CIA reported that it had "received some evidence" of CIA involvement in plans to assassinate President Sukarno of Indonesia.
3. In the 1950s, the Dulles brothers misinterpreted a remark by President Eisenhower that "the Nasser problem could be eliminated," to mean that he wanted President Nasser of Egypt to be assassinated. Secretary Dulles cancelled the operation once the mistake had been discovered.
4. The CIA and the opposition forces of the Khmer Serei attempted to assassinate Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia in 1959. The assassin was spotted in a crowd minutes before he was planning to take Sihanouk's life.
5. The CIA unsuccessfully tried to kill Costa Rican President Jose Figueres twice from 1955 to 1970. Figueres boasted that he worked with the CIA very often, especially in the overthrow of Dominican Republic President Rafael Trujillo.
6. In 1975, the Senate's Church Committee went on record with the conclusion that Allen Dulles had ordered the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Congo's prime minister. In September of 1960 the CIA sent the late Dr. Sidney Gottlieb to the Congo with a virus intended for use in an assassination attempt against Lumumba. A CIA cable in November of that year revealed that the CIA had been aiding Mobutu Sese Seko's search for Lumumba, who was captured by Mobutu on December 1, 1961. Lumumba was then handed over to his bitter enemy, Moise Tshombe, in Katanga province. Lumumba was assassinated the same day.
7. As early as 1958, the then-CIA Chief of Station in the Dominican Republic, Lear Reed, along with several Dominicans, had plotted the assassination of Rafael Trujillo, which never came to fruition. The CIA armed several opponents of his regime for assassination attempts, which also were never carried out.
8. The CIA has been involved in several plots to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
9. In 1975, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story that told of CIA involvement in a plot to kill French President Charles de Gaulle in the late 1960s after de Gaulle ousted American military bases from French soil.
10. The CIA aided Bolivian efforts to capture and kill Che Guevera, who in the late 1960s was leading a miniscule guerrilla movement there.
11. The CIA was directly involved in a failed plot to assassinate Jamaican President Michael Manley in 1976.
12. The CIA proposed a plan to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi in 1986, which resulted in the bombing of Libya by the United States, leading to the death of 40 to 100 civilians and the destruction of the French Embassy.
13. In 1982 and 1983, the CIA was involved in the murder of General Ahmed Dlimi, a Moroccan officer who sought to overthrow the Moroccan monarchy.
14. In 1983, the Nicaraguan government accused the CIA twice of hatching a plot to kill Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto, of which the CIA aborted both attempts.
It allows these organizations to do things that need doing: to make hard lose-lose decisions in the best interest of the country.
This is a mockery of history, and the facts. Was assisting in the coup of the democratically elected leader of Venezuela in 2002 in the interest of the country?
Let's face it - popular opinion isn't about the right decision or what's best for the country.
So you agree with Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman on the topic.
'The public must be put in its place', Walter Lippmann declared... That goal could be achieved in part through 'the manufacture of consent,' a 'self-conscious art and regular organ of popular government.' This 'revolution' in the 'practice of democracy' should enable a 'specialized class' to manage the 'common interests' that 'very largely elude public opinion entirely'..."
"The 'responsible men' who are the proper decision-makers, Lippmann continued,
must 'live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.' These 'ignorant and
meddlesome outsiders' are to be 'spectators', not 'participants'. The herd does have a
'function': to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election..."
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind," he wrote. His goal was to adapt these experiences to the needs of the "intelligent minorities," primarily business leaders, whose task is "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses." Such "engineering of consent" is the very "essence of the democratic process," Bernays wrote shortly before he was honored for his contributions by the American Psychological Association in 1949. The importance of "controlling the public mind" has been recognized with increasing clarity as popular struggles succeeded in extending the modalities of democracy, thus giving rise to what liberal elites call "the crisis of democracy" as when normally passive and apathetic populations become organized and seek to enter the political arena to pursue their interests and demands, threatening stability and order. As Bernays explained the problem, with "universal suffrage and universal schooling,...at last even the bourgeoisie stood in fear of the common people. For the masses promised to become king," a tendency fortunately reversed--so it has been hoped--as new methods "to mold the mind of the masses" were devised and implemented.
It is somewhat surprising but in general the government takes the whole FOIA and declassification thing rather seriously.
6 /0604/0604nch1.cfm
No they don't! One of the groups of documents they released has been an outstanding court case for over a decade!
And let's not forget..
http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/200
Would you feel better if they released information on current operations?
Yes, with redacted names, addresses, and exact instructions about how they create things like fake identification.
That is a much more reasonable solution than now. Let us see what goes on so that we can defend our rights, and put pressure on those who wish to take them away.
How many lives would it have saved looking at the current declassified record? How much torture could we have prevented? Coups against democratically elected leaders?
I say it's vital for us to have that information so that we can make informed decisions concerning what is going on.
Some of this information has already been declassified, and there is new redactions that didn't exist in the old declassification.
Many documents have been pulled to be reclassified.
And the most notable thing is that very few people actually read them all. There's a lot of information about our terrorist operations that is in plain view, and no one seems to care anymore. Similar to the Pentagon Papers, or Cointelpro
That was the most well written, intelligent thing I've read on slashdot in a long time. Awesome stuff.
I've been trying for a rapprochement with the American "Libertarians." I feel the same as you, and if you've been here any amount of time you know that I usually show it. It's just that, you know, most of them probably could be real Anarchists if things were explained to them right.
I agree with you, however even if it was impeccably explained their basic system of where values lie make them incompatible with anarchism as we know it. Overcoming those selfish desires, and focusing on where power lies within that system seems like the basic goal, but I have yet to make any real headway with them even when they articulate the very things I want, but for much different reasons. Any suggestions would be helpful if you've had more success.
Originally, what I would call classical Liberalism embraced property rights for the common man. It was a defense against the power of kings and nobles. This was way back, before Anarchism even existed as such. Even looking at the early Anarchists of the 19th century, Proudhon's Property is Theft! certainly upholds its title's point, but Proudhon also admits that private property is inherently anarchistic, saying "The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner." So to be fair, their side has its history, too.
I agree with you until you call it there side. I see no conflict with what Proudhon, Adam Smith, and classical liberalism expresses. I don't see how they follow into an anarcho-capitalist outlook. I do see conflict with Proudhon and Murray Rothbard, or Mises. Otherwise I agree with you, maybe you could clarify?
I've been looking into the roots of what is more properly termed Individualist Anarchism here in the US. You and I belong to the Socialist Anarchist branch. I have always had a bad gut reaction to the Individualist Anarchists. They always seem like apologists for the status quo. You never find a poor Individualist Anarchist, lets put it that way. But their theories have some merit, and of course, there are things that all Anarchists, even Libertarians, agree on.
My understanding from listening to Murray Rothbard, and other anarcho-capitalists is that we agree on why the current system is bad. Concerning what to do about it we deviate wildly. They are more similar to Leninists than Socialist Anarchists in my mind because what they are pushing for is just another place where power lies. Instead of in a Leninist society (the coordinator class), and a Capitalist society (the very very rich), they intend on putting power in a larger group of rich. The general idea being that because they've proved themselves as useful men to be only moderately powerful in the current society, they have faith that if the rich class was much larger that they would lead, and control within that larger class as well.
It's a mistake. It's just another place where power lies, that instead of being excluded (currently) they are included in.
This is the principal problem as I see it.
So I've been trying to find some common ground, and understand their side. I still think they just don't get it, but I'm not going to go around saying "they are all chuckle-headed morons who want to take us back to some kind of techno-feudalism with themselves as the landed gentry," quite as often as I used to. And maybe, like now, I'll throw them a bone once in a while.
They are certainly not chuckle-headed morons. Their analog would be Leninists who saw themselves in the coordinator class. They see an opportunity to increase their individual power within the system by a particular set of changes. Why should the uber-rich control things when the larger class of rich should control them.
The uber-rich allow American Libertarianism to be vocalized much more because it can be used to undermine workers rights, and generally assist them in more control. They would never allow Libertarians to actually gain a lot of power, as that would marginalize their role, although they are certainly willing
I'd like to continue discussions offline if this is fine, I will add to this and only ask so I'm not looking for a topic we both happen to be on to discuss. my slashdot username @ gmail should suffice if you're interested. I appreciate your response, and will respond in kind once I reach my first destination (work) that I am really late for by reading all of my inbox first :)
You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.
I listen to it too, but it's heavily biased. Might as well be named National Corporate Radio!
Yes, it would be damned annoying.
Sounds completely reasonable to me. I'm all for it.
Excellent points!
Anarcho-capitalists such as libertarians are staunch defenders of all property rights.
:)
:)
Awww, come on. Don't enable them to steal our word! At least label us lefty-anarchists as Classical Libertarianism!
It's not a lost cause, it's only in America that they've managed to steal it. We can take it back!
Oh man, I've sung those songs. While striking, even! That was the Borders Books campaign, if you remember that one. It was pretty big, and I helped set up the world's first cyber-picket. Pretty much any search for Border's Books in '95 would have returned our site first. And I can tell you, at least as of '96 when I was heavily involved, there were still some very awesome women involved.
That's great to hear! We need to do a better job of coordinating and communicating because I'm sure many of us would love to hear tales about your experiences, and well as share our own.
Might as well go down to the local gay cocaine strip bar instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.
Good illustration of your point, however the value of a large mass communicating over public airwaves is more important in my mind than a person's use of those same public airwaves for their own individual use. This is certainly open to interpretation and discussion.
An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.
Excellent response that was well put.
An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.
There are several I know of, and they work quite well. They let homeless people sleep there, have a library, racks of free clothes for people who need them. Give people a place out of the elements.
There are some problems, like theft from drifters, but the value outweighs the issues in my mind.