I go to McDonalds naked and when they refuse to serve me I throw things at them…and I am probably one of the most loudest people you’ll ever meet, I’m ruthless, I do what I want, when I want and nobody can change that.

That is not to take a Liebniz approach of saying that everything is as it should be but it does seem a good idea to have some concept of how things should be before you finish the job of changing them from the way that they are. Think of the mess the USofA created by starting the Iraq war without having a valid roadmap of how things should look if they ‘won’. Rebellion for rebellion sake is just violence, and not really Anarchy but it is easy to see how the misuse of the term in the English language would lead to a different conclusion.

So it makes sense that the individual needs to find their own comfort level in adopting the extent to which they will conform. And we all do conform. To say otherwise is to suggest that you will turn up naked at a movie cinema or happily scream and yell whenever people try to communicate with you- the layers of conformity run so deep that even the most conformist of us is likely to self-express in some way or another.

But the point “Anarchy is a way of living,…” is a good one. How will you choose to live your life? An evil government adminstrator or a brave rebel? A good government worker or a brutal and reckless perpetrator of random acts of violence? Anarchy is many things but it will not solve all problems – hopefully the big ones though!

How will you decide who is to meet their demise through an early end, caused by your actions? Will you choose the good or the bad? Will you adopt the John Galliano approach and simply get rid of the Ugly?

Anarchy as a philosophy holds the individual as highest but in the context of the surrounding society. Talk of revolution does not necessarily require violence, and many amazing changes in society happen without random acts of violence. If you are prepared to kill, are you also prepared to die? What ends would you trade your life for?

So are random acts of violence a means to an end of just an end in themselves? If a policeman beats up a protester, does that justify your violent retribution against a completely different policeman? What about policewomen? Are they justifiable targets? How about the constable who shuffles the paperwork all day – are they a justifiable target?

If the police use batons to stop a demonstration – but don’t hunt down the protesters in their homes or follow-up with any persecution, does that single act justify random acts of retribution? What about night-club doormen? They are most likely responsible for sorting out the rowdy and untamed, so are all doormen appropriate targets for violence?

Who decides on the level of tit-for-tat? Is a beating worth a shooting? Is a water cannon equal to a knife? It is possible to argue yourself into lethargy but to ignore thinking about these points at all does not give recognition to the huge body of work put down by great activists, writers and thinkers in the anarchy movement.