No Regrets? well maybe just one...

'Perhaps reading is not a strong point of yours. Anarchy is exactly what these places have. Anarchism is not.
Those letters make a large difference - about the difference between my statement and yours. I realise that anarchists use a different definition of the word than the rest of the world but to assume that I would be using the (tiny) minority definition rather than the accepted one is obtuse at best.'
Why else would you bring up these points if it wasn't a reference to my being an Anarchist. Sounds like back-peddling to me Dunc...

Nevertheless, excepting the fact that your misplaced patronising is based on your mistake, rather than mine... your arguments still don't hold water. What you have made is a classic 'straw-man' argument. Reprinted from your favourite reference source, wikipedia, just in case you don't know what one is:
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Duncan I just presented a brief explaination of Anarchism since your reference to Rwanda and Somalia made it clear that you had no understanding of the topic. Then suggested methods of direct action and passive resistance that individual could do. I didn't realise that you had a point to be refuted.

So ignoring that, why don't you explain, in short words if it helps:

1. How such a successful and in your opinion ultimately dominant social order as anarchism can ever work when every time it has been tried it has failed. (Failed means not succeeded - which it hasn't. More claims of sabotage by other systems do not hold water by virtue of there being no evidence to support this claim and simple evolutionary basis).
It can work, it has worked, it does work. If you want full explaination, I suggest reading a book.
A History of Anarchism would be right up your alley if you really wanted to know about Anarchism as a philosophical and political creed over the centuries, and for which many have been persecuted by other more authoritive ideologies like fascism and state socialism. There have been anarchist-inspired revolutions - in Spain, in the Ukraine, in Mexico - which have in turn led to (however short-lived) anarchist administrations. But anarchism's power has, first and foremost, been the power of the lone protestor, the dissenter who is unafraid to expose himself to reprisal for the sake of preaching the real gospel of liberty, equality and fraternity which so many so-called revolutionaries usually leave in tatters once they graduate from barricades to corridors of power. The author argues that the spirit of anarchism is in the voice of Tolstoy, of Gandhi, of Bakunin, of Godwin, of Camus and of Chomsky.

2. How point 1. can be overcome as it is a direct result of human nature, not capitalism.
Human nature has nothing to do with it, we are conditioned from early childhood to become good citizens in whatever social system we are in at the time, it is only when the masses realise that not only do we not need a government, but that these institutions of power are dangerous to others, to its own people and to our environment. That we have the spark needed for revolution.

3. How you stealing from some independent vendor affects the bottom line of some big multinational (I'll go into this in a bit more detail below as it is a fundamental flaw in your theory and self-indulgent practice of your claimed ideals).
Duncan, just look at how filesharing and bittorrent have got the music and film industry shiting their pants - this is theft, and it works because it affects their bottom line.
Obviously a group of 5 guys won't affect anything but even as small a number as 100 targeting major corporation shops and services in one city everyday could be very successful at driving away global companies. It is just an example of what I think is more effective direct action than marching with a police escort round a city chanting 'Property is theft'.

4. How you can make any comparison between small communities and their success with anarchy (there are notable successes with communism too) and larger scale society.
The example set by the Spanish Republic should have covered this the first time, and it was still working until Franco crushed them. The Republic's defeat in the war does not reflect poorly on Anarchism. Franco had weapons, the Republic didn't; Franco won but at the end of the day Anarchy was shown to work in a larger scale society.

Now, surely you realise that the corporations you resent so much build the actions of people such as yourself - stealing, stock damage - into their business? The price you pay includes the cost to cover all these losses. So they don't actually give a shit. They also have insurance. Who pays for that? Ultimately, all the other insurers with that company. At the end of the day, all the costs are passed back to the customer - and the only customers who feel it are the people who can't pass it onto their customers, because they don't have any - that being Joe Public. So for all your shoplifting and vandalism all you've done is taken money out of the pocket of some poor bastard who can't afford to feed his family because some dickhead keeps nicking all the Rizla in Asda.
If he can't afford to feed his family, then he should steal the food.
Joe Public is exactly who needs to get pissed off for a revolution to take place, the problem is that even the poorest people here can survive easily and have fairly decent work conditions, they expect to work 40+ hours a week and have 20-odd days holiday a year until they're too old to be useful. So nothing compels them revolt, The irony of course is that the better conditions and education that liberals have faught and died for throught history are what passifies us (myself included). I would enforce the direct action I preached more if it wasn't so easy for me to get by, filling my time by playing addictive computer games, reading and fannying about in general. But at least I still have passive resistance - hey, it worked for Ghandi.

And that's just as long as you only take from the big chains. The smaller, independent shops - that directly hurts them. They're not really capitalists - just dudes trying to make a living. And the whole raising taxes thing - as you yourself said - it doesn't affect the rich, only the poor. You're not gonig to cause a social revolt - maybe just a little more misery among the most unfortunate members of our society anyway.
I agree with local independent stores so wouldn't steal from these.

If you take away people's prospects of livelihood, you are not an anarchist - this has nothing to do with their ideals. That's in effect what you are proposing - trying to justify it by saying your putting it to the man is just childish.

Arbeit macht frei

Duncan if a persons livelihood is harmful to the rest of us then it is our duty to destroy their livelihood. Our society is so concerned that we make something of ourselves career wise that it doesn't matter if your job has a negitive impact on everyone around you; as long as it steady work. Now if someone does a job that actually enhances the quality of life of people without inadvertently doing any irreparable damage to the environment, wildlife or the quality of life of others then I'm all for it.

Communism makes far more sense as an ideal than anarchism anyway. But neither work. Simple as that. Bottom line is that your actions will not change anything. All they do is expose you to the risk of getting your head kicked in by some bouncers, losing your freedom by potentially getting put in jail, and all the knock-on effects that it has on your family by you not being there.
Anarchy is the final stage of Communism when 'the Government withers away'. However, as anarchists predicted, Communism will always fail because it has a powerful centralized government that retains the monopoly of violence (police, army, intelligence agencies, courts and prisons) and mankind just can't be trusted with that kind of power.
You keep mentioning bouncers, but seeing as it's been about 5 years since I was regularly getting arrested for fighting bouncers and the police, it really holds no weight

I also notice no replies to the other commenters who have also made equally valid rebuttals of your points.
Naw, they haven't...

You are welcome to start your own anarchist club if you were actually inclined enough to bother. Your passive actions (which largely just excuse your own bad behaviour) are the mark of someone who has no strength to their claimed convictions - you aren't doing anything positive.
Spending the day home with my children is far more positive than anything you could suggest Dunky methinks.

You aren't getting involved in politics.
You are joking right? I thought you knew what Anarchism is? If Democracy actually changed anything they'd abolish it.

You aren't writing letters.
Duncan do you really think any of this makes a difference, really? I have actually e-mailed all the news channels and papers asking them to investigate and reveal to the mass majority the planned demolishion of WTC 1, 2 and 7. I am still waiting for the news story or response, which we all know i'll never get.

You aren't doing anything which is any effort to yourself. You are instead meeting other goals - getting stuff you want for free.
I don't actually shoplift Dunc because I'm too feared (because of a close-shave). I do still try and get meat for free though when I do a big shopping - it's about all my bottle can stand. Like I said above if my life was more uncomfortable then I would be compelled to get over this fear. (which I know is both pathetic and conformist)

Acting like a tit and excusing your behaviour with some claim that it is for the greater good. I mean, you got chucked out of the student union for God's sake. The mean bouncers you were assaulting were some skinny computing students who were the last sort of people someone of your convictions should have given aggro to. And that chick whose nose you redistributed a few years back - did you think she might have joined the police at some far off point in the future?
I've never tried to excuse hitting that burd, I can't remember it at all and it's not in my nature so it's kinda hard to explain...sometimes ye feel so bad.
But it wasn't quite as sinister as you make out, she was hit while trying to split up a fight between me and her man. It is the only thing I regret doing, I was disgusted at myself when I found out, I have never said anything other than that and since I didn't have an understanding of Anarchism way back when, you are clearly talking shit.

And the lady who lived downstairs who you frightened into calling the police, who then 'assaulted you' (an action which there is no witness to other than yourself) - this doesn't mean they didn't, but it's not like they were knocking doors looking for someone to beat up. She may have been a nosy, intolerant neighbour. But you frightening her half to death is just thuggery. I spoke to the poor, terrified woman. She didn't want to answer the door. This was a few days after the event. She was selling her flat and moving back to her last city, all because of you. Proud of yourself? I don't think I ever have been, or ever will be again, so ashamed. Nothing - nothing - can ever justify your behaviour. And you sit here on your made up pedestal trying to excuse several years of being a total scumbag by trying to say that it's George Bush's fault and that none of your drunken brawling would have happened if only everyone could get along like the Tanzanians.
Again never used Anarchism as a defence, my defence is she's an evil bastard who assulted me on my doorstep, then fabricated a web of lies that led to me getting a kicking ( I dragged her into the staircase by her hair, was what the cop said) and a fine for breach of the peace.
Chapping on a door is not thuggery dickhead and it is quite reasonable behaviour, It was Willetts (who everyone knows is the most passive person alive) who in a moment of stupidity opened her door (met with hysteria of a woman howling on the phone that we were breaking her door down) and I had already started walking away after she refused to answer. She must have been so terrified of us that she forgot to lock her door eh?
Yes Duncan she was so terrified of me that she would walk past me in the staircase with a smug grin, even after I left that flat she would come into Tesco (when I worked there) and grin at me as she walked by. So I take it that she decided to stay and face her demons what a brave soul.

You are acting like a spoilt little boy who, rather than admit each fault, makes another two and says it was all part of the masterplan. How your brawling opened your eyes to the injustices in the world. How stealing some carrots is justified by some philosopher whose worls you are currently reading.
So having your eyes opened to the injustices in the world and reading the greatest thinkers are faults?

Get a fucking grip. Seriously. You have a loving family - despite all that you have done - who all despreately want you to grow up and be a man. You have two beautiful, healthy daughters who need you to be with them, not stoned in a jail cell. You have a partner who has stood beside you despite all of your shit. Someday I hope you will realise that there are a lot of very important things which you are too pigheaded to appreciate which you have and don't seem to care about enough to even try and change.
Resistence is futile, individuality is irrelevent, you will become part of the collective.
I agree that my daughters need me to be with them so going out and getting a job is the last thing I should do. As for avoiding gaol, I do my best, it's been years since I was in any bother for fighting authority figures. It seems to have been forgotten that in this recent charge it was us who were attacked and outnumbered 3 to 1, and my crime was kicking one of them in the face to keep him down. It was the fact that it's been so long since I picked up a charge that factored in me not going to gaol.

And enough of this silly argument. It was fun enough to take apart but we have all had enough. It doesn't hold water. It never will. It doesn't excuse your behaviour - not now, not then, and not in the future. Why don't you put some of your wasted talent to some use before it really is too late? And eventually, it will be.

I mean, come on, are you really fooling yourself here?
You didn't take apart any argument, rather you made a personal attack on my drunken behaviour of a few years ago and made a pathetic attempt to relate this to Anarchism. As for my talent, I feel that it is at it's best possible use in fatherhood, than use it to help maintain society.