Time for a fresh start.

[Zay]

Before this place fills up with endless left vs right bullshit, I'd like to take this pause to suggest that you drop the incessant, useless stalemate of left-vs right and embrace full libertarianism, voluntarism, agorism....anarchy. It is the most morally consistent, non-utopian/unrealistic, logically consistent form of government there is, as it involves no government. Face it, you will never elect a messiah. You will never eradicate corruption. You will never achieve a culture of prosperity for all by stealing from the rich at gunpoint.
Socialism/communism(involuntary communism, that is. if you can start a commune and pull it off, good for you) fail because the power needed to achieve those states is absolute, and absolutely corrupt.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Anarchy is not lawlessness, immorality, or a somalian free for all. It is the acceptance that the state fails at everything. It is the reality that nationalism is no different than religious fanaticism, cult madness, or football hooliganism. It is the belief that responsible and intelligent people should be free to live their own lives, without puppeteers driving them into an agenda.

If you feel that the majority of people are "stupid", than that is even less of a reason to have democracy. If it is not the will of the people to aid the poor, put children through school, or finance state mass murder(Or "war" as you may call it, which isn't possible under anarchy), then taxation is just a useless formality. Why not let the poor invade the suburbs and mansions with their own guns, and fire all the IRS agents?

There will be social norms under anarchy. There will be rules. There will be freedoms of others that you will have to follow. There will be may charities that put the Church to shame.

All that's necessary, is a critical mass of people ditching religion and learning self-defense. All we need is a culture of people raised to value the scientific method and the non-aggression principle.

Fuck the state. Fuck all states. Fuck the USA, Fuck france, fuck chavez, fuck the UK, fuck every asshole in africa, and fuck all shitty parents.

[Dog]

This, folks, is what happens when you smoke too much weed.

[DBag]

And what economic plan do you suggest?

Capitalism breeds people manipulating one another (social darwinism).
Communism is too easily turned into dictatorship.


Without order, there is no economic support, unless true communism is achieved. Try telling that to the brainwashed America we know as the Unites States.

[Mantikore]

stability in such a nation exists only when there are more moral people than immoral.

how do we prevent such an event which would cause the nation to slip into unrest?

[DBag]

I've been brooding over that myself, Mantikore. The only way I have thus far is censorship, which I am strongly opposed to. Civil Liberty++

[LucidInTheSkyWithDemons]

Zay - is there anywhere in the world where you currently believe a large scale anarchist society could exist without threat from external invasion and internal strife? I've yet to hear of a practical demonstration or even a theoretical form of anarchism which adequately deals with the threat of violent crime. Libertarians deal with this by acknowledging the need for a government limited to supplying police, courts, a legal code, and national defense. How could would an anarchist society survive in the real world without these institutions? How would it stop a private police force from exercising a monopoly on violence and rule making and morphing into a de facto government?

[Dream of the iris]

excellent point you made. Although in theory this is a great idea, in reality it's just not a feasible way to govern. Humans just aren't mature enough to do it. It has worked before but only in small societies such as 30 to 50 people. When you have a group that small, it tends to work like a family more so than a society but when you increase that number to millions then it becomes a lot more hectic. No matter what your always going to find that rotten apple who will fuck shit up for everyone else. What we need to do is revert back to the way we used to do it, with variable changes due to the changing times. Our biggest problem today is that we lost our way through manipulation and misinterpretation of the constitution. Your idea is good, zay, but its an idea that can only work when people can transcend past this current way of thinking. That my friend is an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary. We need stepping stones first and I think the U.S constitution, though not perfect, is certainly a step in the right direction.

[unstableasatable]

safe to u. if there was anarchy in my town, not much would happen, and few old grannies speeding up on their scooters would be all that happens

[WAN]

Before this place fills up with endless left vs right bullshit,


Prove that it had always been about left vs right, or shut up.

Oh and, boys who try to cash in on (supposed) stereotypes in an attempt to look popular/cute/whatever delusions you might have are very unattractive. Keep that in mind, why don't you.


I'd like to take this pause to suggest that you drop the incessant, useless stalemate of left-vs right and embrace full libertarianism, voluntarism, agorism....anarchy.

Funny how when I told you (actually, it was more like "recommended", because that was the exact word I used) to try and reflect upon the nature of capitalism you got all mad and told me to mind my own business and don't be telling people what to do and shit, but now you turned around and are doing the very same thing you are accusing other people of doing.

Hypocritical, in a stereotypically non-white fashion.




It is the most morally consistent, non-utopian/unrealistic, logically consistent form of government there is, as it involves no government.

god

Do you EVER bug me, you stupified spic shit (please note: I am actually not racist towards the mexican/hispanci people. I am using the racial slur "spic" here because I wish to inflict a maximum amount of pain on this fuming pile of shit known as zay)

First of all, it is "morally consistent, non-utopian, logically consistent", yadda yadda yadda..to you, zay, only. To some of us, it is not.

Secondly, normal people would try and back up their assertions, in an attempt to persuade people, or just to be plain intellectually honest. But you are exempt from having to back up your baseless assertion, gay boy, because you are not normal.

Lastly, if it involves no government, then technically it is NOT a form of government, and you know why? It's because there is no government to speak of, therefore, how can it be a form of government?

Do you EVER make sense?


Face it, you will never elect a messiah.

Who said anything about electing a messiah? Seriously. Quote him. Or prove that someone said such a thing.

I bet you can't, because you dreamt this up in your fertile, albeit fucked up, imagination.


You will never eradicate corruption.

Sounds like a wager to me?

In seriouslihood, very very very few things are truly impossible (as you were implying). Example, didn't some prominent scientist assert that atoms were the smallest building block of all things and therefore, could not be split apart further?

But that's not the point. The point is, when you the fag-faced spic boy make an assertion, for some reason it just bugs me to no end. Why don't you choke on a pinata or something.


You will never achieve a culture of prosperity for all by stealing from the rich at gunpoint.

First you insinuated that we want to redistribute the wealth, then you phrased it in such a fashion as to make it sound a thousand times worse than it actually is (not that we really are advocating wealth redistribution, though).

Nicely done, beaner boy. I am sure you Aztec warrior ancestors are smiling proudly on you from the heaven.


Socialism/communism(involuntary communism, that is. if you can start a commune and pull it off, good for you) fail because the power needed to achieve those states is absolute, and absolutely corrupt.

1. You need to prove that countries practice socialism/communism.
2. You need to prove that they "fail".
3. You need to prove that they fail because of practicing socialism/communism.
4. You need to prove that absolute power is needed to achieve these countries/states.

By the way, I am timing how long till you pull your, very famous and cute might I add, Zay's fallacy (it's a nickname I have come up with :)), namely that thing where you weasel out of having to deal with my argument by attacking the motherfucking LENGTH of my post. I gotta admit, that was both elegant and adorable, not to mention very creative. It's not quite an ad hominem, however it does the job just as well, if not better.




Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Wow, a metaphor. Now I am COMPLETELY convinced that democracy sucks.


Anarchy is not lawlessness, immorality, or a somalian free for all. It is the acceptance that the state fails at everything.

I am gonna be serious for a moment here and address your point.

It is true that states have a tendency to fail at things, however, my questions are: 1. is it invariably so? 2. if yes, why? 3. would it be possible to remedy the situation?

Also, you would need to explain how a society without any form of government would function.


It is the reality that nationalism is no different than religious fanaticism,

oh my fucking GOOOOOOOOD you fucking spic, you piss me the FUCK off.

Since when is an opinion reality? By that I mean, that "nationalism is no different than religious fanaticism" is an opinion/perception. It is NOT reality. I don't know why you used the word "reality" here. Is it because you think it would lend more weight to what you are claiming, or that English is not your first language, and you genuinely have difficulty telling these two words "reality" and "opinion" apart?


If you feel that the majority of people are "stupid", than that is even less of a reason to have democracy.

I actually agree with you here. Democracy is not a very good form of government. I would love to hear any suggestion/ideas you might have, though.


If it is not the will of the people to aid the poor, put children through school, or finance state mass murder(Or "war" as you may call it, which isn't possible under anarchy), then taxation is just a useless formality. Why not let the poor invade the suburbs and mansions with their own guns, and fire all the IRS agents?

Dear zay-ie boy, you are doing that disjointed thinking again. Secondly, taxes are needed, for things like roads, public services, utilities, education...etc, you know, things that everybody uses. Although I agree with you that forced taxation is bad, and also that government can use taxes for purposes not intended by the public.


There will be social norms under anarchy.

Elaborate (hopefully persuasively, if your goal is to try and change people's mind, not just to mindlessly soapbox your opinion on a message board)


There will be freedoms of others that you will have to follow.

This doesnt make any sense. What the hell is an other people's freedom that I have to follow? Don't you mean that other people have rights and freedoms that I cannot infringe upon?


There will be may charities that put the Church to shame.

Wow, more baseless assertions from Zay. Are y'all turned on just like I am right now?


All that's necessary, is a critical mass of people ditching religion and learning self-defense.

Why should people ditch their religions just to prove your idea is feasible?

In fact, why should people ditch their religions at all? Keep in mind this is a rhetorical question. I don't really need to hear more subjective, egocentric bullshit "ah, uhm, my name is zay, and i tink dat religion is baaaaad because of blah blah blah" coming from you.


All we need is a culture of people raised to value the scientific method and the non-aggression principle.

1. Might want to explain in greater detail what this "scientific method" is that you speak of. Not that it is likely it will change our mind in any significant way.

2. Ditto with non-aggression principle.

3. Do you get a kick out of dropping all these lofty-sounding terms, and by that I mean, the "scientific method" (WAN snickers), and the "non-aggression principle" and the like. Seriously. Do you honestly think these terms mean much, if anything at all, to your average reader/s? Or do you just enjoy talking out loud?


Fuck the state. Fuck all states. Fuck the USA, Fuck france, fuck chavez, fuck the UK, fuck every asshole in africa, and fuck all shitty parents.

This is probably the most sensible thing I have ever heard coming out of your mouth.

[WAN]

To contribute (arguably):

I don't think anarchy can truly work. When you have as many people as we do now, some sort of top-to-down, overseeing governing body is needed to ensure things run smoothly. Libertarianism sounds good in theory, however I bet that if there should ever come such a time that a libertarian party is elected into office, they would quickly find that a "small" government just won't cut it. I would tend to believe that we would need quite a few departments and agencies to deal with the many, many issues that will surely arise, given how incredibly big our populations are.

Not that anybody cares to know, but I personally tend to be fascinated by fascism, authoritarianism, and a mild form of dictatorship, in the context of an extremely well-armed population. And in a serious manner too, none of that stupid, cuntish "LAWL da kind of goverment i lyke is the kind where i be da dictator LAWL".

If the leader is not doing good enough of a job, or is becoming oppressive, or traitorous to the nation, he eats lead. Then we elect/enthrone/whatever the verb is another man, who might be inclined to do a good job, or at the very least not suck too apparently, if he knows what's good for him.

[Dog]

WAN, you apparently aren't the moron that you usually portray yourself as. Why ruin potentially good posts with racial slurs and comments about people's ancestry? I mean, you can try to justify it, but it still just makes YOU look like an idiot.

[Sephiroth]

Power abhors a vacuum. It is simply human nature. Anarchism is like voluntary communism in that respect. Sure, if you get a village of willing people together, so long as they remain willing, you can pull off a pretty satisfactory form of government. The larger the population, however, the greater the chance that this willingness will decrease, until somebody or some people want to try something else. The moment you have that, you have internal strife. So, to be successful, you would have to have dozens of different pocketed anarchistic (or communistic, if you prefer that flavour) communities spread out around the world. The moment one of those flips over, you run the risk that it will begin to either proselytise to the citizens of the others, or, if the flavour of government they chose isn't particularly respectful of personal choice, simply take the others over. Government is in our blood. It's a genetic inclination in homo sapiens as it certainly is in every other social animal on the planet. The only thing to be done about it is to ensure that the form of government in power is as just as we can possibly make it.

[WAN]

WAN, you apparently aren't the moron that you usually portray yourself as. Why ruin potentially good posts with racial slurs and comments about people's ancestry? I mean, you can try to justify it, but it still just makes YOU look like an idiot.

shut up pizza face

[Yggdrasil]

To contribute (arguably):

I don't think anarchy can truly work. When you have as many people as we do now, some sort of top-to-down, overseeing governing body is needed to ensure things run smoothly. Libertarianism sounds good in theory, however I bet that if there should ever come such a time that a libertarian party is elected into office, they would quickly find that a "small" government just won't cut it. I would tend to believe that we would need quite a few departments and agencies to deal with the many, many issues that will surely arise, given how incredibly big our populations are.

Not that anybody cares to know, but I personally tend to be fascinated by fascism, authoritarianism, and a mild form of dictatorship, in the context of an extremely well-armed population. And in a serious manner too, none of that stupid, cuntish "LAWL da kind of goverment i lyke is the kind where i be da dictator LAWL".

If the leader is not doing good enough of a job, or is becoming oppressive, or traitorous to the nation, he eats lead. Then we elect/enthrone/whatever the verb is another man, who might be inclined to do a good job, or at the very least not suck too apparently, if he knows what's good for him.

You know, you have a point. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, was pretty libertarian by today's standards. All for smaller/less powerful government, non-intervention with the economy, etc.. Yet, the man ended up increasing the power of the government greatly, and used the financial institutions set up by the prior parties, to which he was so greatly opposed.

The dictatorial scenario you portray is akin to the final 2 centuries of Roman history. Problem was, the people were never satisfied, and there was continuous bloodshed, and eventually it led to the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire. People will eventually become perpetually dissatisfied, or other armed men will covet his power and take it by force. A stable government cannot have repeated coup d'états.

I would personally think of the ideal government as something similar to the system implemented by the Roman republic, only much more democratic and egalitarian. One of the greatest flaws with our current system of democracy is that although a fine leader's job may last for a good couple of years, so will a bad leader's. I don't know. Also, government needs to stop being so hypocritical and publicly admit to a tax hike. Maybe then we can get decent education and health care for all.

[Struwwelpeter]

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these niggers are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.” - Thomas Jefferson

Sounds real Libertarian all right.

[Yggdrasil]

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.” - Thomas Jefferson

Sounds real Libertarian all right.

Nevertheless, the man's ideals were the reduction of power of the federal government, and for government to back out of economic affairs, such as the use of national banks. He and Alexander Hamilton argued fiercely over this.

[Struwwelpeter]

How exactly is mass deportation a reduction of power of the federal government? How exactly is taking the hard-earned property of the citizens, which slaves were, a secession of federal involvement in economic affairs? Truth be told, the founding fathers were actually national socialists.

[Yggdrasil]

How exactly is mass deportation a reduction of power of the federal government? How exactly is taking the hard-earned property of the citizens, which slaves were, a secession of federal involvement in economic affairs? Truth be told, the founding fathers were actually national socialists.

The government under the Articles of Confederation wasn't any great shakes either. I said, his ideals. Oh, and I do think you're confusing Jefferson with Adams. As soon as Jefferson was elected to office, he passed a bill making void a law passed by Adams (the Alien & Sedition Acts). I never said the man lived up to his ideals, either. That was the point of my post. WAN was talking about how if Libertarians won office they would revert to things like larger gov't. I just brought up Jefferson as an example.

[Struwwelpeter]

Libertarianism is gay, the historical misinterpretations of the ideals of the founding fathers is gay, anarchy is gay. Zay is gay.

[Rust]

Government is in our blood. It's a genetic inclination in homo sapiens as it certainly is in every other social animal on the planet. The only thing to be done about it is to ensure that the form of government in power is as just as we can possibly make it.

Really? Care to give me one example of government in the animal kingdom?

As far as I can see, I only know of a "might-is-right" type of "government" (if we can call it that), and I'm pretty sure most of the human world scoffs at that idea; meaning we can easily act outside our "genetic inclination" (assuming such a thing is even true when it comes to "government").

Not to mention that anarchism and communism would welcome these appeals to nature with open arms. Not only have were they practiced by early humans before, but these type of arguments would only justify the very traits of anarchism/communism that capitalists often complain about! They might of millions of people rebelling against the tiny elite? Well, "that's all right" says monkey.

[Zay]

For all the protection from "human nature" that governments offer, it is also the enabler of all the worst aspects of human nature.

[Yggdrasil]

Really? Care to give me one example of government in the animal kingdom?

As far as I can see, I only know of a "might-is-right" type of "government" (if we can call it that), and I'm pretty sure most of the human world scoffs at that idea; meaning we can easily act outside our "genetic inclination" (assuming such a thing is even true when it comes to "government").

Not to mention that anarchism and communism would welcome these appeals to nature with open arms. Not only have were they practiced by early humans before, but these type of arguments would only justify the very traits of anarchism/communism that capitalists often complain about! They might of millions of people rebelling against the tiny elite? Well, "that's all right" says monkey.

I can name 3 animals right off the top of my head. Ants, rats, and Mole rats. I don't want to have to explain it in detail, but we should all know that ants have an extremely well organized system of laboring, which could just as easily be called a government.

[Zay]

I can name 3 animals right off the top of my head. Ants, rats, and Mole rats. I don't want to have to explain it in detail, but we should all know that ants have an extremely well organized system of laboring, which could just as easily be called a government.

By those standards, all group animals have governments.

Do ants, bees, and lemmings use sophistry, religion, lies, false values, or any type of verbal persuasion to keep their workers in line? Humans have the technology to live independently, unfortunately our philosophy hasn't been advancing as fast as we went from the wright brothers to moon landings in 60 years. The only thing governments truly still protect us from is religion. Once that goes the way of greek mythology, what will prevail? War on oppressive corporations, war on drugs, war on poverty, etc? Don't tell me corporations or drug lords are more dangerous than governments that have killed hundreds of millions of people in the past century.

[Rust]

I can name 3 animals right off the top of my head. Ants, rats, and Mole rats. I don't want to have to explain it in detail, but we should all know that ants have an extremely well organized system of laboring, which could just as easily be called a government.

Ants have a division of labor, sure, but that in itself isn't a government. Who governs in a ant colony? A Queen issues no edicts or orders? The Queen is there to poop out larva as much as she can, not to give out orders or "govern"....

"The term "queen" is often deceptive, as the queen ant has very little control over the colony as a whole. She has no known authority or decision-making control; instead her sole function is to reproduce. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_ant)

I acknowledge there is order in a ant colony and there is hierarchy, but government is a stretch. However, to prevent people from complaining about "semantics" because they aren't willing to accept they are misuing the term, lets call what ants do government and continue from there:

The argument was that government is in our blood - that we have a genetic predispossition for government - and that this is somehow an argument against anarchism or communism. Yet that is preciesly what's refuted if we take ant society as an example! Do we model our governments in the way ants do? Of course not; the idea of monarchism is pretty much dead in modern society. So then either there is no such predispossition to government, or we can (and have) overcome it because we have systems that vary greatly from what we observe in ants or any other animal really.

[scovegner]

Two thoughts:

Anarchy is about more than the absence of government.

No form of governance, or the lack of, will work without the support of the people.

[scovegner]

shut up pizza face

Very mature .. fact still lies that the characteristics of someone else has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual accuracy of their argument ..

[Zay]

Libertarians keep failing because they keep doing the same stupid thing and expecting a different result. Trying to get ron paul elected and hoping that he would downsize government is like getting someone elected Pope and expecting him to reject the existence of God. No election will lead to the permanent downsizing of government. You can't turn the gun into a first-aid kit. For a government-void society to work we improve public culture and philosophy and get charity to provide better service than government, private mediators/arbiters to provide better services than the court, credit ratings and insurance companies to develop better non-violent social ostracism schemes(like the current trend with credit scores) than the current court systems to allow contract enforcement, allow all drugs, allow anyone that's mentally competent to own a gun, we allow total free-flow of information, we get rid of religion, etc. etc. etc.

There's nothing the government does that private sector and voluntarism can't do better.

Leftism fails because for all the protections against "stupid people" it provides, it empowers the stupid people, and makes them dependent on the state. All leftism achieves is cultural indoctrination at gunpoint. Even if a large portion of the people get smarter, the state only gets bigger.

This is for the benefit of humanity of course. Thomas Hobbes sucks cock. Social contract my ass. Life is nasty, brutish, and short for anyone that opposes government. Just look at what happens to anyone that smokes a joint and gets caught or gets falsely accused of rape.

If a very articulate and well-spoken poor person broke into your house and told you that the reasons you have more money than him are because of differences in environment and circumstances and that it is immoral for such a vast wealth discrepancy to exist, and he pushed his excellent sophistry further, while shoving a gun to your face and demanding that you give up a third of your money or risk being taken back to his basement and locked up, would that be ethical? Then why is it ethical for an IRS agent to do it?

Until we realize that our governments are run by morons elected by morons that can relate to them, and that we will never have some MENSA-esque think-tank running the shots with every social problem being addressed ethically and justly, we will never acknowledge, understand, and accept that there is a huge gray area between personal morals and what we allow the government to do, based purely on propaganda. It is that gray area that destroys life. I'm not saying the US is the worst. All governments are inherently corruptible and do become corrupt.

[Rust]

^ Reality is more complicated than the sweeping, unsubstantiated generalizations you keep making.

[Zay]

^ Reality is more complicated than the sweeping, unsubstantiated generalizations you keep making.

Well dude apparently it's my job to figure out how the free market will fix each and every little thing. It's like asking an IBM guy from 1950 what computers will be like in 2008. If he can't predict quad-core processors accessing facebook pages and terrabyte harddrives full of porn and lulcats, then clearly computers are a useless endeavor. This whole "omg how will we protect ourselves from criminals, from monopolies and oligarchies, and ZOMG HOW WILL ROADS BE BUILT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT TO BUILD THEM!" is just a defense mechanism. I spent almost 3 hours in a Panera trying to argue with an anarchist for government in that manner. I asked how roads would be built, how this, how that, how so and so, and I wasn't satisfied until I could make him say "I don't know."

That doesn't mean that the free market is chaos or total randomness. Flow of information, awareness campaigns, and people's buying power call the shots.

[scovegner]

Also, look up 'spontaneous order'

[Dog]

Just look at what happens to anyone that smokes a joint

Considering the type of stuff you've been posting...I don't blame them.

[Rust]

Well dude apparently it's my job to figure out how the free market will fix each and every little thing. It's like asking an IBM guy from 1950 what computers will be like in 2008. If he can't predict quad-core processors accessing facebook pages and terrabyte harddrives full of porn and lulcats, then clearly computers are a useless endeavor. This whole "omg how will we protect ourselves from criminals, from monopolies and oligarchies, and ZOMG HOW WILL ROADS BE BUILT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT TO BUILD THEM!" is just a defense mechanism. I spent almost 3 hours in a Panera trying to argue with an anarchist for government in that manner. I asked how roads would be built, how this, how that, how so and so, and I wasn't satisfied until I could make him say "I don't know."

That doesn't mean that the free market is chaos or total randomness. Flow of information, awareness campaigns, and people's buying power call the shots.

What the fuck are you babbling about? What part of my statement requires that "free market [be] chaos or total randomness" or any of the other nonsense you started ranting about?

You made a whole list of unsubstantiated claims you pulled straight out of your ass. That's what the sentence was aimed at. Claims such as: "
There's nothing the government does that private sector and voluntarism can't do better. " and "Leftism fails because for all the protections against "stupid people" it provides, it empowers the stupid people, and makes them dependent on the state." to name two quick ones.

If you think those two claims are perfectly fine, then you have a very naive and oversimplified conception of reality.

[Zay]

Considering the type of stuff you've been posting...I don't blame them.

You don't know my smoking habits. I smoke maybe 4 times in a month at most, and I definitely don't think about these things high. It doesn't affect my political opinions at all.

I've been posting rants and then leaving threads when I've read enough responses. I posted a "bullshit against the left" thread on totse not too long ago because I wanted to see good libertarian arguments. In another thread about evil corporations, prometheum's knowledge of anarchy intrigued me so now I'm throwing a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/agorist mish-mash rant out there because I'm intrigued. Since it's an extremist view, I did expect knee-jerk responses, like when a communist posts something and the very next post is "human nature dude ur dumb." Don't try to understand my views by following me month to month, year-to-year. Apparently this inconsistency infuriates WAN, if it bothers you too, I'd just ignore me unless you resort to typing that you're calling me a spic because you want to cause the maximum amount of pain possible :p What's funny is that when I used an anarchist argument to support you in saying that vigilantes like Dexter should be legal, you didn't call it a crazy pot theory.

[Azure]

I find it interesting that Anarchists, who in reality are nothing more than petty bourgeois, speak in terms of class struggle, yet refuse to use the term in a pathetic attempt to distinguish themselves from the left.

Going back to the petty bourgeois comment, Anarchists are pawns in the social game, who, lacking the means and ability to govern themselves, become frustrated with the discipline provided by the capitalist model, and turn to violence in a petty attempt to redeem themselves. In other words, if you can't "live" with discipline in an ordered environment, how do you expect to achieve success without rule or structure?

I find your use of "consistent" funny, when describing Anarchism. Perhaps you're unaware of the history of the movement, but after the mass acceptance by the Anarchist movement of syndicalism, anarchy began to embody, at one point or another, various models of social change robbed from other social models. Collectivization and the formation of labour unions springs to mind first here, but many other examples abound.

The rapid change from statism, as advocated by Anarchists, would result in a tremendous fundamental breakdown of society as a whole. The resulting amount of suffering, in terms of human cost, and social cost as a whole, far outweighs the cost of the state in its present form. The binding presence of Government and social obligation molds man into a productive member of society- albeit the results could be better, such as under the progressive example of collectivism touted by Marx- without these obligations, where is the incentive to produce?

A classless society, would be one wholly working class society, organised to produce according to socially managed goals. Said society would develop habits that would gradually make political representation unnecessary. This, rather than the rapid destruction of Government and class, is the only environment in which a stateless society could be produced.

[Code Of Silence]

I find it interesting that Anarchists, who in reality are nothing more than petty bourgeois, speak in terms of class struggle, yet refuse to use the term in a pathetic attempt to distinguish themselves from the left.

Going back to the petty bourgeois comment, Anarchists are pawns in the social game, who, lacking the means and ability to govern themselves, become frustrated with the discipline provided by the capitalist model, and turn to violence in a petty attempt to redeem themselves. In other words, if you can't "live" with discipline in an ordered environment, how do you expect to achieve success without rule or structure?

I find your use of "consistent" funny, when describing Anarchism. Perhaps you're unaware of the history of the movement, but after the mass acceptance by the Anarchist movement of syndicalism, anarchy began to embody, at one point or another, various models of social change robbed from other social models. Collectivization and the formation of labour unions springs to mind first here, but many other examples abound.

The rapid change from statism, as advocated by Anarchists, would result in a tremendous fundamental breakdown of society as a whole. The resulting amount of suffering, in terms of human cost, and social cost as a whole, far outweighs the cost of the state in its present form. The binding presence of Government and social obligation molds man into a productive member of society- albeit the results could be better, such as under the progressive example of collectivism touted by Marx- without these obligations, where is the incentive to produce?

A classless society, would be one wholly working class society, organised to produce according to socially managed goals. Said society would develop habits that would gradually make political representation unnecessary. This, rather than the rapid destruction of Government and class, is the only environment in which a stateless society could be produced.

You're joking. Authoritarian workers states have always degenerated into totalitarian societies, save a few of the Latin American ones. The people become alienated from the controlling party and so on, such that the Marxist society ultimately resembles a capitalist dominion.

[Star Wars Fan]

Until we realize that our governments are run by morons elected by morons that can relate to them, and that we will never have some MENSA-esque think-tank running the shots with every social problem being addressed ethically and justly

Keep your fantasy of technocracy out please. I don't exactly trust "scientists" to be an effective government given many of them would have a bias against religion, mythology, and other cultural things. Aka tearing down old cities and using the materials for efficent structures (forgot the right term).

Yes I know FAR from all scientists are that way but that invites elitist snobs in to govern.

[Struwwelpeter]

Nigga hate science

[Star Wars Fan]

Nigga hate science

Given the fucked up shit done in the name of science (especially against my kind, then and now; see the 'cure' aka genocide of autism) it's understandable that I won't trust scientists to run a fucking government.

inb4 blah blah science is a manner of doing things, research, experimentation, onbserving, etc....

[Struwwelpeter]

How is the genocide of autistic people wrong?

It's no wonder you manage to get owned every time you come on this website, you're an autistic fucking retard, could you not imagine what life would be like if you weren't autistic? Do you want other people to be born with autism? The cure for autism isn't genocide, just cut down on the number of retards who smoke crack cocaine during pregnancy and it should sort itself out.

[Star Wars Fan]

How is the genocide of autistic people wrong?

because it's wrong to kill people off based off their neurological wiring maybe :confused:

It's no wonder you manage to get owned every time you come on this website, you're an autistic fucking retard

lol. projecting from the times you kept getting banned in the past? At least im not an infamous troll

could you not imagine what life would be like if you weren't autistic?

I was diagnosed at 16 so.....yes I can imagine life that way

he cure for autism isn't genocide, just cut down on the number of retards who smoke crack cocaine during pregnancy and it should sort itself out.

you're fucking retarded, Autism has a genetic component asswipe.

[Struwwelpeter]

because it's wrong to kill people off based off their neurological wiring maybe :confused:

Sounds to me like that's one of those social norms you claim not to adhere to. A ha ha ha, how typical, the rules don't apply to anyone but yourself. The world would be better without you.






I was diagnosed at 16 so.....yes I can imagine life that way



If autism is a genetic component you were born with it; a diagnosis at sixteen just means it took your dumbass nigger parents that long to realize that there was something wrong with you (which to their credit, it would be hard to tell a retard from a negro).

[Star Wars Fan]

Sounds to me like that's one of those social norms you claim not to adhere to.

what? genocide is a social norm now? lol. The UN would like to have a word with you

A ha ha ha, how typical, the rules don't apply to anyone but yourself.

wait, what tha fuck?

The world would be better without you.

NO U

[qiote]If autism is a genetic component you were born with it; a diagnosis at sixteen just means it took your dumbass nigger parents that long to realize that there was something wrong with you (which to their credit, it would be hard to tell a retard from a negro).[/QUOTE]

I'm an only child raised by a single mother. Any more erroneous crap you want to spew? inb4stereotype proven correct, tool.

Also autistic people aren't retarded. You fail again.

[Struwwelpeter]

what? genocide is a social norm now? lol. The UN would like to have a word with you


The belief that people should not be killed for their disorders is a social norm. That autism really shines brightly now that you've revealed to everyone that you have it.


I'm an only child raised by a single mother. Any more erroneous crap you want to spew? inb4stereotype proven correct, tool.

Also autistic people aren't retarded. You fail again.

Yes and ADHD afflicted people aren't retarded, assburgers aren't retarded, etc. If you cannot function correctly, you are retarded.

[Star Wars Fan]

The belief that people should not be killed for their disorders is a social norm.

that's what I just said.

That autism really shines brightly now that you've revealed to everyone that you have it.

I never hid it.

If you cannot function correctly, you are retarded.

define 'function correctly' as many would say you're 'not functiong correctly' and therefore 'retarded'

[Struwwelpeter]

that's what I just said.

LOL, excuse me?

First, you said people should not be killed for their disorders.

Then, I retorted that the belief that people should not be killed for their disorders (genocide), is a common social belief with no inherent reasoning behind it, other than it is not to believed to be socially acceptable, and thus it is only typical that you feel the roles of social norms should only appeal to you, being an autistic, selfish negro.

Then, you misinterpreted my words, suggesting that I said genocide was a social norm.

Then, I explained it for you once again.

Now, you are still claiming that you know what I was talking about.

Autism at it's finest.

[Star Wars Fan]

First, you said people should not be killed for their disorders.

I said neurological conditions

Then, I retorted that the belief that people should not be killed for their disorders (genocide), is a common social belief with no inherent reasoning behind it,

the holocaust is the 'inherent reasoning'; the idea that killing people for being different is shitty and immoral. Especially the idea that the mainstream cocksuckers can force their bullshit on fringe groups and neurological minorities.

especially as many of those same 'disordered' people can do much better than neurotypical faggots like you.

other than it is not believed to be socially acceptable, and thus it is only typical that you feel the roles of social norms should only appeal to you, being an autistic, selfish negro.

wow. Ironic that people would say that I'm being selfish that not accepting social norms.

though that's a shitty argument; I said the "autistic nation" and didn't limit it to myself.

Autism at it's finest.

O RLY

[Struwwelpeter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyO-pDz-Zmo&feature=channel_page

[-*.inc]

Just wanted to let you know your avatar is really hot.

[Star Wars Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyO-pDz-Zmo&feature=channel_page

lol. Quantrill? Cboys? Magilla Gorilla? Fucking Troll removes his layers. Shit, you can be some dude's sock from here

[Struwwelpeter]

I know that I frighten people; because they constantly debate with themselves over whether or not I could be real.

[Star Wars Fan]

I know that I frighten people; because they constantly debate with themselves over whether or not I could be real.

admitting to trolling?

also see you later on today, have to sleep :):)

[scovegner]

Y'know, just sometimes, social norms are there for a reason ...

[Struwwelpeter]

Humans never come together and create something of value.

[Struwwelpeter]

And no Star Wars Fan, you dumbass autistic nigger, I am not trolling.

[Star Wars Fan]

And no Star Wars Fan, you dumbass autistic nigger, I am not trolling.

that shit-talking and e-faggotry suggest otherwise, you fucking fag.

[postdiluvium]

Really? Care to give me one example of government in the animal kingdom?

As far as I can see, I only know of a "might-is-right" type of "government" (if we can call it that), and I'm pretty sure most of the human world scoffs at that idea; meaning we can easily act outside our "genetic inclination" (assuming such a thing is even true when it comes to "government").

Not to mention that anarchism and communism would welcome these appeals to nature with open arms. Not only have were they practiced by early humans before, but these type of arguments would only justify the very traits of anarchism/communism that capitalists often complain about! They might of millions of people rebelling against the tiny elite? Well, "that's all right" says monkey.

Lions, wolves, other types of animals that hunt in packs and have pecking orders based on age, gender, and poOwWAAAHH?

[Rust]

Lions, wolves, other types of animals that hunt in packs and have pecking orders based on age, gender, and poOwWAAAHH?

1. They have that pecking order because the alpha male allows it. Dictatorships have pecking orders too...

2. We don't base our society on that pecking order either, so the point - which was that "Government is our blood" is moot and/or refuted. Either it isn't in our blood, or we have transcended that.

[postdiluvium]

1. They have that pecking order because the alpha male allows it. Dictatorships have pecking orders too...

2. We don't base our society on that pecking order either, so the point - which was that "Government is our blood" is moot and/or refuted. Either it isn't in our blood, or we have transcended that.

The world doesn't tell the US "What you are doing is wrong and you need to stop" due to the size of the US' military and clout in its economy. There seems to be at least one alpha in the world at any given instance in written history. By sanctioning countries and controlling resources it does seem like the United States creates a type of pecking order in terms of who gets what. In times of world war, countries create hunting packs (alliances). I just see a lot of similarities in terms of world governing and politics to hunting pack type animals.

[Yggdrasil]

I must agree with JFLC on this one. I, for one, detest the mentally challenged. It sounds cold and callous for me to think so, but it is only logical. The retarded are only a burden to society, and only a burden. They contribute nothing, they are dependent on their families and the state, and they can't function on their own. A utopian world must either eliminate disabilities through genetic engineering or mass "cleansing".

I'm starting to sound like Jim, amn't I?

[Marquis In Spades]

Before this place fills up with endless left vs right bullshit, I'd like to take this pause to suggest that you drop the incessant, useless stalemate of left-vs right and embrace full libertarianism, voluntarism, agorism....anarchy. It is the most morally consistent, non-utopian/unrealistic, logically consistent form of government there is, as it involves no government. Face it, you will never elect a messiah. You will never eradicate corruption. You will never achieve a culture of prosperity for all by stealing from the rich at gunpoint.
Socialism/communism(involuntary communism, that is. if you can start a commune and pull it off, good for you) fail because the power needed to achieve those states is absolute, and absolutely corrupt.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Anarchy is not lawlessness, immorality, or a somalian free for all. It is the acceptance that the state fails at everything. It is the reality that nationalism is no different than religious fanaticism, cult madness, or football hooliganism. It is the belief that responsible and intelligent people should be free to live their own lives, without puppeteers driving them into an agenda.

If you feel that the majority of people are "stupid", than that is even less of a reason to have democracy. If it is not the will of the people to aid the poor, put children through school, or finance state mass murder(Or "war" as you may call it, which isn't possible under anarchy), then taxation is just a useless formality. Why not let the poor invade the suburbs and mansions with their own guns, and fire all the IRS agents?

There will be social norms under anarchy. There will be rules. There will be freedoms of others that you will have to follow. There will be may charities that put the Church to shame.

All that's necessary, is a critical mass of people ditching religion and learning self-defense. All we need is a culture of people raised to value the scientific method and the non-aggression principle.

Fuck the state. Fuck all states. Fuck the USA, Fuck france, fuck chavez, fuck the UK, fuck every asshole in africa, and fuck all shitty parents.

please cut off the fucking afro and get off the bong pipe

[Rust]

The world doesn't tell the US "What you are doing is wrong and you need to stop" due to the size of the US' military and clout in its economy. There seems to be at least one alpha in the world at any given instance in written history. By sanctioning countries and controlling resources it does seem like the United States creates a type of pecking order in terms of who gets what. In times of world war, countries create hunting packs (alliances). I just see a lot of similarities in terms of world governing and politics to hunting pack type animals.

Who denied any of that? I don't deny that organisms or groups with power can influence their environment and other groups or organisms into behaving a certain way. In fact, I pretty much already said that ages ago when I pointed out how in nature "might is right"...

The points - which you haven't touched - are the following:

1. Nobody here has provided any evidence that that is "in our blood".

2. We don't base our governments on what we observe in nature. We strive not to by modeling our governments as democracies and/or republics.

3. Given 1 and 2, then: Either government isn't in our blood, or it is but we can transcend it.

[Star Wars Fan]

I must agree with JFLC on this one. I, for one, detest the mentally challenged.

well that explains why you did that *thing*....:p

The retarded are only a burden to society, and only a burden.

oh please. I'm sure the 'intelligent' people with all their byzantine social rules and strata is somehow more efficient. Especially given how much resources go to social manipulation. I'm sure the 'retards' would spend so much resources on that bullshit. :p

NOT :D

They contribute nothing,

yes they do. they can contribute a decent amount.

they are dependent on their families and the state,

depending on the person

and they can't function on their own.

depending on the person

A utopian world must either eliminate disabilities through genetic engineering or mass "cleansing".

I'm starting to sound like Jim, amn't I?

I haven't heard Jim advicate genocide yet, so no.

please cut off the fucking afro and get off the bong pipe

That picture is ME actually. click my deviantart acc on this site

[postdiluvium]

Who denied any of that? I don't deny that organisms or groups with power can influence their environment and other groups or organisms into behaving a certain way. In fact, I pretty much already said that ages ago when I pointed out how in nature "might is right"...

The points - which you haven't touched - are the following:

1. Nobody here has provided any evidence that that is "in our blood".

2. We don't base our governments on what we observe in nature. We strive not to by modeling our governments as democracies and/or republics.

3. Given 1 and 2, then: Either government isn't in our blood, or it is but we can transcend it.

Well when the whole Unitary Executive Privileges kept coming during the Bush Administration, there was a whole lot of support from the Right even though it goes against the whole notion of a checks and balances system in a democracy. Especially after the 2004 elections, which gave the Administration fuel for the whole Unitary Executive Powers stuff by saying "the people have spoken, this President has received more votes than any before him." Like somehow the number of votes made him more powerful or something. Kind of like he had more power than the other two branches of government. They were kind of using the "might is right" argument and people were buying it. Despite the fact that we are in the modern ages and we are taught that democracies are the best kind of government.

I don't buy the whole genetically predisposed stuff when it comes to psychological aspects, so I agree with you. I tend to side with Nurture when its Nature v. Nurture. But I do believe people are inclined to look at simple stuff they can understand, wolf packs, and tend to mimic it. But I do believe my initial reply to your post was about you asking for an example of a government system in the animal kingdom. I'm not sure, but I'm assuming a leader giving orders to a bunch of followers is a type of simplistic government system.