I watched all 57 minutes of it, he's just talking about what as an individual you should/can do. I still have no idea what he's talking about, something to do that he supports anarchy and the free market. What the fuck does that even mean, those two have such broad meaning....
I'm asking as to what's the alternative to what we have now, which is rule by government (or as he said, by other slaves).
If the alternative is that we all govern ourselves then I can see so many things going wrong with that.
Sigh anyway I watched it and seriously this guy should first of all not try and delude weak points in his story by making unrelated references. He does it several times to quickly divert attention.
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
Edit:
Are you fucking serious? Did this guy just dare to argue that when you go rob a store without a gun, resulting in the owner trying to bring bodily harm to you, which fails and harms another person, you should not be charged for that harm? According to this fucking logic I can put 100 tons of TNT in your house and give the trigger to a retard and wait till he triggers it to see what happens AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Also the bankrobbing scenario is only if you look to the literal interpretention of the law. In Holland the law is by standard considered a swiss cheese where the juridical part fills those up in cases that serve as a role model. The judge is an educated person who stay neutral and perceives the situation over the grammatical interpretention of something. Therefor the bank robbery situation is already swiftly put aside.
Im not going to listen to the entire thing because the sheer stupidity hidden behind that smile of his is making my anus hurt more then 10 fucking suns would hurt if they were burning in my eyesockets. I truly advise to you to listen what he is actually implying the entire time and put that in a practical view. If you cant even see the stupidity of it after doing that I suggest you go to Africa, take your precious ipod and all your western luxeries and stand next to an African village. If they havent stripped you, robbed you, killed you in 2 days Ill give your retard society a try .
Edit2: Also what if I want the government to stay? Are you going to impose your fucking anarchy on me? Cause that what that fucker said he would do, force us to anarchy and then make the status quo hold as it does now. Arent you the forcing factor now? The grip that holds us? The stronghold of truth? Arent you the new fucking government with a different face?
Seriously stop making these topics, youre making veins on my head burst.
Last edited by Ragedoctor on Sat, 11th Dec 2010 17:29; edited 2 times in total
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
It has never worked and never will. What you are referring to is tribalistic society, which later naturally evolved into monarchy (and similar). There has always been someone (or a group of) to take charge of the masses, and whether society chooses him or he inflicts himself upon it, there will always be someone above.
Ragedoctor wrote:
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
I have learned there is no point in showing the obvious fallacies. Someone said demagogy? Well there you go, the prime example of one. Capitalist libertarian anarchy is the worst case; "End taxes!" "Civil liberties!" "End oppression!" "End control!" but how you going to make it all work? "Erm, no no, but look how this particular government failed... Aha! You see? My point is valid!"; "You agree with me that this particular government has failed? See, you are an anarchist and just don't know it!"
Sigh anyway I watched it and seriously this guy should first of all not try and delude weak points in his story by making unrelated references. He does it several times to quickly divert attention.
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
Edit:
Are you fucking serious? Did this guy just dare to argue that when you go rob a store without a gun, resulting in the owner trying to bring bodily harm to you, which fails and harms another person, you should not be charged for that harm? According to this fucking logic I can put 100 tons of TNT in your house and give the trigger to a retard and wait till he triggers it to see what happens AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Also the bankrobbing scenario is only if you look to the literal interpretention of the law. In Holland the law is by standard considered a swiss cheese where the juridical part fills those up in cases that serve as a role model. The judge is an educated person who stay neutral and perceives the situation over the grammatical interpretention of something. Therefor the bank robbery situation is already swiftly put aside.
Im not going to listen to the entire thing because the sheer stupidity hidden behind that smile of his is making my anus hurt more then 10 fucking suns would hurt if they were burning in my eyesockets. I truly advise to you to listen what he is actually implying the entire time and put that in a practical view. If you cant even see the stupidity of it after doing that I suggest you go to Africa, take your precious ipod and all your western luxeries and stand next to an African village. If they havent stripped you, robbed you, killed you in 2 days Ill give your retard society a try .
Edit2: Also what if I want the government to stay? Are you going to impose your fucking anarchy on me? Cause that what that fucker said he would do, force us to anarchy and then make the status quo hold as it does now. Arent you the forcing factor now? The grip that holds us? The stronghold of truth? Arent you the new fucking government with a different face?
Seriously stop making these topics, youre making veins on my head burst.
You are looking at all of this from a one sided standpoint, and you really haven't understood 1% of what it was said in that presentation!
Private schools (really private schools free of government formulaic education) would be one of the solutions, obviously you would also have public schools funded through FREE taxation and private charity, if you are a parent and you can't afford a expensive private school, you would willingly pay a small tax in order for your kid to have access to a public school.
On top of this you have to remember that the government FORCES you to send your children to school, and in all honesty, some parents (and me and my wife are a living example of this), are extremely more qualified and patient to give a proper home education to our kids, but no, in my country, I am forced to send them to a public or a private school (which on present time are the exact same thing), If I refuse to send my kids to school, we would most likely lose custody to them, how ridiculous is this?
You speak of the hypothetical illiterate as he didn't existed today already, so, why make this argument even?
Your question about why would you become a garbage man is really irrational, if you make this question you really have to consider what drives anyone to be a garbage man today!
Where have you listened to any Anarchist to say there would be no prisons, no courts, no law, I would really like to point that person to me, because he really is not an Anarchist!
Again, who said there would be no private security or voluntary military protection?
You really didn't understood what he tried to said with his example of the unarmed robbery, what he tried to point out was that if you rob a store on such circumstance and a third person gets killed, not by you, but by the store owner trying to defend himself, you would be the one charged, because you were the responsible for putting those set of events into motion, likewise, everyone who votes and willingly participate and empowers the government, is responsible for all the problems, deaths, and wars that it causes, that was what he tried to say!
Again, you really didn't understood anything that was said, what if you want the government to stay, you ask?
I have no right to impose my Anarchy on you, you also say.
Yet, who the fuck gives you the right to impose your government in me?
The only honest answer you can give is that, "well, I can impose the government on you, because we're stronger than you, and if you question the government, we will come after you, send you to prison or worse"
That is the reality of what the state is!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Last edited by Ronhrin on Sat, 11th Dec 2010 18:17; edited 1 time in total
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
It has never worked and never will. What you are referring to is tribalistic society, which later naturally evolved into monarchy (and similar). There has always been someone (or a group of) to take charge of the masses, and whether society chooses him or he inflicts himself upon it, there will always be someone above.
Ragedoctor wrote:
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
I have learned there is no point in showing the obvious fallacies. Someone said demagogy? Well there you go, the prime example of one. Capitalist libertarian anarchy is the worst case; "End taxes!" "Civil liberties!" "End oppression!" "End control!" but how you going to make it all work? "Erm, no no, but look how this particular government failed... Aha! You see? My point is valid!"; "You agree with me that this particular government has failed? See, you are an anarchist and just don't know it!"
Again, the same question applies, I already pointed out several times why you are wrong, why you base your political views on opinion rather than on logic or empiricism.
But the question is, even if your mind cannot accept or conceptualize a world without government, how can you assume that you, or anyone else, has any legitimate right of imposing government on those who don't want it?
I have to send my kid to school everyday, knowing that I could make a 100 times better job at home, and why do I do it, because if I don't, the government would take it away!
I have to pay taxes for things I strongly object, why do I pay them, because I'll be sent to prison if I don't.
If you people want to live in the illusion that the government solves anything, go ahead with it, you have no right of imposing it on anyone else, other than by using coercive force and holding the rest of us hostages to your will!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
I am not imposing it, the majority is imposing it on you, because what you consider best is not what the majority considers best. Majority always imposes on the minority. The only difference to what you'd like to do is you are in the minority so you can't force your will. So lets not kid ourselves.
The example of schooling you have chosen is again the usual nonsense. You would rather see thousands of children not go to school so you can brainwash your children at home? I wonder who'd you blame in a scenario where one of your children is murdered by another because his parents didn't care about his education and he chose crime instead. Keep up the demagogy.
Also on the subject of homeschooling, take a look at statistics on how kids end up when all they see is their parents points of views. Or perhaps this is what you desire all along? We have already established you wish for a robotic society where they all share your opinions and desires (aka "logic and empiricism" ).
Sometimes I wonder, how is it that someone who claims to argue with "logic" and "empiricism", how he never bothers to actually apply logic on what he says.
Sigh anyway I watched it and seriously this guy should first of all not try and delude weak points in his story by making unrelated references. He does it several times to quickly divert attention.
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
Edit:
Are you fucking serious? Did this guy just dare to argue that when you go rob a store without a gun, resulting in the owner trying to bring bodily harm to you, which fails and harms another person, you should not be charged for that harm? According to this fucking logic I can put 100 tons of TNT in your house and give the trigger to a retard and wait till he triggers it to see what happens AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Also the bankrobbing scenario is only if you look to the literal interpretention of the law. In Holland the law is by standard considered a swiss cheese where the juridical part fills those up in cases that serve as a role model. The judge is an educated person who stay neutral and perceives the situation over the grammatical interpretention of something. Therefor the bank robbery situation is already swiftly put aside.
Im not going to listen to the entire thing because the sheer stupidity hidden behind that smile of his is making my anus hurt more then 10 fucking suns would hurt if they were burning in my eyesockets. I truly advise to you to listen what he is actually implying the entire time and put that in a practical view. If you cant even see the stupidity of it after doing that I suggest you go to Africa, take your precious ipod and all your western luxeries and stand next to an African village. If they havent stripped you, robbed you, killed you in 2 days Ill give your retard society a try .
Edit2: Also what if I want the government to stay? Are you going to impose your fucking anarchy on me? Cause that what that fucker said he would do, force us to anarchy and then make the status quo hold as it does now. Arent you the forcing factor now? The grip that holds us? The stronghold of truth? Arent you the new fucking government with a different face?
Seriously stop making these topics, youre making veins on my head burst.
You are looking at all of this from a one sided standpoint, and you really haven't understood 1% of what it was said in that presentation!
Private schools (really private schools free of government formulaic education) would be one of the solutions, obviously you would also have public schools funded through FREE taxation and private charity, if you are a parent and you can't afford a expensive private school, you would willingly pay a small tax in order for your kid to have access to a public school.
On top of this you have to remember that the government FORCES you to send your children to school, and in all honesty, some parents (and me and my wife are a living example of this), are extremely more qualified and patient to give a proper home education to our kids, but no, in my country, I am forced to send them to a public or a private school (which on present time are the exact same thing), If I refuse to send my kids to school, we would most likely lose custody to them, how ridiculous is this?
You speak of the hypothetical illiterate as he didn't existed today already, so, why make this argument even?
Your question about why would you become a garbage man is really irrational, if you make this question you really have to consider what drives anyone to be a garbage man today!
Where have you listened to any Anarchist to say there would be no prisons, no courts, no law, I would really like to point that person to me, because he really is not an Anarchist!
Again, who said there would be no private security or voluntary military protection?
You really didn't understood what he tried to said with his example of the unarmed robbery, what he tried to point out was that if you rob a store on such circumstance and a third person gets killed, not by you, but by the store owner trying to defend himself, you would be the one charged, because you were the responsible for putting those set of events into motion, likewise, everyone who votes and willingly participate and empowers the government, is responsible for all the problems, deaths, and wars that it causes, that was what he tried to say!
Again, you really didn't understood anything that was said, what if you want the government to stay, you ask?
I have no right to impose my Anarchy on you, you also say.
Yet, who the fuck gives you the right to impose your government in me?
The only honest answer you can give is that, "well, I can impose the government on you, because we're stronger than you, and if you question the government, we will come after you, send you to prison or worse"
That is the reality of what the state is!
Actually the awnser is quite simple: You were born into a country with a government, if you dont want one go to where there isnt one. You have no paternal right to claim there should be no government, just as much I have no right to claim there should be a government where there is currently none. I suggest you move to Africa asap, Im sure they will like your anarchy there. Also for the taxation there has to be a governing body, taxes go with government and government goes with taxes, dont try to split to two. I study tax law and believe me you cannot split the two, ever.
If he tried to imply the opposite he should get a script writer for making 2 examples that are supposed to have the opposite conclusion to each other; this is a bad way to form sentences and will only lead to the possibility of a dobule explanation, just bad speech on his part.
In your society there is need of a garbage man also, dont try to deflect by asking how one is forced to do it now. You cant use the argument its better in yours because its bad in mine. Your society will end up being one big mess with none willing to do the shit that needs to be done.
A court implies a governing body that can imprison people, I study tax law which includes normal law and are you trying to form a seperate juridical court without government checks? Way to go back to the fucking middle ages where there was just one governing body that could do all he wanted. There needs to be a counter weight to the juridical power or else you'll get a situation even worse to the one we have now. Still you keep using the word "private security", so if you cant pay for that security, you wont be protected, perhaps a tax here and there will help, oh wait! Now we have a tax for schools and a tax for military protection already. Goddamn we are getting so close to that fucking government arent we? There is no such thing in half-way in the makeup of a country. Either there is a government or there is NOTHING, half-way will just lead to something like the UN; willing to do good but too weak to properly execute leading to half measures and a situation like Srebrenica. Even today the Dutch are blamed for this massacre, all the while the UN was actually to blame because they never said no, nor did they say go. This lead to a army just standing there because they couldnt do SHIT. You complain of the government slowing you down, your half arsed measures will slow you down even more.
I am not imposing it, the majority is imposing it on you, because what you consider best is not what the majority considers best. Majority always imposes on the minority. The only difference to what you'd like to do is you are in the minority so you can't force your will. So lets not kid ourselves.
The example of schooling you have chosen is again the usual nonsense. You would rather see thousands of children not go to school so you can brainwash your children at home? I wonder who'd you blame in a scenario where one of your children is murdered by another because his parents didn't care about his education and he chose crime instead. Keep up the demagogy.
Also on the subject of homeschooling, take a look at statistics on how kids end up when all they see is their parents points of views. Or perhaps this is what you desire all along? We have already established you wish for a robotic society where they all share your opinions and desires (aka "logic and empiricism" ).
Sometimes I wonder, how is it that someone who claims to argue with "logic" and "empiricism", how he never bothers to actually apply logic on what he says.
Your use of majority in this sense is very selective, this coming from the person who recognizes that the majority will is actually in most cases the less intelligent choice.
This coming from the person who recognizes that the majority enjoys questionable art, movies, games, music, etc, that the majority has to believe in some divine non existing entity, and so forth, how can you criticize the majority on all those other subjects and then when it comes to government, all of a suddenly what the majority says is always the best thing?
On top of this, there is a issue that needs to be cleared up when it comes to the majority and government, the majority only selects what type of government will stay in power, not what it does, the voice of the majority is meaningless when a government is already in place, this is a extremely important issue that needs to be brought into the conversation!
There has never been so many kids murdering each other and so many kids suffering violent bulying as there is now, I don't see how your argument is even relevant here, besides, I really think you choose a very extreme word when you mentioned brainwash our kids at home, because brainwashing them is exactly what public schools on certain countries do, just take a look at US and Chinese schools, if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is.
Also, most kids will always inherent the acts and point of views of their parents, that's why religion still exists today, that's why most racist parents have racist children, etc etc, again, I really don't see why this is an argument here.
You have already established that your view of what we Anarchists want is a robotic society, when it is in fact the entirely opposite to it, robotic society is what you have now!
You call Anarchism demagogy, yet, that is exactly what you are doing here by supporting the State!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Sigh anyway I watched it and seriously this guy should first of all not try and delude weak points in his story by making unrelated references. He does it several times to quickly divert attention.
Secondly, let me just take one part of what he said: Schooling is a disaster; yet he wants to end the "tax slavery". So what happens to schooling when the government doesnt fund it, does it become private? Or does it become charity? Private schooling will seclude massive parts of the population from schooling because they dont want to or cannot afford to. Remember that shady guy you passed by this week? The guy who muggs people, cannot write, cannot read, cannot speak properly, cannot comprehend simple forms and is the scum of the earth. That guy will be our new middle class if you make schools private. Then we have charity schooling. Charity schooling means that there will be no material reward for schooling this children, this will demote motivation to teach and increase our teacher/material shortage even more. It will mean that you are not really bound to teach anymore if its not your job to do so. The very idea that you can do what you want in an Anarchist society is stupifying. Why the fuck would you become a garbage man? What happens to the intellectual drive? What do we do when someone becomes a psychopath, a criminal or a fraud. Someone robs you of all your money through a scheme, there is no government to help you, nor is there one to imprison the man who did so. I love how you Anarchist utopian thinkers always only look to the downsides of a government, how much it annoys you and how much you hate being delayed. That very delay is what keeps you safe you genius. So what happens if a certain group of people decides that you have to convert or die. They have millions of followers, yet there is no military, no police and arms are scarse.
This is just a tiny bit of the millions of examples that can be given, anarchist society doesnt work; it worked a few thousand years ago when there wasnt a 100 people per square meter on this fucking rock.
Edit:
Are you fucking serious? Did this guy just dare to argue that when you go rob a store without a gun, resulting in the owner trying to bring bodily harm to you, which fails and harms another person, you should not be charged for that harm? According to this fucking logic I can put 100 tons of TNT in your house and give the trigger to a retard and wait till he triggers it to see what happens AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Also the bankrobbing scenario is only if you look to the literal interpretention of the law. In Holland the law is by standard considered a swiss cheese where the juridical part fills those up in cases that serve as a role model. The judge is an educated person who stay neutral and perceives the situation over the grammatical interpretention of something. Therefor the bank robbery situation is already swiftly put aside.
Im not going to listen to the entire thing because the sheer stupidity hidden behind that smile of his is making my anus hurt more then 10 fucking suns would hurt if they were burning in my eyesockets. I truly advise to you to listen what he is actually implying the entire time and put that in a practical view. If you cant even see the stupidity of it after doing that I suggest you go to Africa, take your precious ipod and all your western luxeries and stand next to an African village. If they havent stripped you, robbed you, killed you in 2 days Ill give your retard society a try .
Edit2: Also what if I want the government to stay? Are you going to impose your fucking anarchy on me? Cause that what that fucker said he would do, force us to anarchy and then make the status quo hold as it does now. Arent you the forcing factor now? The grip that holds us? The stronghold of truth? Arent you the new fucking government with a different face?
Seriously stop making these topics, youre making veins on my head burst.
You are looking at all of this from a one sided standpoint, and you really haven't understood 1% of what it was said in that presentation!
Private schools (really private schools free of government formulaic education) would be one of the solutions, obviously you would also have public schools funded through FREE taxation and private charity, if you are a parent and you can't afford a expensive private school, you would willingly pay a small tax in order for your kid to have access to a public school.
On top of this you have to remember that the government FORCES you to send your children to school, and in all honesty, some parents (and me and my wife are a living example of this), are extremely more qualified and patient to give a proper home education to our kids, but no, in my country, I am forced to send them to a public or a private school (which on present time are the exact same thing), If I refuse to send my kids to school, we would most likely lose custody to them, how ridiculous is this?
You speak of the hypothetical illiterate as he didn't existed today already, so, why make this argument even?
Your question about why would you become a garbage man is really irrational, if you make this question you really have to consider what drives anyone to be a garbage man today!
Where have you listened to any Anarchist to say there would be no prisons, no courts, no law, I would really like to point that person to me, because he really is not an Anarchist!
Again, who said there would be no private security or voluntary military protection?
You really didn't understood what he tried to said with his example of the unarmed robbery, what he tried to point out was that if you rob a store on such circumstance and a third person gets killed, not by you, but by the store owner trying to defend himself, you would be the one charged, because you were the responsible for putting those set of events into motion, likewise, everyone who votes and willingly participate and empowers the government, is responsible for all the problems, deaths, and wars that it causes, that was what he tried to say!
Again, you really didn't understood anything that was said, what if you want the government to stay, you ask?
I have no right to impose my Anarchy on you, you also say.
Yet, who the fuck gives you the right to impose your government in me?
The only honest answer you can give is that, "well, I can impose the government on you, because we're stronger than you, and if you question the government, we will come after you, send you to prison or worse"
That is the reality of what the state is!
Actually the awnser is quite simple: You were born into a country with a government, if you dont want one go to where there isnt one. You have no paternal right to claim there should be no government, just as much I have no right to claim there should be a government where there is currently none. I suggest you move to Africa asap, Im sure they will like your anarchy there. Also for the taxation there has to be a governing body, taxes go with government and government goes with taxes, dont try to split to two. I study tax law and believe me you cannot split the two, ever.
If he tried to imply the opposite he should get a script writer for making 2 examples that are supposed to have the opposite conclusion to each other; this is a bad way to form sentences and will only lead to the possibility of a dobule explanation, just bad speech on his part.
In your society there is need of a garbage man also, dont try to deflect by asking how one is forced to do it now. You cant use the argument its better in yours because its bad in mine. Your society will end up being one big mess with none willing to do the shit that needs to be done.
A court implies a governing body that can imprison people, I study tax law which includes normal law and are you trying to form a seperate juridical court without government checks? Way to go back to the fucking middle ages where there was just one governing body that could do all he wanted. There needs to be a counter weight to the juridical power or else you'll get a situation even worse to the one we have now. Still you keep using the word "private security", so if you cant pay for that security, you wont be protected, perhaps a tax here and there will help, oh wait! Now we have a tax for schools and a tax for military protection already. Goddamn we are getting so close to that fucking government arent we? There is no such thing in half-way in the makeup of a country. Either there is a government or there is NOTHING, half-way will just lead to something like the UN; willing to do good but too weak to properly execute leading to half measures and a situation like Srebrenica. Even today the Dutch are blamed for this massacre, all the while the UN was actually to blame because they never said no, nor did they say go. This lead to a army just standing there because they couldnt do SHIT. You complain of the government slowing you down, your half arsed measures will slow you down even more.
The government is an institution, the simplicity of my argument is very easy to grasp, we claim logically that governments do not work and in fact create more problems than the ones they try to solve, but the issue here is that those who support the government, force the rest of population to bend to their will, and your solution, those who don't want the government should migrate to Africa.
You want the government, fine, keep it, we don't, you have no right to oblige us to support it or participate in it.
This concept might seem very difficult to comprehend, but there is actually a great example of another institution that for centuries imposed their will on others, and now continues to exist only for those who support it.
And that is the church, the church was the governments for hundreds of years, and now it manages to exist within our society, it still survives through donations and free taxation and it doesn't impose itself into anyone who doesn't want to participate in it.
As for the law, we claim for the law to be only specific to the human rights and private property laws, the law only has legitimate jursdition on subjects related to attacks to human integrity, crimes of violence, or attacks against private property.
Only those crimes can be legally punishable by the law, if you murder, rape or steal, you will be punished according to local execution of the law in a specific community.
As for everything else, ranging from drugs to abortion, etc etc, the execution of law only has the right to ban you from a certain community where certain act is illegal.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Your use of majority in this sense is very selective, this coming from the person who recognizes that the majority will is actually in most cases the less intelligent choice.
This coming from the person who recognizes that the majority enjoys questionable art, movies, games, music, etc, that the majority has to believe in some divine non existing entity, and so forth, how can you criticize the majority on all those other subjects and then when it comes to government, all of a suddenly what the majority says is always the best thing?
Twisting my words to fit your agenda, business as usual. Then you wonder why I don't bother arguing with you. Where did I claim who has right, majority or minority? I stated a fact - majorities impose their views on minorities. Your examples are spot on with what I say. But that is not to say that majority is always wrong - or would you say that if, in the impossible even that anarchy becomes the accepted political system and the majority supports, they would be wrong and government should then return?
Quote:
There has never been so many kids murdering each other and so many kids suffering violent bulying as there is now, I don't see how your argument is even relevant here, besides, I really think you choose a very extreme word when you mentioned brainwash our kids at home, because brainwashing them is exactly what public schools on certain countries do, just take a look at US and Chinese schools, if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is.
The current crime rates are so high because of the capitalistic status we are in these days. The higher the split in society, the higher the crime rate. We all love to say how communist USSR was so bad, and yet during that time, children and youth were always educated well above the current norm in America or even Europe. Crime rates were also a lot lower across the board.
I use the word "brainwashing" to make a point. Everyone brainwashes. The teachers at school, the parents, friends, television figures, etc. But when you close down your children, you limit their point of view a lot more than they would in schools. I am not saying schools are perfect. Nothing is. Your job as a parent is to broaden their horizons further than school does, not limit it to yours. You know who else homeschools their children? Christian nutjobs who do not wish their children to hear about evolution; Muslim nutjobs who do not wish their sons to meet girls in schools (or vice versa). Also, how much do you know to teach your child? Do you know history better than a history professor; music better than a musician or music professor; biology better than a biology professor; etc? Well, aren't you the polymath!
And this is just about education, not one word has been said about the social ramifications of homeschooling. If you don't see this, then what can I say.
The government is an institution, the simplicity of my argument is very easy to grasp, we claim logically that governments do not work and in fact create more problems than the ones they try to solve, but the issue here is that those who support the government, force the rest of population to bend to their will, and your solution, those who don't want the government should migrate to Africa.
You want the government, fine, keep it, we don't, you have no right to oblige us to support it or participate in it.
This concept might seem very difficult to comprehend, but there is actually a great example of another institution that for centuries imposed their will on others, and now continues to exist only for those who support it.
And that is the church, the church was the governments for hundreds of years, and now it manages to exist within our society, it still survives through donations and free taxation and it doesn't impose itself into anyone who doesn't want to participate in it.
As for the law, we claim for the law to be only specific to the human rights and private property laws, the law only has legitimate jursdition on subjects related to attacks to human integrity, crimes of violence, or attacks against private property.
Only those crimes can be legally punishable by the law, if you murder, rape or steal, you will be punished according to local execution of the law in a specific community.
As for everything else, ranging from drugs to abortion, etc etc, the execution of law only has the right to ban you from a certain community where certain act is illegal.
This is going to be my last reply because you simply say the same every fucking time.
Please stop using the words "understand", "comprehend" or whatever whenever I dont AGREE with you. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you, I understand you just FINE, I dont fucking agree with it though. Stop putting yourself on a intellectually superior pedestal because youre obviously not, especially with such broken logic. Again you are deflecting, you say your argument is right because mine is wrong? Stop basing your goddamn arguments off my standpoints, yours hold no moral nor logical ground on facts alone. The church is still a fucking government, dont you dare say it isnt. The church survives by religious guilt; all of its money comes from its flok who "freely" give money to the church. They tax their members and if they do not support the church they will look bad in their religious community.
Either way someone is going to be forced to do something they dont want and as long as youre not the majority there is no right, reason nor argument strong enough to support switching to anarchy. Not only must the switch to anarchy be world wide instantanous it must also be an accepted switch by the larger part of the population, or else it will result in Fallout 4. Here already your utopia fails for the simple reason that this is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish.
Now I could rant on and on about your failing view but I wont because this is probably what you want anyway because your little anarchy group works like a fucking church/cult. Yes, thats right, a fucking cult. Just like Jehovah's Witnesses you hope through endless conversation even if completely nonsensical and unreasonable to plant seeds of thought that would one day flower to an idea. Im not going to play along your endless brabble; make one more goddamn topic about your anarchy utopia while this one and others still exist and Ill have to put you on ignore, we have enough topics about this where you can spout your cultist brabble .
Your use of majority in this sense is very selective, this coming from the person who recognizes that the majority will is actually in most cases the less intelligent choice.
This coming from the person who recognizes that the majority enjoys questionable art, movies, games, music, etc, that the majority has to believe in some divine non existing entity, and so forth, how can you criticize the majority on all those other subjects and then when it comes to government, all of a suddenly what the majority says is always the best thing?
Twisting my words to fit your agenda, business as usual. Then you wonder why I don't bother arguing with you. Where did I claim who has right, majority or minority? I stated a fact - majorities impose their views on minorities. Your examples are spot on with what I say. But that is not to say that majority is always wrong - or would you say that if, in the impossible even that anarchy becomes the accepted political system and the majority supports, they would be wrong and government should then return?
Quote:
There has never been so many kids murdering each other and so many kids suffering violent bulying as there is now, I don't see how your argument is even relevant here, besides, I really think you choose a very extreme word when you mentioned brainwash our kids at home, because brainwashing them is exactly what public schools on certain countries do, just take a look at US and Chinese schools, if that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is.
The current crime rates are so high because of the capitalistic status we are in these days. The higher the split in society, the higher the crime rate. We all love to say how communist USSR was so bad, and yet during that time, children and youth were always educated well above the current norm in America or even Europe. Crime rates were also a lot lower across the board.
I use the word "brainwashing" to make a point. Everyone brainwashes. The teachers at school, the parents, friends, television figures, etc. But when you close down your children, you limit their point of view a lot more than they would in schools. I am not saying schools are perfect. Nothing is. Your job as a parent is to broaden their horizons further than school does, not limit it to yours. You know who else homeschools their children? Christian nutjobs who do not wish their children to hear about evolution; Muslim nutjobs who do not wish their sons to meet girls in schools (or vice versa). Also, how much do you know to teach your child? Do you know history better than a history professor; music better than a musician or music professor; biology better than a biology professor; etc? Well, aren't you the polymath!
And this is just about education, not one word has been said about the social ramifications of homeschooling. If you don't see this, then what can I say.
I didn't twist any words, if it seemed that way, I'm sorry, I just stated what I know both of use recognizes as facts considering certain aspects of the majority.
This isn't about that the majority is always right or always wrong, what I tried to demonstrate, is that the majority is highly subjective and influentiated by the majority itself.
The majority bends to the norm, a good example of this, is the rise of Atheism, both you and I are atheists because we recognize the real nature and consequences of religion, but the majority of all other atheists are such way because it is a rising trend in society, one can use the example of atheism here as one could use of scientology, here are two distinct examples of different schools of thought, one rationally correct the other ridiculously wrong, and both are growing to become increasingly accepted by certain majority groups!
The majority dwells in what it is popular and the norm, the state is the norm, it is only natural that the majority supports it, and this is what I believe you're doing to some extent.
You have to understand that Anarchy is not a end game, but a initial condition, the difference between Anarchy and Statism, is that in Statism it is legal to throw you in jail because of your rejection of a certain aspect of a faulty system.
I agree with you, nothing is perfect, nothing will ever be, but when you endoctrinate people to believe that if they refuse to pay for a service they are criminals, it is doing exactly the same that religion does.
There will always be confrontantion, war, murder, rape, but there is a difference between having a small community fighting against other small community for opposing political interests, and have the oppurtunity to have intermediary communitys to mediate and resolve such conflict, than to have a nation state with unparallel power.
I don't oppose my kids to learn of different points of view, in fact I strongly encourage it, but it is really difficult to pass anything onto them when they spent 9 hours a day in school and when they come home they still have another hour to do homework.
It is not me that is raising my kids, it is the government, when they spend 80% of their week devoted to school and school related issues, there really isn't that much parenting left!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
The government is an institution, the simplicity of my argument is very easy to grasp, we claim logically that governments do not work and in fact create more problems than the ones they try to solve, but the issue here is that those who support the government, force the rest of population to bend to their will, and your solution, those who don't want the government should migrate to Africa.
You want the government, fine, keep it, we don't, you have no right to oblige us to support it or participate in it.
This concept might seem very difficult to comprehend, but there is actually a great example of another institution that for centuries imposed their will on others, and now continues to exist only for those who support it.
And that is the church, the church was the governments for hundreds of years, and now it manages to exist within our society, it still survives through donations and free taxation and it doesn't impose itself into anyone who doesn't want to participate in it.
As for the law, we claim for the law to be only specific to the human rights and private property laws, the law only has legitimate jursdition on subjects related to attacks to human integrity, crimes of violence, or attacks against private property.
Only those crimes can be legally punishable by the law, if you murder, rape or steal, you will be punished according to local execution of the law in a specific community.
As for everything else, ranging from drugs to abortion, etc etc, the execution of law only has the right to ban you from a certain community where certain act is illegal.
This is going to be my last reply because you simply say the same every fucking time.
Please stop using the words "understand", "comprehend" or whatever whenever I dont AGREE with you. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you, I understand you just FINE, I dont fucking agree with it though. Stop putting yourself on a intellectually superior pedestal because youre obviously not, especially with such broken logic. Again you are deflecting, you say your argument is right because mine is wrong? Stop basing your goddamn arguments off my standpoints, yours hold no moral nor logical ground on facts alone. The church is still a fucking government, dont you dare say it isnt. The church survives by religious guilt; all of its money comes from its flok who "freely" give money to the church. They tax their members and if they do not support the church they will look bad in their religious community.
Either way someone is going to be forced to do something they dont want and as long as youre not the majority there is no right, reason nor argument strong enough to support switching to anarchy. Not only must the switch to anarchy be world wide instantanous it must also be an accepted switch by the larger part of the population, or else it will result in Fallout 4. Here already your utopia fails for the simple reason that this is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish.
Now I could rant on and on about your failing view but I wont because this is probably what you want anyway because your little anarchy group works like a fucking church/cult. Yes, thats right, a fucking cult. Just like Jehovah's Witnesses you hope through endless conversation even if completely nonsensical and unreasonable to plant seeds of thought that would one day flower to an idea. Im not going to play along your endless brabble; make one more goddamn topic about your anarchy utopia while this one and others still exist and Ill have to put you on ignore, we have enough topics about this where you can spout your cultist brabble .
You don't agree with me, and I certainly don't agree with you, and whether you want it or not, you have more blood on your hands for supporting the government than any singular serial killer in history.
The thing is, you reserve the right to treat me as a criminal for me refusing to pay for services, some of them I don't even want, but I am obliged to use, and you somewhat believe that you have the moral and logical high ground?
Anarchist society allows for pockets of society run by governments, the opposite is impossible.
There is a considerable anarchist society with over 1000 people in my country which settled in a virgin land, Kms away from the nearest pockets of civilization, and guess what, they are still forced to pay taxes!
If this isn't ridiculous, I don't know what is!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
@iNatan: You want me to be simple and factual when addressing this subject, I will, Anarchism is a wide range of non authoritarian political ideologies, remember that graph I posted on some other thread about the political spectrum, contrary to Communism or Fascism or Social Democracy or whatever other specific political ideology, Anarchism is a single word to define a whole universe of different political ideologies, ranging from left anarchism to right anarchism, ranging from libertarianism to minarchism (free society with small regulatory governmental body applied only to very limited aspects of society), etc etc.
This is what Anarchism really stands for, when debating about Anarchism you cannot just take one example you know about anarchy and apply it to the whole range of Anarchistic theory.
Furthermore, I personally think, and this is my opinion has I've told you several times before that you have a very short sighted understanding of what anarchists like myself really want for society.
One of the arguments I have seen you use more often to discard my debates about Anarchism, is the fact that since the largest majority of human society in all it's history was ruled by monarchs, emperors, religious dogma and etc, you project that this cannot be change and it will project indefinitely into the future, and this argument, although worthy of consideration in the study of human behavior, doesn't really carry much relevance in this debate, you make it seem that the imposition of rule through fear and force is a natural part of evolution, while discarding that evolution is a process of change adaptive to ever changing circumstances, even if some evolutionary process was deemed good at some point in our history, (and the rule of societies is highly questionable that it was ever good), it doesn't necessarily mean that it continues to be good now and it certainly doesn't mean that this specific evolutionary structure cannot be change, evolution is dynamic, not constant.
Having this said, there is another argument that needs to be address as to why Anarchism does work, first is because it has work in countless circumstances before in several layers of human societies of even as a political ideology in some specific places in the past, and I have already shown you in the past why the Internet is the largest working Anarchistic that ever existed on this planet.
Finally, why Anarchy does work in the real world, because Statism exists in the real world, because Communism exists, because Fascism existed and still exists.
Every single political ideology is based on the allowance and/or support of the people, how can a government of 100 people govern over 1.5 billion people as is the case of China, because the people allow it, because the people support it.
Why do they support it, because they are endoctrinated that way, they are lead to believe that their system is good, that their system works in the short term and in the long term.
That's the only reason why any government keeps power, and it is also the same reason why a society without centralized government works.
This is only to address why Anarchism does work as a political ideology, if you want to debate about specifics and the mechanics of a free society, we can debate it, at this moment I'm only proving logically that Anarchy can work just as any other political system, because every single political system works solely based on the support of its people.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
@iNatan: You want me to be simple and factual when addressing this subject, I will, Anarchism is a wide range of non authoritarian political ideologies, remember that graph I posted on some other thread about the political spectrum, contrary to Communism or Fascism or Social Democracy or whatever other specific political ideology, Anarchism is a single word to define a whole universe of different political ideologies, ranging from left anarchism to right anarchism, ranging from libertarianism to minarchism (free society with small regulatory governmental body applied only to very limited aspects of society), etc etc.
This is what Anarchism really stands for, when debating about Anarchism you cannot just take one example you know about anarchy and apply it to the whole range of Anarchistic theory.
Yes, Anarchism indeed stands for a wide range of political ideologies, but unlike you make believe, this is also true for other political ideologies. Just take a look at political parties nowadays. Most of them are divided in left and right wings of the one Party. It's not as easy as you might think, for whatever reason you may have to think so.
What I have difficulities to understand is what "kind" of Anarchism you specifically stand for. You cannot say "This is what Anarchism really is" while there is a huge difference between left and right Anarchism or is there not? I'm pretty sure left-wing Anarchists wouldnt want to have anything to do with "private property"- Capitalists.
@iNatan: You want me to be simple and factual when addressing this subject, I will, Anarchism is a wide range of non authoritarian political ideologies, remember that graph I posted on some other thread about the political spectrum, contrary to Communism or Fascism or Social Democracy or whatever other specific political ideology, Anarchism is a single word to define a whole universe of different political ideologies, ranging from left anarchism to right anarchism, ranging from libertarianism to minarchism (free society with small regulatory governmental body applied only to very limited aspects of society), etc etc.
This is what Anarchism really stands for, when debating about Anarchism you cannot just take one example you know about anarchy and apply it to the whole range of Anarchistic theory.
Yes, Anarchism indeed stands for a wide range of political ideologies, but unlike you make believe, this is also true for other political ideologies. Just take a look at political parties nowadays. Most of them are divided in left and right wings of the one Party. It's not as easy as you might think, for whatever reason you may have to think so.
What I have difficulities to understand is what "kind" of Anarchism you specifically stand for. You cannot say "This is what Anarchism really is" while there is a huge difference between left and right Anarchism or is there not? I'm pretty sure left-wing Anarchists wouldnt want to have anything to do with "private property"- Capitalists.
I stand for a wide range of Anarchistic schools of thought, but in short I would say I'm more easily identified as a right wing Anarchist, more specifically an Anarcho Capitalist.
But that's the beauty of Anarchism, most rational Anarchists like myself agree that nobody in this planet can have the one solution for every given problem, that's what the State does, the State is an entity that defines everything as either white or black, legal or illegal, the correct solution or the wrong solution, reality is much more dynamic than this, and in an Anarchistic society solutions can evolve naturally and be agreed upon through direct democracy instead of being shouted out and silenced because the State opposes to it, or because the State deems that such debate shouldn't be had at any given time.
You have to remember, you live in an Anarchistic society right now, there is merely a hostage taker known as the Government restricting some of your liberties and demanding some of your money through the use of invisible coercion.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
While I can agree upon the idea that the "government" is indeed flawed and the fact that someone is "representing" my will in a parliament is not the most democratic social way a society can live in, I still think that social systems for the most part exist to even out natural or cultural inequalities and stop some individuals from rampaging. As I participate in public life and use my right to question political institutions and through my vote and freedom of speech, I still feel like playing an active role in this society. (And beeing active means what it means: To not sit on your ass all day but do something about the things you care for.)
In a Rousseauist way: I want to give up my natural right and liberty to possess everything I want with the power at hand, and create a government, where every Individual has his voice thus creating a general will, in which I, as a part of the whole, create my own laws in agreement with others, which I will aswell follow.
Now we all know thats an Ideal, we know, a general assembly with even 500.000 Luxemburgish people would take years to reach an aknowledgement on even the most basic law. So we have "representation". As a drawback, I have to delegate my will to someone else for whom it is impossible to fully know or understand my will. So part of my will gets lost. So to control this representative government, we need what: Press (aka Wikileaks, nowadays).
Still, this society is everything else than ideal: it's corrupted, it eats money, it stinks asf. But, mister anarchist, whats the alternative? And make it short. I've talked with people of your conviction before, and it always struck me how easily they washed over the one most important objection: The concept of human nature.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
Your use of majority in this sense is very selective, this coming from the person who recognizes that the majority will is actually in most cases the less intelligent choice.
That's what fascist dictators claim as the reason why they need to be dictators. You're on a slippery slope my friend.
While I can agree upon the idea that the "government" is indeed flawed and the fact that someone is "representing" my will in a parliament is not the most democratic social way a society can live in, I still think that social systems for the most part exist to even out natural or cultural inequalities and stop some individuals from rampaging. As I participate in public life and use my right to question political institutions and through my vote and freedom of speech, I still feel like playing an active role in this society. (And beeing active means what it means: To not sit on your ass all day but do something about the things you care for.)
In a Rousseauist way: I want to give up my natural right and liberty to possess everything I want with the power at hand, and create a government, where every Individual has his voice thus creating a general will, in which I, as a part of the whole, create my own laws in agreement with others, which I will aswell follow.
Now we all know thats an Ideal, we know, a general assembly with even 500.000 Luxemburgish people would take years to reach an aknowledgement on even the most basic law. So we have "representation". As a drawback, I have to delegate my will to someone else for whom it is impossible to fully know or understand my will. So part of my will gets lost. So to control this representative government, we need what: Press (aka Wikileaks, nowadays).
Still, this society is everything else than ideal: it's corrupted, it eats money, it stinks asf. But, mister anarchist, whats the alternative? And make it short. I've talked with people of your conviction before, and it always struck me how easily they washed over the one most important objection: The concept of human nature.
I can make it short and fail to properly address a point or make it long and make you uninterested of even reading what I have to say, believe me, I have had many of these arguments before and in truth I can define my debaters into 3 very simple groups.
The first group is the most common one, the one who fails to even properly read/listen to the argument being presented, the typical person who just refuses to accept any new information and has a circular, almost religious like argument in support of the State.
The second group is somewhat more dynamic, it is the group that actually understands and agrees some of the points and criticisms being presented about the State but it gets stuck on some minor fundamental flaw that they are personally unable to see beyond.
In this second group there are also usually the persons who end up agreeing with you in their internal rationalizations, but will deny it externally, perhaps due to social conventions or any other unknown psychological mechanism.
The third group is the rarest one, it is the one that actually admits that such new information completely changed their perspective of social conventions and their realization of the government as an illegitimate institution.
You admit that you realize the flaws of the government, yet, at the same time, you claim that it exists from preventing some individuals or groups from rampaging through society, in your view the government is a sort of lesser evil that prevents certain events and situations from taking place, my question to you is, does it really prevent them, if it did, those situations would not exist in our societies, yet they still exist, and when you compare world history against such events that happen today, what you'll find is actually overwhelming evidence that in fact those events are happening more frequently and with far more severe consequences today than they ever did in the past.
I don't know what sort of Anarchists you have been talking to, but I'm sincere enough to admit that we don't have every single lasting solution to every single problem of a planet, what we do have is a moral and humane substitute for the present system, a solution that will solve a large amount of problems currently unsolved without causing any new problems, unlike the government does.
About your example of Luxemburg, where you ask, 'how would we successfully and pratically represent and address the problems of 500.000 people', what I have to say is that, your question is flawed to begin with, this is the very core of what the State tries to do, if you think about it rationally, it's just impossible to get 500.000 people willing to debate, work, vote, whatever for a given issue or social problem, what we have in place of this, is localized Democracy, groups of communities, villages, cities, will internally address their own problems without interference or regulation of external forces, for certain problems that require the attention and work of different communities working in unison, such as for example, construction and/or maintenance of roads, electric distribution, etc, those problems would be debated through a group of delegates, not leaders, but delegates, which would carry to the debate with other communities the will of the last referendum made on the communities they represent about the specific problem they ought to debate and solve, in situations where no consensus is reached, a certain community reserves the right to abstain from further participating and using a certain service or a measure of last circumstance could be taken, such as a inter community referendum, or the proposal of a reform on this specific service.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Your use of majority in this sense is very selective, this coming from the person who recognizes that the majority will is actually in most cases the less intelligent choice.
That's what fascist dictators claim as the reason why they need to be dictators. You're on a slippery slope my friend.
Your point is also true, that indeed is one of the causes that enables the emergence of dictatorships, but that is not the point I was trying to address, what I was mentioning is that majorities influence themselves into thinking something is better than anything else.
This is closely related to the illusion and desire of popularity, you are popular if you act and enjoy the same things that the next popular man or women.
This is why people are driven to support the State, this is the reason why people in western countries are driven to loath Communism, I personally hate Communism because it's just another authoritarian Statist nightmare, but this is me, why do you think the average guy thinks about Communism, most of them don't even know what it is politically, they only know it's bad because everybody else says it's bad.
The same with religion in religious countries, everybody believes in something, so you should believe to, just for the sake of fitting in socially.
This is just to say that the majority is willing to accept anything as long as the majority can keep a status quo that the thing they accept is good and socially the norm.
If you have enough people accepting Anarchism as the norm, it will become a rising trend on society just as Atheism began to be a few decades ago.
Also, it's curious that from everything I said, you only choose to reply a single sentence based on your own interpretation of it.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Also, it's curious that from everything I said, you only choose to reply a single sentence based on your own interpretation of it.
I don't really have much to say about anarchism since I think it's a false utopia and could only work for certain individuals. People are different with different needs and different prerequisites. What may work well for you may not work for someone else, and with Anarchism that is a problem even though it's promoting the opposite.
Also, it's curious that from everything I said, you only choose to reply a single sentence based on your own interpretation of it.
I don't really have much to say about anarchism since I think it's a false utopia and could only work for certain individuals. People are different with different needs and different prerequisites. What may work well for you may not work for someone else, and with Anarchism that is a problem even though it's promoting the opposite.
But this is the exact issue I'm trying to address here, your position here comes from a standpoint based solely on your opinion, not a complex rationalization, you think it can't work because of premise 1 and premise 2.
And with all this you are completely ignoring that you have anarchistic interactions everyday on a far and wide range of things, humans are free to do whatever they want, and there is really no effective mechanism that can stop you, when you rationalize that you should support the status quo and accept the government in your life, you are making a social contract in which you abide to comply with a certain amount of obligations and in return be granted a certain amount of liberties.
The paradox here is that those same liberties were taken from you from the government in the first place, or in other words, you don't really need the compliance of the government to do a certain action.
The government acts as an elusive unarmed hostage taker, it pretends you have been stolen of something very fundamental and it promises to restore it to you if you support it.
That's all it does, the government doesn't really prevent anything and doesn't really solve anything, if it did, everything that its deemed illegal would simply cease to happen and it doesn't, I really have no better terminology for describing the government than to compare it to a pimp, and even such mild comparison doesn't make true justice at the real parasitical nature of what really is the government at the most fundamental level.
I have told this many times before and I guess I haven't really made myself understood, when you say that what works for some won't work for others, you are correct, but you simply cannot use this argument in rejection of Anarchism while allowing or supporting the continued existence of the State, for a very simple reason, because the State only offers a solution to every given problem and Anarchism offers many.
In a Statist society it is either legal or illegal to commit euthanasia for example, you have this black and white stone age ideal that everything can be defined as good or bad because some people feel comfortable with it and others won't, in a Anarchistic society you have pluralistic solutions for each given situation and circumstance, and it might be deemed legal in some instances to have an euthanasia, and in others plain old attempted homicide.
If you can realize that the State doesn't really solve anything, that it is the people that collectively accept to participate in certain social constructs, you realize the futile illusion of what it really is, and that if something as corrupt, as one sided, black and white as the State can work, then obviously, any other social construct that is more versatile, pluralistic, humane than the State will inherently work much better and more efficiently than what it does now.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither
- Benjamin Franklin - 1759
Sorry, you're bringing in too many assumptions about my views that your "logic" fails. You can't create a logical argument out of flawed assumptions, they're inherently incompatible. Come on ronhrin, how could you make that mistake even though you're a member of the Mr.Spock fanclub?
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
.
