How do you feel about next November?

[All Else Failed]

They get exactly what they deserve: Whatever they make. No one has a 'right' to wealth, or anything else. People make these things, and if you can't make it, that's your problem. I do not exist to subsidize the existence of others.

So...would you let people starve if they didn't agree with the masses on how to harvest food? I mean, if one group of individuals (yes, there will be groups when it comes down to eating habits and how to produce it) is larger than the minority who disagrees, fuck them, right?

 

[LiberalVichy]

So...would you let people starve if they didn't agree with the masses on how to harvest food? I mean, if one group of individuals (yes, there will be groups when it comes down to eating habits and how to produce it) is larger than the minority who disagrees, fuck them, right?

They can always pay someone else. For that matter, I doubt harvesting methods would be determined by the 'masses', since different preferences and desires exist likely different methods for their production will exist to suit the different tastes of people.
It is rather the government which forces the minority to bend to whatever arbitrary decision the State makes, regardless of their own wishes.
If, even still, someone starves I am not 'letting' them starve, they are failing to feed themselves. Food does not magically appear and produce itself (at least not in a quantity necessary to feed the billions of people in this world, or even a fraction thereof). People who starve because they cannot find a suitable exchange or gift are no worse off than if no one had produced food in the first place, they are simply unable to fit into normal society. In practice this is a non-issue, far more people starve from government rationing, controls and blockades than have ever died for want of money to buy food.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Wow, what a debate. Just finished going through from last night.

Hats off to AEF, LiberalVichy and Peter. Very well debated.

 

[All Else Failed]

They can always pay someone else. For that matter, I doubt harvesting methods would be determined by the 'masses', since different preferences and desires exist likely different methods for their production will exist to suit the different tastes of people.
It is rather the government which forces the minority to bend to whatever arbitrary decision the State makes, regardless of their own wishes.
If, even still, someone starves I am not 'letting' them starve, they are failing to feed themselves. Food does not magically appear and produce itself (at least not in a quantity necessary to feed the billions of people in this world, or even a fraction thereof). People who starve because they cannot find a suitable exchange or gift are no worse off than if no one had produced food in the first place, they are simply unable to fit into normal society. In practice this is a non-issue, far more people starve from government rationing, controls and blockades than have ever died for want of money to buy food.

what if they do not have enough money? You also assume that there will be enough private persons out there to serve 6 billion people on the planet, and ones that will do it for a good price. What the fuck will a starving black kid in Africa do?

 

[LiberalVichy]

what if they do not have enough money? You also assume that there will be enough private persons out there to serve 6 billion people on the planet, and ones that will do it for a good price. What the fuck will a starving black kid in Africa do?

1. Stop perpetuating the socialist hell-hole he lives in.
2. Not my problem.

 

[Peter Parka]

Lovely attitude! that's exactly why your kind of society will never exist.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I'm sure he'd rather starve than get his legs blown off by the US Marines in some bombing 'mishap' to 'free' him from an 'evil dictator'. and then starve.

 

[Peter Parka]

Yeah, that makes starving to death plenty ok, sure he wont mind!:smiley24:

 

[LiberalVichy]

Once again: Not my problem. No one has a 'right' to food, only individual people's action make any food available to anybody.

 

[Peter Parka]

Thats your opinion but it's a widely repulsive one which is why you can bleat on about how evil the government is all you want but most people are more likely to find that attitude pretty evil and the politics you preach will never come to fruition.

 

[All Else Failed]

1. Stop perpetuating the socialist hell-hole he lives in.
2. Not my problem.

So you've never heard of the word "empathy" before, I take it?

 

[Obdurate]

I hate seeing anarchist stances getting insulted cuz I'm one myself, but I find it funny and kind of sad how completely different me and LiberalVichy are about it.

 

[Peter Parka]

I hate seeing anarchist stances getting insulted cuz I'm one myself, but I find it funny and kind of sad how completely different me and LiberalVichy are about it.

Although I dont agree with the anarchist philosophy, I actually have some respect for their views. This girl though just comes over as thinking she's clever for using big words and putting people down when the basis of hr philosophy is full of shit.

 

[Obdurate]

Okay, this post ended up being a lot longer than I planned:

Well as anarchists we aren't supposed to force our beliefs on people but talking about it is fine. If we forced our beliefs we'd be like the Marxists, and even though they are an ally sometimes, they ultimately just stab us in the back.

I think anarchy is the only way to go to solve the problems of the world, and that's not to say we can just go to bed tonight and then wake up and be in an anarchist society. Because that wouldn't work. People need to change themselves before we can make any real changes. We need to give society a complete overhaul. And that'll take yeeeeears upon yeeeeears to do.

Shit, I'll be dead. Maybe my kids will be too. And you know what? It may never happen, and I've accepted that. But I'd rather try than not try, even if I bring a little positivity into this world then it's helping.

There are some things I don't like at all when people debate anarchy. I don't like when people follow a misconception of it. The dictionary definition of anarchy, well one or a few of them, is misleading as well so it can't really be followed. I hate when people think they're clever because they say that it would just bring on chaos without realizing that it's a gradual change before it would work. Anarchism is a theory that has never been proved or disproved, as far as I know, in North America because we haven't lived in an anarchist society. And I don't think people are as bad as people think. I think that, while some are raised poorly or whatever, that capitalism is the reason why the world is shit. Capitalism is the umbrella term. Like, I don't think everybody would go murder everyone. And I don't think we'd lose our problem solving abilities if we did live in a society without law and government, among other things.

Anarchy is order and balance, the A that people like to spray paint to look cool means order.



And now I finally comment on what you said... I don't think LiberalVichy is going about this the right way. The posts aren't full of enough, for LACK OF A BETTER TERM, compassion. Like, people don't want to be hit over the head with things. It turns them off. Hell, I am an anarchist and I get a little annoyed at how some people handle their opinions. Arguments aren't the way to go, because people just end up thinking the other side are morons. Or that the basis of their philosophy is full of shit

I'm sure LiberalVichy just thinks that she's being assertive about her opinions but I'm willing to bet that people think it's gone beyond that. Right or wrong? I reserve the right to be either one of those.

I hope I worded that well, and I hope that the way I actually post kind of furthers my belief on how to discuss/debate things. And here's an example: My friend Joe once put in his MSN name, on Thanksgiving, "Congrats to [however many turkeys] slaughtered!" And I got after him. Yes, he was right. But I told him that being that aggressive with people isn't gonna shake them out of "apathy" or whatever you want to call it, it'll just turn them off of HIM and his opinion. So we argued about it and eventually he admitted that I was right. Some people do need to be shaken out of something, but there are different ways to go about it. I'm of the belief that people need to be judged on a case by case basis and treated in such a way that it's okay for them. One thing isn't gonna work for everyone.

Debates don't have to be emotionless.

I'm sorry this was long, and some of it may be jumbled because it was so much typing, lol. Bear with me, y'all. And keep in mind I'd gladly have a discussion about anarchy, but I will not have an argument. I'm tired of it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Government is, always has been and must be a violent criminal gang whose very conduct and sanctioned violence make it sheer nonsense to think it is in any way capable of 'defending' people. One does not hire the wolf to protect the sheep.

Wow, you're quite the cynic for such a young pretty face... I don't think I caught it, but what kind of government do you advocate, or just government by anarchy? (As I wonder how cushy your existence is.)

 

[LiberalVichy]

I sell candy on the beach. I make about $200 a month, which is a fantastic sum in world terms, but I am not from nor have I ever been what you might call remotely middle class or higher.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I advocate people minding their own affairs, and voluntary and productive interaction to resolve disputes.

 

[LiberalVichy]

I don't think you're going to see eye-to-eye with Minor's Pro-Union Views!!!

I usually don't get along well with people who promote robbery and murder in order to ensure higher salaries for special interest groups.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Economics are interesting to me personally, but the utilitarian/argument-from-effect debates are usually ineffectual and pointlessly involved, since by definition you're probably debating with someone who doesn't know the first thing about remotely real economics. Arguments from morality, like if you refuse to fund the war in Iraq the government will murder you, tend to get more to the point. And getting to that point is important because if the person says that they're okay with you getting killed to fund it you can respond with a hearty, "Fuck you!" and stop wasting your time with sociopaths.

 

[Obdurate]

lol Anarcho-capitalism.

 

[LiberalVichy]

It's amazing what good genetics and honest and open curiosity can do.
I know economics because I wasn't afraid of what I would find out. I had no emotional or economic investment in this tribal nutjob system.