I Met One!!!!!!

[All Else Failed]

Che Guevara, fucking gay asshole murderous son of a bitch whore!:nod:

oh little boy, if you only knew what most of our presidents did.

 

[Meirionnydd]

oh little boy, if you only knew what most of our presidents did.

*cough* Operation PBSUCCESS *cough*

Well, I wouldn't use that phrase. More so repulsed, repugnated and scared by their pseudo-religion, not communists themselves.

I lol'd

 

[LiberalVichy]

I've been at a Model United Nations conference on the USM campus for the last 3 days, and I met a real, live COMMUNIST!!! He's the first one I've ever met. We did not tear each other limb from limb, but it was really interesting meeting a member of the opposite party.

Communists are hardly a threat in the Western world. The Fascistic Americans/Britons with their democratic militarism are much more the problem. Their relatavistic opportunism allows them to slip in more and more control, the more dangerous (perhaps) because it isn't entirely obvious or open like the Commies.

 

[All Else Failed]

Hm, I think you are interesting. I don't mean that in a bad way.

How would you describe yourself (if at all) politically and philosophically?

 

[LiberalVichy]

Hm, I think you are interesting. I don't mean that in a bad way.

How would you describe yourself (if at all) politically and philosophically?

At core I'm a rationalist, not in the 'formal' sense but in the sense that I believe everything can (at least in principle) be explained by logic and reason. Following from that, I'm a self-interested individual and aware of it. I'm anti-politics, which is to say (from my perspective) pro-civilization. I could (and have been) described as liberal and libertarian, though I prefer anarchist as "without political rulers" perfectly well describes my position.
I could elaborate some more points (and would be happy to to some extent), such as that I am in favour of private property and also opposed to the use of violence to settle disputes; two propositions I consider equivalent. Likewise, I consider using violence to defend your property to be perfectly acceptable (with an element of estoppel proportionality taken into account), since if you can't defend your property it isn't 'yours' at all. But that can all be summed up under the fact that I am in favour of civil society, whose very existence depends upon private property and consequent non-violent dispute resolution. The idea of political arguments is pretty silly to me, since it's all ultimately forcing one side to do what you want with guns.

 

[All Else Failed]

At core I'm a rationalist, not in the 'formal' sense but in the sense that I believe everything can (at least in principle) be explained by logic and reason. Following from that, I'm a self-interested individual and aware of it. I'm anti-politics, which is to say (from my perspective) pro-civilization. I could (and have been) described as liberal and libertarian, though I prefer anarchist as "without political rulers" perfectly well describes my position.
I could elaborate some more points (and would be happy to to some extent), such as that I am in favour of private property and also opposed to the use of violence to settle disputes; two propositions I consider equivalent. Likewise, I consider using violence to defend your property to be perfectly acceptable (with an element of estoppel proportionality taken into account), since if you can't defend your property it isn't 'yours' at all. But that can all be summed up under the fact that I am in favour of civil society, whose very existence depends upon private property and consequent non-violent dispute resolution. The idea of political arguments is pretty silly to me, since it's all ultimately forcing one side to do what you want with guns.

So would you describe yourself as some form of objectivist?


Do you think your favor of private property and your "anarchism" conflict?


How would you enforce privet property without some sort of government?

 

[LiberalVichy]

So would you describe yourself as some form of objectivist?

I share many general premises and a handful of conclusions with Objectivists, but consider it fundamentally misguided both in it's view of logic and much of its philosophical development. Without going into detail, Rand and I are both pro-market Neo-Aristotileans, but the devil is in the details.

Do you think your favor of private property and your "anarchism" conflict?

Private property and anarchy are equivalent terms. If private property is the rule, taxation, regulation and confiscation are illegal and, thus, the 'government' is stripped of its pretense to righteousness and is nothing but another gang in primary colors. The Emperor has no clothes, so to speak.

How would you enforce privet property without some sort of government?

First of all, there are fallacious assumptions in this. Government cannot protect private property because it's a robbery agency by definition. Secondly, private property isn't something that needs to be 'enforced', it's the only rational possibility since all arguments presume acceptance of it (otherwise one could never argue because one would need permission from a vote or something to use one's mouth, and one could not vote to use the mouth because one would need the initial vote in order to raise one's hand for the purposes of voting etc). A stateless society simply takes normal standards of behaviour and equity which IS private property and criminalizes ALL violators, not simply those which don't have a seat on the UN.

 

[All Else Failed]

I share many general premises and a handful of conclusions with Objectivists, but consider it fundamentally misguided both in it's view of logic and much of its philosophical development. Without going into detail, Rand and I are both pro-market Neo-Aristotileans, but the devil is in the details.


Private property and anarchy are equivalent terms. If private property is the rule, taxation, regulation and confiscation are illegal and, thus, the 'government' is stripped of its pretense to righteousness and is nothing but another gang in primary colors. The Emperor has no clothes, so to speak.

First of all, there are fallacious assumptions in this. Government cannot protect private property because it's a robbery agency by definition. Secondly, private property isn't something that needs to be 'enforced', it's the only rational possibility since all arguments presume acceptance of it (otherwise one could never argue because one would need permission from a vote or something to use one's mouth, and one could not vote to use the mouth because one would need the initial vote in order to raise one's hand for the purposes of voting etc). A stateless society simply takes normal standards of behaviour and equity which IS private property and criminalizes ALL violators, not simply those which don't have a seat on the UN.

Whats stopping me, in your system, from just using your private property against your will?

Who is going to deem me a criminal and deal out justice if their is no government?

 

[LiberalVichy]

Whats stopping me, in your system, from just using your private property against your will?

Without assuming any third party dispute-resolution agency/private security/insurance company, I could always just shoot you.

Who is going to deem me a criminal and deal out justice if their is no government?

People who are payed to, only now their rules and incentives will come from civil society and not the mafia. They will have to 'serve and protect'.

Also: The government does not deal out justice. So the idea that that is an alternative is nonsense.

 

[All Else Failed]

Without assuming any third party dispute-resolution agency/private security/insurance company, I could always just shoot you.


People who are payed to, only now their rules and incentives will come from civil society and not the mafia. They will have to 'serve and protect'.

Also: The government does not deal out justice. So the idea that that is an alternative is nonsense.

Individuals can be governments, you know. You govern your land, and use violence against me to keep me off. Whats the difference between you protecting your land and a government of many protecting theirs?


How will these people who are being payed be regulated? How will it be insured that they don't turn into some sort of fascist group that abuses its power with no regulatory body?

The government can deal out justice. See: murderers in prison.

 

[Peter Parka]

Without assuming any third party dispute-resolution agency/private security/insurance company, I could always just shoot you.

Thats if AEF didn't shoot you first and if it was his plan to take your property without giving you any notice, he would probably be in a much stronger position. Seriously though, it sounds like you want the country to go back to the wild west or something!

 

[LiberalVichy]

If you want to examine the breakdown of dispute resolution and arbitration I suggest you read one of the many books out there on market anarchism, since your views of it (and anarchy in general) have so little relation to reality that I have no desire to continue discussing it with you. Places like Mises.org have plenty of them, or you could argue with the many people on anti-state.com who will be more than happy to belittle you for bothering the 'regs' with such commonplace and ignorant objections.
Why is it that you believe you have such a firm understanding of how society functions with and without a government when it is clear that you have spent so little time developing and/or studying the ideas that you aren't even aware of the basic arguments and counter-arguments common in political theory? Answer: Knee-jerk indoctrination. Welcome to religion.

 

[All Else Failed]

If you want to examine the breakdown of dispute resolution and arbitration I suggest you read one of the many books out there on market anarchism, since your views of it (and anarchy in general) have so little relation to reality that I have no desire to continue discussing it with you. Places like Mises.org have plenty of them, or you could argue with the many people on anti-state.com who will be more than happy to belittle you for bothering the 'regs' with such commonplace and ignorant objections.
Why is it that you believe you have such a firm understanding of how society functions with and without a government when it is clear that you have spent so little time developing and/or studying the ideas that you aren't even aware of the basic arguments and counter-arguments common in political theory? Answer: Knee-jerk indoctrination. Welcome to religion.

You're being pretty high and mighty. Just because I'm not as well read in THIS particular subject as you, does not mean you should look down on me.

I'll admit that I am not educated in the field of anarchism, but, I do think anarchism is incompatible with human beings. Small groups of collectives? Yes, since those have existed. Large groups? Nope. Individuals have too many desires and goals to play nicely. Such is human nature.

Oh, and you're a total hypocrit for taking part in society and government and having these views.

 

[Peter Parka]

If you want to examine the breakdown of dispute resolution and arbitration I suggest you read one of the many books out there on market anarchism, since your views of it (and anarchy in general) have so little relation to reality that I have no desire to continue discussing it with you. Places like Mises.org have plenty of them, or you could argue with the many people on anti-state.com who will be more than happy to belittle you for bothering the 'regs' with such commonplace and ignorant objections.

Answer: Knee-jerk indoctrination. Welcome to religion

Hmmm:humm:

Why is it that you believe you have such a firm understanding of how society functions with and without a government when it is clear that you have spent so little time developing and/or studying the ideas that you aren't even aware of the basic arguments and counter-arguments common in political theory?

I could just as easily ask you the same question.:dunno

 

[LiberalVichy]

You weren't even able to summon a competent argument against anarchism, which real political theorists (even, and especially statists) are sophisticated enough to debunk your looney-toons view of the world. Honestly, if you think that's what people are like (a bunch of murdering sociopaths) how the fuck is an invincible unilateral agency of robbery supposed to improve things. It's pure nonsense.

 

[Peter Parka]

Erm, yes i have many times, you just take no notice because you are so full of buzz words to use against the government, stealing, Mafia ect and so full of yourself you are failing to even think about any different arguments people are putting forth.

 

[All Else Failed]

You weren't even able to summon a competent argument against anarchism, which real political theorists (even, and especially statists) are sophisticated enough to debunk your looney-toons view of the world. Honestly, if you think that's what people are like (a bunch of murdering sociopaths) how the fuck is an invincible unilateral agency of robbery supposed to improve things. It's pure nonsense.

What will anarchists do if a country decides to take them over? Collectively run away?

 

[LiberalVichy]

Yeah, just like the USSR would have conquered the US with it's inability to repair vehicles and provide gasoline and ammo?
A wealthy society can defend itself. The less government a society has, the more wealth it has. We might, for example, HIRE someone to defend us from the government thugs. Assuming we aren't vastly outnumbered or recovering from a horrible government-induced economic crash it's ridiculous to think that this would be possible. Also, it's always the GOVERNMENT OF AN AREA that polices an occupied area. You think the Nazis policed Norway? No, the norwegian government did - the Nazis were required to police the Germans.

 

[All Else Failed]

Yeah, just like the USSR would have conquered the US with it's inability to repair vehicles and provide gasoline and ammo?
A wealthy society can defend itself. The less government a society has, the more wealth it has. We might, for example, HIRE someone to defend us from the government thugs. Assuming we aren't vastly outnumbered or recovering from a horrible government-induced economic crash it's ridiculous to think that this would be possible. Also, it's always the GOVERNMENT OF AN AREA that polices an occupied area. You think the Nazis policed Norway? No, the norwegian government did - the Nazis were required to police the Germans.

I disputed this in another thread.


but you're comparing government against government here. I was asking you what an ANARCHIST society would do if lets say, the US moves in and attacks. Plus, hirelings have no loyalty to you, they only go where the money goes, and if one side is paying more, there goes your defenses.

 

[LiberalVichy]

You're being pretty high and mighty. Just because I'm not as well read in THIS particular subject as you, does not mean you should look down on me.

No, I'm making a factual statement: a lack of information is incompatible with the contrariness of your opinion. You don't argue with surgeons with certitude, that kind of behaviour is distinctly religious-taboo in nature.

Oh, and you're a total hypocrit for taking part in society and government and having these views.

I can see absolutely no basis for this statement, oft-repeated though it is. I am taking part in civil society. Government is intruding on me. This is nothing but blaming the victim, if I am robbed and threatened with kidnapping I can hardly be said to be a willfull participant in the matter. The thugs with guns are the intruders, society is not a part of government nor dependent on it but in fact it's antithesis.