Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Divorce Agreement

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 6:34:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest
election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we
tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but
sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of
America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it
on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking
a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can
come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our
respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to
the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our
firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael
Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a
bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them)..

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Martand Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and
illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and
rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to
invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and
war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide
them security..

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but
we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take
every Volkswagon you can find..

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure
you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing,
Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty
your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our
name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded
liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you which one of us will need
whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 2:02:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.

Every -ism is an ideal, and Obama is untrue to even his own rhetoric. People of various ideologies, including anarcho-communism, supported him as opposed to the alternative. How you derive "anarcho-communism" from "not agree to companies", incidentally, is unclear.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 2:10:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 2:02:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.

Every -ism is an ideal, and Obama is untrue to even his own rhetoric. People of various ideologies, including anarcho-communism, supported him as opposed to the alternative. How you derive "anarcho-communism" from "not agree to companies", incidentally, is unclear.

Anarcho-communism involves everyone helping each other to the extent that everyone is equal. Of course, this involves no government so the system can't be corrupted by elites. The only problem is at such a system is impossible unless we move the world population onto desert islands.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 2:46:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 2:10:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/23/2009 2:02:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.

Every -ism is an ideal, and Obama is untrue to even his own rhetoric. People of various ideologies, including anarcho-communism, supported him as opposed to the alternative. How you derive "anarcho-communism" from "not agree to companies", incidentally, is unclear.

Anarcho-communism involves everyone helping each other to the extent that everyone is equal. Of course, this involves no government so the system can't be corrupted by elites. The only problem is at such a system is impossible unless we move the world population onto desert islands.

Considering all that 'reality' and 'self-interest' business, how do you suppose that forcing everyone to create equality is ideal?
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 3:07:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You take the nuclear arsenal, we take the ignition switch etc. etc.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 3:12:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 2:10:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/23/2009 2:02:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.

Every -ism is an ideal, and Obama is untrue to even his own rhetoric. People of various ideologies, including anarcho-communism, supported him as opposed to the alternative. How you derive "anarcho-communism" from "not agree to companies", incidentally, is unclear.

Anarcho-communism involves everyone helping each other to the extent that everyone is equal. Of course, this involves no government so the system can't be corrupted by elites. The only problem is at such a system is impossible unless we move the world population onto desert islands.

Please elaborate. Incidentally, "impossible" is an apt characterization of any pro-government -ism that doesn't ideally include corruption, which includes them all.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 3:12:38 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 2:10:33 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/23/2009 2:02:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:38:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Since when do Obama supporters not agree to companies? I can understand making that an anti-anarcho-communism pact, but working anarcho-communism is ideal.

Every -ism is an ideal, and Obama is untrue to even his own rhetoric. People of various ideologies, including anarcho-communism, supported him as opposed to the alternative. How you derive "anarcho-communism" from "not agree to companies", incidentally, is unclear.

Anarcho-communism involves everyone helping each other to the extent that everyone is equal. Of course, this involves no government so the system can't be corrupted by elites. The only problem is at such a system is impossible unless we move the world population onto desert islands.

Please elaborate. Incidentally, "impossible" is an apt characterization of any pro-government -ism that doesn't ideally include corruption, which includes them all.
What do you mean by "doesn't ideally include corruption?" Perhaps it should read "Doesn't in it's ideal form account for corruption in such a way as to avoid collapse to the system?"

In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Now there is nothing to prevent people from shooting people in anarchy-- except that by doing so they become the new govenment in town.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 7:05:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
RESPONSE:

Dear American conservatives, right-wingers, social regressives, oppressors, hypocrites, and George W. Bush supporters, et al:

Here is a model separation agreement:

We don't like unfair taxes that benefit only the richest people in America, so you can keep them and see what happens; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. This only becomes a problem when the impoverished don't have any money to pump up to the people at the top, meaning your entire system will collapse (eventually). We'll take the liberal judges and the ACLU to ensure our founding father's concept of liberty and to protect the rights of the worker, and you can keep Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. You are, however, responsible for providing your own muzzles when the sound of their voice becomes too obnoxious for even yourselves to bear.

We'll take the capitalism and tax burdens so long as those taxes aren't being used to support a pointless and dangerous war, and the implementation of useless social programs (such as Abstinence Only Sex Education) that do nothing but keep people ignorant and footing the bill for your futile moral crusade. Hypocrites. And I'll have to fight you on Wal-Mart; I thought your people were the refuge for Mom and Pop shops anyway. Nice try.

You can keep your hot, dumb Alaskan hockey moms and we'll take the sexually open and intelligent college girls... who grow up to be sexually knowledgeable and intelligent women with a mind of their own. Rawr. We'll keep the hippes gladly, thank you very much, and enjoy The Beatles and other heathen music while we smoke a J with them every now and then. Meanwhile, you can keep your choir hymns and the constant reminder that your life is meaningless and God wants you to spend your entire life worshiping Him, suffering, and ignoring your own happiness in His name. You hold onto those brainwashed and backwards rednecks and we'll take our CNN latte sipping artists.

You keep your massive military and defense spending (otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex) which promotes fear-mongering and bloodshed; meanwhile, we'll keep the intellectuals (scientists) who actually know how to build the weapons and technology necessary for your endeavors. You can go to war with Iran and Palestine and bear the wrath of global havoc; we'll leave those countries be until/unless they drastically need our help. In the mean time, we'll focus more on protecting our own country than invading others. We'll keep the protesters who actually exercise their right to free speech and to have their opinions heard in a country that tries to consider itself a democracy; you go ahead and keep sucking Israel's proverbial c0ck.

You are also privy to your Judeo-Christian values; meanwhile, our people can value anything they want - be it Islam, Christianity, atheism, or even the wacky Scientology. Our government will have no part in any of it. Also, you don't have to be part of the U.N. if you don't want to. I hope that improves the way other countries in the world see you -- especially after starting wars and picking fights with everyone you don't agree with.

I don't have a problem with you keeping the over-sized SUVs and luxury cars; economic friendly cars are just fine with me. You have fun in your land filled with pollutants and dwindling resources, and we'll provide our citizens with alternative and eco-friendly options to help preserve life and the earth as best as possible for future generations. Don't come crying to us when you're inhaling toxic waste day in and day out. And don't even think about hiring our illegal aliens to work for minimum wage to clean it all up. After all, you seem to be forgetting that it's us liberals who want amnesty (responsibility in the form of tax payment and citizenship) for these people, while you assh0les just bitch about their existence in this country as your CEOs and business owners are the ones that keep hiring them. Silly :)

While history can sometimes be offensive, I deny your right to it; we must live and learn and then move on. It's not just yours, so get over it. The flag isn't either. However you can keep the lies that you wish to pass onto future generations of imbeciles who will grow up to be just like you without a mind of their own. And screw the flag. It's just a piece of cloth with a design on it. I'll have one of the homos here on our side create a new and better look for us; red, white and blue are so 1776 anyway. Would you agree to this?

Sincerely,

Danielle Vinci

Law Student and an American

Ps. Please take Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin with you.
President of DDO
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature. The question is whether corrupt arhistic governments' "answers" to corruption make up for the corruption inherent to hierarchy. In the extreme case of dictatorship, "shooting the corrupt" would amount to suicide, which is why so many dictators have made outrageous fortunes at their peoples' expense.

Now there is nothing to prevent people from shooting people in anarchy-- except that by doing so they become the new govenment in town.

If you think "anarcho-" is a misnomer, that's your business, but ideal anarchism is not so restricted. I recommend reading the literature before commenting on it, even if it gets you kicked out of the Church of Scientology, Objectivism, or whatever the cult is. Granted, anarchists in general and especially anarcho-communists are not as cynical as to expect that corruption and other vices would be as prevalant once their unnatural reward systems were removed. But don't mistake that for turning a blind eye. The prefix of "anarcho-communism" is derived from the Greek "archos", meaning "leader" or "rank". The decision to shoot your "corrupt" needn't come from an authority-figure. It could come from the community as whole, leaving the latter just as anarchistic as it was before the shooting. To many anarcho-communists, the prefix and the root are synonymous, the combination being necessary only because each is so often used incorrectly.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 9:05:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 6:34:56 AM, comoncents wrote:
"DIVORCE AGREEMENT

////////////////////

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you."

Your lot should have Barbara Streisland because you are the ones with the Judeo-Christian values and she is a Jew. And you should take Bernie Madoff as well, he's shining example of corporate impropriety and since he's also a Jew he should fit right in!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 12:09:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature.
That's near enough to unlimited to make it irrelevant to deciing which better limits :0

The question is whether corrupt arhistic
Never heard that tern...

governments' "answers" to corruption make up for the corruption inherent to hierarchy.
What "Corruption inherent to hierarchy?"

In the extreme case of dictatorship, "shooting the corrupt" would amount to suicide, which is why so many dictators have made outrageous fortunes at their peoples' expense.
It's easier to gather people for a revolt against a corrupt dictator than a corrupt elected type and start fresh. Less "We are the government blame ourselves" crap.


Now there is nothing to prevent people from shooting people in anarchy-- except that by doing so they become the new govenment in town.

If you think "anarcho-" is a misnomer, that's your business, but ideal anarchism is not so restricted. I recommend reading the literature before commenting on it, even if it gets you kicked out of the Church of Scientology, Objectivism, or whatever the cult is.
I don't have any formal association to get kicked out of. But I have limited time, which is why I prefer to deal with short, concise, limited arguments, with people I can ask questions of. How do you banish hierarchy while preserving one person killing another? Isn't that the biggest example of your word outdoing theirs there is?

Granted, anarchists in general and especially anarcho-communists are not as cynical as to expect that corruption and other vices would be as prevalant once their unnatural reward systems were removed.
Unnatural reward systems? You mean like the democracies that spread out the burdens of corruption too thin for anyone to want to act on or...?

But don't mistake that for turning a blind eye. The prefix of "anarcho-communism" is derived from the Greek "archos", meaning "leader" or "rank". The decision to shoot your "corrupt" needn't come from an authority-figure.
Any figure who takes it upon themself to shoot is taking up a mantle of authority.

It could come from the community as whole
Humans are not ants. The odds of unanimity are small, and get smaller as the community gets bigger. The closest thing to unanimity I've ever heard of lasting many decisions is a marriage or a polyamorous relationship. If you can find a whole damn group of people who are literally in love with each other, and make your community out of nothing but those, and have it be able to defend itself from the outside world, sure, you can lack hierarchy and a government. Good luck have fun. I prefer to have a plan for dealing with all sorts of people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2009 12:10:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And by the way, that assumes you automatically restrict your definition of community to exclude the fellow getting shot.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 6:43:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 7:05:23 AM, theLwerd wrote:
RESPONSE:

Dear American conservatives, right-wingers, social regressives, oppressors, hypocrites, and George W. Bush supporters, et al:

Here is a model separation agreement:

We don't like unfair taxes that benefit only the richest people in America, so you can keep them and see what happens; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. This only becomes a problem when the impoverished don't have any money to pump up to the people at the top, meaning your entire system will collapse (eventually). We'll take the liberal judges and the ACLU to ensure our founding father's concept of liberty and to protect the rights of the worker, and you can keep Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. You are, however, responsible for providing your own muzzles when the sound of their voice becomes too obnoxious for even yourselves to bear.

We'll take the capitalism and tax burdens so long as those taxes aren't being used to support a pointless and dangerous war, and the implementation of useless social programs (such as Abstinence Only Sex Education) that do nothing but keep people ignorant and footing the bill for your futile moral crusade. Hypocrites. And I'll have to fight you on Wal-Mart; I thought your people were the refuge for Mom and Pop shops anyway. Nice try.

You can keep your hot, dumb Alaskan hockey moms and we'll take the sexually open and intelligent college girls... who grow up to be sexually knowledgeable and intelligent women with a mind of their own. Rawr. We'll keep the hippes gladly, thank you very much, and enjoy The Beatles and other heathen music while we smoke a J with them every now and then. Meanwhile, you can keep your choir hymns and the constant reminder that your life is meaningless and God wants you to spend your entire life worshiping Him, suffering, and ignoring your own happiness in His name. You hold onto those brainwashed and backwards rednecks and we'll take our CNN latte sipping artists.

You keep your massive military and defense spending (otherwise known as the Military Industrial Complex) which promotes fear-mongering and bloodshed; meanwhile, we'll keep the intellectuals (scientists) who actually know how to build the weapons and technology necessary for your endeavors. You can go to war with Iran and Palestine and bear the wrath of global havoc; we'll leave those countries be until/unless they drastically need our help. In the mean time, we'll focus more on protecting our own country than invading others. We'll keep the protesters who actually exercise their right to free speech and to have their opinions heard in a country that tries to consider itself a democracy; you go ahead and keep sucking Israel's proverbial c0ck.

You are also privy to your Judeo-Christian values; meanwhile, our people can value anything they want - be it Islam, Christianity, atheism, or even the wacky Scientology. Our government will have no part in any of it. Also, you don't have to be part of the U.N. if you don't want to. I hope that improves the way other countries in the world see you -- especially after starting wars and picking fights with everyone you don't agree with.

I don't have a problem with you keeping the over-sized SUVs and luxury cars; economic friendly cars are just fine with me. You have fun in your land filled with pollutants and dwindling resources, and we'll provide our citizens with alternative and eco-friendly options to help preserve life and the earth as best as possible for future generations. Don't come crying to us when you're inhaling toxic waste day in and day out. And don't even think about hiring our illegal aliens to work for minimum wage to clean it all up. After all, you seem to be forgetting that it's us liberals who want amnesty (responsibility in the form of tax payment and citizenship) for these people, while you assh0les just bitch about their existence in this country as your CEOs and business owners are the ones that keep hiring them. Silly :)

While history can sometimes be offensive, I deny your right to it; we must live and learn and then move on. It's not just yours, so get over it. The flag isn't either. However you can keep the lies that you wish to pass onto future generations of imbeciles who will grow up to be just like you without a mind of their own. And screw the flag. It's just a piece of cloth with a design on it. I'll have one of the homos here on our side create a new and better look for us; red, white and blue are so 1776 anyway. Would you agree to this?

Sincerely,

Danielle Vinci

Law Student and an American

Ps. Please take Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin with you.

We may be making progress. I think I could agree to most of this.

Let them have their pink flag!
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2009 7:30:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well first off, although I do not classify myself as a liberal, I definately would take the liberal divorce agreement.

We have stuck together since the late 1950's

Except for during the Civil Rights movement, I don't suppose the that conservative side is going to reinstitute segregation by chance?

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms.

Well of course not, you have one side that has basically become the proponents of theocracy (Republicans) and one side that is so bloated by trying to do everything else to suck up all the non-theocratic votes (Democrats) that you have a completely defunct two party system. The problem is the lack of options and an overall uneducated population, not that there are only two possible political views that can never be reconciled.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations"

Fine, I will take them.

You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our: firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You better figure out what tax system you are going to use and quick!

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Martand Wall Street.


Deal, enjoy having your money stolen legally.

We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

That should read hot Alaskan hockey mom... singular. But, since you will get all the farm land there will be plenty of goats.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

Yes, because we see how good invading places that threaten us has worked out. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Somolia etc. Great idea not learning from your mistakes. I will stick with only using the military as a direct defense.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security..

I will stick with Thomas Jefferson on this one:

"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.

Freedom of religion? I will take it.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure
you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing,
Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.


I have an even better deal for you: I will go ahead and throw in every church hymn ever written and all country music. We get all other music written since the 1950s and classical (not that you will care about it anyway).

Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

To state this more honestly: You reserve the right to only acknowledge the parts of history you desire to. We will just go ahead and fill in the rest. America isn't great because everything it has ever done is perfect, America is great because it has learned from its mistakes.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:05:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/24/2009 12:09:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature.
That's near enough to unlimited to make it irrelevant to deciing which better limits :0

Unintelligible. Please revise.

In the extreme case of dictatorship, "shooting the corrupt" would amount to suicide, which is why so many dictators have made outrageous fortunes at their peoples' expense.
It's easier to gather people for a revolt against a corrupt dictator than a corrupt elected type and start fresh. Less "We are the government blame ourselves" crap.

Less peaceful regime change "crap" as well.

Now there is nothing to prevent people from shooting people in anarchy-- except that by doing so they become the new govenment in town.

If you think "anarcho-" is a misnomer, that's your business, but ideal anarchism is not so restricted. I recommend reading the literature before commenting on it, even if it gets you kicked out of the Church of Scientology, Objectivism, or whatever the cult is.
I don't have any formal association to get kicked out of. But I have limited time, which is why I prefer to deal with short, concise, limited arguments, with people I can ask questions of. How do you banish hierarchy while preserving one person killing another? Isn't that the biggest example of your word outdoing theirs there is?

Perhaps, but "hierachy" is not defined "action taken in defiance of some people's wishes". Hierarchy refers to disparity in rank. It wasn't low rank that got our hypothetical corrupt individual killed, it was his being corrupt.

Granted, anarchists in general and especially anarcho-communists are not as cynical as to expect that corruption and other vices would be as prevalant once their unnatural reward systems were removed.
Unnatural reward systems? You mean like the democracies that spread out the burdens of corruption too thin for anyone to want to act on or...?

Unintelligible at the moment. Please rephrase.

But don't mistake that for turning a blind eye. The prefix of "anarcho-communism" is derived from the Greek "archos", meaning "leader" or "rank". The decision to shoot your "corrupt" needn't come from an authority-figure.
Any figure who takes it upon themself to shoot is taking up a mantle of authority.

Only in the sense that people have in common the authority to defend themselves. In the relevant sense, that of rank, such self-defense's being classified as authority would reduce the term "anarchism" to meaninglessness, obviously not the intention of the Anarchists.

Humans are not ants. The odds of unanimity are small, and get smaller as the community gets bigger.

How do you derive "unanimity" from "as a whole"? There are practical reasons to favor decentralization, but, humans being neither snakes nor ants, such decentralization should be moderate.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:08:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/23/2009 6:34:56 AM, comoncents wrote:
"DIVORCE AGREEMENT


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:


We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest
election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we
tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but
sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of
America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it
on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking
a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can
come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our
respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to
the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our
firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael
Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a
bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them)..

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Martand Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and
illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and
rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to
invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and
war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide
them security..

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but
we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take
every Volkswagon you can find..

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure
you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing,
Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty
your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our
name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded
liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you which one of us will need
whose help in 15 years.


Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you."

How easy life becomes when you can just pretend in a ignorant happy delusion that everything good is "Us" and everything bad is "Them".
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 3:43:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 3:05:34 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/24/2009 12:09:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature.
That's near enough to unlimited to make it irrelevant to deciing which better limits :0

Unintelligible. Please revise.
Human nature is obviously something present in all political systems, not just anarcho-communism. The fact that anarcho-communism is not completely unlimited in corruption does not mean it doesn't amount to the same basic thing compared to a system that inputs other limits on corruption in addition to human nature.

It's easier to gather people for a revolt against a corrupt dictator than a corrupt elected type and start fresh. Less "We are the government blame ourselves" crap.

Less peaceful regime change "crap" as well.
Oh? If you have the threat of war, a government may step down and yet actually change. If you don't, is this as likely or will they just step down for someone who has the same problems or worse?

Perhaps, but "hierachy" is not defined "action taken in defiance of some people's wishes". Hierarchy refers to disparity in rank.
Define "Rank."


Granted, anarchists in general and especially anarcho-communists are not as cynical as to expect that corruption and other vices would be as prevalant once their unnatural reward systems were removed.
Unnatural reward systems? You mean like the democracies that spread out the burdens of corruption too thin for anyone to want to act on or...?

Unintelligible at the moment. Please rephrase.
You can't understand that?

In democracies, we have lobbyists who bribe elected officials to get rewards that they care about a lot, but most people care about little because each instance costs only a little per person, so no one act of corruption can be effectively focused on by any counterlobby. You, as an advocate of "democratic anarcho-communism," now have the burden for explaining what unnatural reward system you mean, how your system gets rid of it, and how it's any worse than the one created by the fact of democracy.


Only in the sense that people have in common the authority to defend themselves.
And to determine willy nilly who is defender and who is aggressor? While sometimes such vigilantism is necessary in the face of a bad government, it's also highly chaotic, as people will disagree on these questions and a constant state of war is the result if all have equal authority.

How do you derive "unanimity" from "as a whole"?
There is no other way in which multiple humans can be considered a "whole" in any given situation.

There are practical reasons to favor decentralization, but, humans being neither snakes nor ants, such decentralization should be moderate.
What the hell do snakes have to do with it?
Keep in mind I dont particularly care much about centralization versus decentralization as such (it's irrelevant when your arguments don't depend on people being "a whole"), it's just that unanimity is all but certainly lacking without a highly immoderate amount of the latter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 6:50:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 3:43:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2009 3:05:34 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/24/2009 12:09:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature.
That's near enough to unlimited to make it irrelevant to deciing which better limits :0

Unintelligible. Please revise.
Human nature is obviously something present in all political systems, not just anarcho-communism. The fact that anarcho-communism is not completely unlimited in corruption does not mean it doesn't amount to the same basic thing compared to a system that inputs other limits on corruption in addition to human nature.

You haven't enumerated those "other limits". The existence of hierarchy is not itself a limit, and nothing about the absence of hierarchy encourages corruption.

It's easier to gather people for a revolt against a corrupt dictator than a corrupt elected type and start fresh. Less "We are the government blame ourselves" crap.

Less peaceful regime change "crap" as well.
Oh? If you have the threat of war, a government may step down and yet actually change. If you don't, is this as likely or will they just step down for someone who has the same problems or worse?

Now we're talking about elections and threat of war vs. just elections, as opposed to threat of war vs. elections as before. Obviously, the additional stimulus can only increase the chances of change, though it's not at all clear that the change will be positive. The closest the US, for example, has come to regime change in modern history was when FDR narrowly avoided a fascist coup.

Perhaps, but "hierachy" is not defined "action taken in defiance of some people's wishes". Hierarchy refers to disparity in rank.
Define "Rank."

The dictionary should suffice, but here goes: vertical position in a command structure.

In democracies, we have lobbyists who bribe elected officials to get rewards that they care about a lot

Except for the democratic part, how is that different from capitalism?

You, as an advocate of "democratic anarcho-communism," now have the burden for explaining what unnatural reward system you mean, how your system gets rid of it, and how it's any worse than the one created by the fact of democracy.

It's unclear whom you're quoting. I haven't advocated anarcho-communism in many years, but only defended it against mischaracterization. Your reward system inherent to democracy is equally mysterious. All I've advocated is the incentivization of effort and sacrifice as judged by one's peers as opposed to the value of one's natural ability and inherited wealth and status as judged by those with similar unearned attributes.

Only in the sense that people have in common the authority to defend themselves.
And to determine willy nilly who is defender and who is aggressor? While sometimes such vigilantism is necessary in the face of a bad government, it's also highly chaotic, as people will disagree on these questions and a constant state of war is the result if all have equal authority.

You're obviously not a math whiz. Equal authority does not imply complete authority. A citizen rightfully has more authority than he currently does but far less than, say, the current President. Internally, war should neither increase nor decrease under an egalitarian system. Externally, it should decrease, as there is no military caste in need of justifying its authority. As for the uncertainty as to who is defender and who is aggressor, you name a common problem, not one unique to egalitarianism.

How do you derive "unanimity" from "as a whole"?
There is no other way in which multiple humans can be considered a "whole" in any given situation.

Humans in particular? On what basis do you arrive at such a strange determination? Perhaps "average" is more to your liking?

There are practical reasons to favor decentralization, but, humans being neither snakes nor ants, such decentralization should be moderate.
What the hell do snakes have to do with it?

Snakes are an exceedingly individualistic family, whereas ants are exceedingly collectivistic. Humans and other mammals are in between. In other words, snakes "have to do with it" no less than what ants (which you evidently thought were relevant) do.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2009 9:32:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 3:08:29 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/23/2009 6:34:56 AM, comoncents wrote:
"DIVORCE AGREEMENT


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:


We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest
election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we
tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but
sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of
America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it
on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable
differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking
a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can
come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our
respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both
sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to
the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our
firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael
Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a
bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them)..

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Martand Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and
illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and
rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to
invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and
war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide
them security..

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but
we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take
every Volkswagon you can find..

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure
you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing,
Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty
your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our
name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded
liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you which one of us will need
whose help in 15 years.


Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you."

How easy life becomes when you can just pretend in a ignorant happy delusion that everything good is "Us" and everything bad is "Them".

Yep, i like the rebuttal someone put up to conservatives.
Clever in some way.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2009 9:37:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yep, i like the rebuttal someone put up to conservatives.
Clever in some way.

Except for that CNN part. At least make them take Lou Dobbs! He can help organize the internment camps for illegal immigrants, maybe put the Japanese Americans back in there, too.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 1:09:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 9:32:16 PM, comoncents wrote:
How easy life becomes when you can just pretend in a ignorant happy delusion that everything good is "Us" and everything bad is "Them".

Yep, i like the rebuttal someone put up to conservatives.
Clever in some way.

In what way? I found it to be even more daft.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2009 9:52:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/30/2009 6:50:49 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/30/2009 3:43:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/30/2009 3:05:34 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/24/2009 12:09:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/24/2009 8:23:15 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 9/23/2009 10:11:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In which case most systems of government do have such an answer-- they limit corruption by shooting the corrupt (or imprisoning if they wanna *****foot about it). This is why corruption is not unlimited.

Corruption would not be "unlimited" under any circumstances: it's limited by human nature.
That's near enough to unlimited to make it irrelevant to deciing which better limits :0

Unintelligible. Please revise.
Human nature is obviously something present in all political systems, not just anarcho-communism. The fact that anarcho-communism is not completely unlimited in corruption does not mean it doesn't amount to the same basic thing compared to a system that inputs other limits on corruption in addition to human nature.

You haven't enumerated those "other limits".
Yes I have. Institutional incentives. If one party pays out of their own hard earned funds for something, and they have the power to shoot, they will shoot any who attempt to corrupt it.


Now we're talking about elections and threat of war vs. just elections
No, actually. Nothing says that elections are the only bloodless power transfers :).

The dictionary should suffice, but here goes: vertical position in a command structure.
In other words, your wishes superseding theirs.


In democracies, we have lobbyists who bribe elected officials to get rewards that they care about a lot

Except for the democratic part, how is that different from capitalism?
The government can only spend money it earned by selling services, and so, as it's supply is much more limited, and not as many are likely to revolt over someone getting openly rich off that sort of revenue stream as opposed to a tax revenue stream (since it isn't coming out of their hides without their permission), the high officials now have incentives to prevent corruption so they can keep the money, instead of needing corruption to disguise it and keep a fraction of it.


You, as an advocate of "democratic anarcho-communism," now have the burden for explaining what unnatural reward system you mean, how your system gets rid of it, and how it's any worse than the one created by the fact of democracy.

It's unclear whom you're quoting. I haven't advocated anarcho-communism in many years, but only defended it against mischaracterization.
You sure don't sound like a non-advocate.

All I've advocated is the incentivization of effort and sacrifice as judged by one's peers
Peers don't agree, and we're still back to the punching of walls and the chopping off of one's own limbs unless those peers decide to pretend to be rewarding effort and sacrifice and really be rewarding something else.

And to determine willy nilly who is defender and who is aggressor? While sometimes such vigilantism is necessary in the face of a bad government, it's also highly chaotic, as people will disagree on these questions and a constant state of war is the result if all have equal authority.

You're obviously not a math whiz. Equal authority does not imply complete authority. A citizen rightfully has more authority than he currently does but far less than, say, the current President. Internally, war should neither increase nor decrease under an egalitarian system.
Who stops person A from assaulting person B in egalitarian anarchy? The government does otherwise. If you remove a disincentive to war, why should it not increase?
And authority is something that is infinite unless someone stops it. If no one is strong enough to stop you, your authority is infinite. If they are, and they do, then they have more authority then you.

Externally, it should decrease, as there is no military caste in need of justifying its authority.
And thus no military to stop invaders? That doesn't decrease war, it increase surrender.

As for the uncertainty as to who is defender and who is aggressor, you name a common problem, not one unique to egalitarianism.
If you have a government that names it's standard of determining this, it is bound to stick to it, and open to all to see if it doesn't-- it is accountable, and can be revolted against if it becomes obvious it is not living up to the standard it names or that the standard is not working. If everyone can act on independent determinations, none are accountable, it is impossible to observe the effects of the varying standards as they interfere with each other, and unless everyone happens to agree (which would be a non-unique boon to egalitarianism, and a near impossible circumstance anyway), what you have, is, in fact, a war.

Humans in particular? On what basis do you arrive at such a strange determination? Perhaps "average" is more to your liking?
Humans have independent minds that cannot be joined to one another?
If you're talking about an average, than you simply have a hierachy again-- a group hierarchy, it goes like this: Majority>Minority. Also known as democracy.


There are practical reasons to favor decentralization, but, humans being neither snakes nor ants, such decentralization should be moderate.
What the hell do snakes have to do with it?

Snakes are an exceedingly individualistic family, whereas ants are exceedingly collectivistic. Humans and other mammals are in between. In other words, snakes "have to do with it" no less than what ants (which you evidently thought were relevant) do.
Snakes have big collectivist orgies. What makes them so individualistic?
Humans have something called a mind. And it's a very individual thing :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2009 10:45:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/2/2009 9:52:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yes I have. Institutional incentives. If one party pays out of their own hard earned funds for something, and they have the power to shoot, they will shoot any who attempt to corrupt it.

And there will be many, particularly in a system (capitalism) that encourages selfishness and in which the spoils of corruption (inordinate wealth) raise no suspicion in and of themselves. On the other hand, a system (anarcho-communism) in which corruption affects everyone will have a whole army of people with the "power" and "will" "to shoot" if need be.

No, actually. Nothing says that elections are the only bloodless power transfers :).

They're the only easy ones. Boycotts, strikes, and new competition can entail great risk and sacrifice even where feasible.

In other words, your wishes superseding theirs.

No, that would extend the word to the point of meaninglessness. An Interior Secretary, for example, has more authority than the President in deciding whom the Interior Secretary should marry, but it would be foolish to say the Interior Secretary outranks the President: the decision of whom to marry is governed by a horizontal division of powers only. Left anarchists (those who haven't reified property) believe all personal activity, including economic, should be free of bosses. If I take from an apple tree, in other words, that's no more your business than military policy on homosexuals is the Interior Secretary's business. The various schools of left anarchism (geoism, mutualism, collectivism, communism) translate to different conceptions of what is personal (creations of oneself or sellers thereto, possessions, fruits of labor, labor itself, respectively)

and not as many are likely to revolt over someone getting openly rich off that sort of revenue stream as opposed to a tax revenue stream (since it isn't coming out of their hides without their permission)

I thought you were against taxes and for revolt.

You sure don't sound like a non-advocate.

Of course not. As I say, I'm willing to defend an ideology I don't hold from mischaracterization, something some people aren't willing to do. For example, your "democracy" clearly implies a particular, massive, quirky sort of democracy that, like all contracts, it would be within every individual's rights to unilaterally reject under anarcho-communism. The unnatural reward system I've been talking about is also known as permanent property, which tends to skew rewards toward other property-owners, the aged, and their inheritors. Upon the abolishment of permanent property, people will negotiate with the value of their labor only, subjecting the newly-born or newly-mature to no agreements they didn't sign.

Peers don't agree, and we're still back to the punching of walls and the chopping off of one's own limbs unless those peers decide to pretend to be rewarding effort and sacrifice and really be rewarding something else.

Why anyone but the destitute and disenfranchised would chop off their limbs or punch walls all day for any fraction of social income is unclear. Anyway, how do you suppose such production plans would be finalized? Who would plan to "consume" holes in walls and limbless persons? It would be a waste of credits. That peers don't agree is a problem surmountable by millenia-old arithmetic.

Who stops person A from assaulting person B in egalitarian anarchy? The government does otherwise. If you remove a disincentive to war, why should it not increase?

What actual or desirable government can actually "stop" assault. Governments at best punish the assailants, which any democracy can do directly or otherwise. As you say, one who ignores the rights of others puts his own rights in jeopardy.

And authority is something that is infinite unless someone stops it. If no one is strong enough to stop you, your authority is infinite. If they are, and they do, then they have more authority then you.

As long as you understand that such "authority" is defensive, therefore legitimate, and, regardless, not an example of rank. That the whole is more powerful than any component thereof is a necessity that requires no particular system.

And thus no military to stop invaders? That doesn't decrease war, it increase surrender.

How you derive "no military" from "no military caste" is a mystery.

If you have a government that names it's standard of determining this, it is bound to stick to it, and open to all to see if it doesn't-- it is accountable, and can be revolted against if it becomes obvious it is not living up to the standard it names or that the standard is not working.

If that's the only legitimate reason to revolt, we're in trouble. It's not at all clear that a tyrannical rule is better in the context of a tyrannical "standard".

it is impossible to observe the effects of the varying standards as they interfere with each other, and unless everyone happens to agree (which would be a non-unique boon to egalitarianism, and a near impossible circumstance anyway), what you have, is, in fact, a war.

Why would rational actors risk dying in a war instead of peacefully reconciling the disparate "standards"?

Humans have independent minds that cannot be joined to one another?

No, no more than you can "join" your own various and conflicting desires.

If you're talking about an average, than you simply have a hierachy again-- a group hierarchy, it goes like this: Majority>Minority. Also known as democracy.

...particularly majoritarian democracy, which is preferable to the Minority>Majority hierarchy of at least late-stage capitalism. But your "Majority" and "Minority" are only reductionist reifications of what are only people's ordinal votes on a given issue. One can be in the majority on one such issue and minority in another, and there's no reason to believe they can't negotiate on that basis to arrive at a comprehensive solution that maximizes aggregate utility. People vote for representatives in a similar fashion, such that an elected official can have a minority position that the majority doesn't feel as strongly about, which encourages the minority to give the representative the votes he needs for on an issue said minority doesn't feel strongly about. And there are other ways, less dependent on the number of issues, to empower the minority in a rational manner, such as vote storing and rotation. Where votes are cardinal, as "average" implies, "Majority" and "Minority" are of course meaningless.

There are practical reasons to favor decentralization, but, humans being neither snakes nor ants, such decentralization should be moderate.
What the hell do snakes have to do with it?

Snakes are an exceedingly individualistic family, whereas ants are exceedingly collectivistic. Humans and other mammals are in between. In other words, snakes "have to do with it" no less than what ants (which you evidently thought were relevant) do.
Snakes have big collectivist orgies. What makes them so individualistic?

An orgy requires no altruism whatsoever. What makes them individualistic are their reptilian brains.

Humans have something called a mind. And it's a very individual thing :).

It's somewhat individual, just like more primitive parts of the brain. And like more primitive parts, it also has social function. If you have evidence to the contrary, let me know, but make sure to copyright your findings first.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.