Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'm sorry Anarchists, but...

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was once one of you, but no longer.

While I will continue to dream of the day when a massive pandemic wipes out enough of humanity to allow any sort of Anarchist society to be implimented, failing that I know it could never possibly work and thus will no longer count myself among your ranks.

NEVER FEAR. I haven't become a right-wing capitalist!
The problem seems to be that some anarchists are convinced that we can have a society without leaders and it simply isn't possible. Some humans need someone to follow. Some people are born to lead.

As it is, I prefer Democracy, where the people elect a leader and they make important choices. The problem isn't Democracy and having a leader. It's Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism don't correlate.
In a Demoncratic society, the only people with more say should be those that are elected. Everyone else should have equal say on issues. Do you think I have the same political pull as Bill Gates?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
wush
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 11:59:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
you were an anarchist?
BE HAPPY!! =D
you are beautiful, don't let anyone tell you you're not
you're 100X more beautiful when you smile, not that you need it
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 12:10:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I was once one of you, but no longer.

While I will continue to dream of the day when a massive pandemic wipes out enough of humanity to allow any sort of Anarchist society to be implimented,

I don't dream of any such thing.

NEVER FEAR. I haven't become a right-wing capitalist!
The problem seems to be that some anarchists are convinced that we can have a society without leaders and it simply isn't possible. Some humans need someone to follow. Some people are born to lead.

I think there is confusion over terms. Anarchists are against authority and rulers, not necessarily leaders. The team captain of a sports team is like a leader which such a concept does not violate any principle of Anarchy.

As it is, I prefer Democracy,

Fascism disguised as freedom.

where the people elect a leader and they make important choices.

Well, we don't really have that do we (well at least in the US). We have a plutocratic kleptocracy.

The problem isn't Democracy and having a leader.

Yes it is.

It's Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism don't correlate.

I don't see any contradiction there.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
wush
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 12:45:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:44:24 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm sorry tv, but you never really seemed like an Anarchist.

i second that
BE HAPPY!! =D
you are beautiful, don't let anyone tell you you're not
you're 100X more beautiful when you smile, not that you need it
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:28:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:45:20 AM, wush wrote:
At 9/30/2010 12:44:24 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm sorry tv, but you never really seemed like an Anarchist.

i second that

Who the fvck are you?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
wush
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:36:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
sorry Theravada Buddhist and agnostics i am now Pastafarian
BE HAPPY!! =D
you are beautiful, don't let anyone tell you you're not
you're 100X more beautiful when you smile, not that you need it
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:55:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:10:30 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think there is confusion over terms. Anarchists are against authority and rulers, not necessarily leaders. The team captain of a sports team is like a leader which such a concept does not violate any principle of Anarchy.

What is a leader without authority? Nothing. A mock leader.
I'm right there with you about any kind of ruler.

Fascism disguised as freedom.

Hardly. Just because the corrupt joke for a system we have in place now is called 'Democracy' doesn't tarnish my ideals about a true democratic system.

where the people elect a leader and they make important choices.

Well, we don't really have that do we (well at least in the US). We have a plutocratic kleptocracy.

I never said we did have true democracy, please don't put words in my mouth. I completely agree with you.

The problem isn't Democracy and having a leader.

Yes it is.

And tell me your better solution again? It is the anarchists of this site with their idealistic bullsh!t that has turned me off it.
If you remove authority from the picture, some people who otherwise wouldn't have commited crimes will begin to commit crimes. Some people who are already commiting crimes will continue to commit crimes.
Sure, maybe some criminals will no longer need to commit crimes but since you're essentially removing any kind of policing from the system, people who choose to commit crimes will get exponentially worse because they will no longer have any fear of being caught.

It's Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism don't correlate.

I don't see any contradiction there.

And I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean.

At 9/30/2010 12:44:24 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm sorry tv, but you never really seemed like an Anarchist.

I like punk rock and the works of Bakunin just as much as I ever did. When you're looking for a label and you don't consider any of the other political stance choices on this site to suit you, Anarchist seems to fit very well.
The reality of it is the more Anarchist scenarios I see suggested, the more I realised how ridiculous it was.
I came here hoping to learn more about Anarchy. I did.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 7:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:44:24 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm sorry tv, but you never really seemed like a True Scotsman.

Lol. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 8:12:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In a Demoncratic society, the only people with more say should be those that are elected. Everyone else should have equal say on issues. Do you think I have the same political pull as Bill Gates?
You have the same share of government force-- 1 vote. What he has is MONEY, which he earned, and reputation, which can't be equalized whether he earned it or not because that would require ****ing mind control, which is both EVIL and IMPOSSIBLE (except in the crude manner of "kill everyone, no more minds exist, no more reputation exists.").
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 11:50:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I was once one of you, but no longer.


I suspect most anarchists grow out of it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:22:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem seems to be that some anarchists are convinced that we can have a society without leaders and it simply isn't possible. Some humans need someone to follow. Some people are born to lead.:

Welcome to adulthood! :)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:23:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 11:50:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I was once one of you, but no longer.


I suspect most anarchists grow out of it.

It's a rite of passage. You know you're an adult as soon as you outgrow anarchism. ;)

lol
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:27:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think there is confusion over terms. Anarchists are against authority and rulers, not necessarily leaders.:

I love semantics.

The team captain of a sports team is like a leader which such a concept does not violate any principle of Anarchy.:

What about the coach?

As it is, I prefer Democracy,

Fascism disguised as freedom.:

And anarchism is chaos dressed up as order. It's disunity dressed up as cohesion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 3:34:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 3:27:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think there is confusion over terms. Anarchists are against authority and rulers, not necessarily leaders.:

I love semantics.

That's not semantics at all. There's a fine line between rulers and authority vs. leaders and I demonstrated as such.

If it were merely semantics, the difference between the words wouldn't make a difference.

The team captain of a sports team is like a leader which such a concept does not violate any principle of Anarchy.:

What about the coach?

...and what about the coach?

As it is, I prefer Democracy,

Fascism disguised as freedom.

And anarchism is chaos dressed up as order.

False. Government oppression is disorder, so by definition, Anarchism lacks disorder.

It's disunity dressed up as cohesion.

Disunity? Yes, because we are individuals.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:02:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I love semantics.

That's not semantics at all. There's a fine line between rulers and authority vs. leaders and I demonstrated as such.:

I'd love to see this in practice since a leader without authority is functionally useless. The devil's in the details, Geo, and you never seem to think very far passed the theoretical stage before someone completely debunks your pet theories.

Like Innomen beautifully stated, it's intellectual cotton candy and gum drops. You have created this false world in your mind where reality plays no role. You're so in love with the fantasy that you either don't care about the reality, or don't bother to truly contemplate what it would take for your fantasies to be realities.

If it were merely semantics, the difference between the words wouldn't make a difference.:

You are aware of synonyms, are you not?

The team captain of a sports team is like a leader which such a concept does not violate any principle of Anarchy.:

What about the coach?

...and what about the coach?:

Self-explanatory. The coach tells the team what to do, he calls the shots. Do coaches therefore violate your penchant for anarchism?

False. Government oppression is disorder, so by definition, Anarchism lacks disorder.:

So you really think that government's are the only people who create disorder? You speak of the government as if it were this all-oppressive entity comprised entirely by unfeeling robots. They're people, Geo, just like the one's who live in common society. People are the common denominator in the oppression of people, not government itself. What makes government's particularly dangerous (from a libertarian perspective) is their ability to attempt to do good (have good intentions) but create policies of inefficiency that stifle, not help. They also have the ability, because of their position, to abuse their powers. There is an inherent danger in that. But more compelling is that ANYONE is capable of the same thing, especially in a society that lacks codified laws.

In anarchism, the only truly applicable law is kill or be killed. Everything else is just minor details.

You seem to be beholden to this absurd notion that once governments dissolve, everyone is going to skip off in to the sunset holding hands through a meadow of dandelions, and that everyone will become as placid as Hindu cows. Sorry, but if you believe that, I've got some awesome ocean front property to show you in Afghanistan.

Disunity? Yes, because we are individuals?

The premise doesn't follow. You say you advocate leaders, just not leaders with authority (which is functionally useless) It's like saying that you want tennis players as long as they don't use tennis balls or rackets.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:10:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:02:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
So you really think that government's are the only people who create disorder? You speak of the government as if it were this all-oppressive entity comprised entirely by unfeeling robots. They're people, Geo, just like the one's who live in common society. People are the common denominator in the oppression of people, not government itself. What makes government's particularly dangerous (from a libertarian perspective) is their ability to attempt to do good (have good intentions) but create policies of inefficiency that stifle, not help. They also have the ability, because of their position, to abuse their powers. There is an inherent danger in that. But more compelling is that ANYONE is capable of the same thing, especially in a society that lacks codified laws.

I've asked you before for a definition of government. You failed to give one that didn't also include wal-mart and pizza hut. It's the reason why you're having this friction with geo.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:30:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've asked you before for a definition of government. You failed to give one that didn't also include wal-mart and pizza hut. It's the reason why you're having this friction with geo.:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

I don't see the relevance.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:39:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:02:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I love semantics.

That's not semantics at all. There's a fine line between rulers and authority vs. leaders and I demonstrated as such.:

I'd love to see this in practice since a leader without authority is functionally useless. The devil's in the details, Geo, and you never seem to think very far passed the theoretical stage before someone completely debunks your pet theories.

Like Innomen beautifully stated, it's intellectual cotton candy and gum drops. You have created this false world in your mind where reality plays no role. You're so in love with the fantasy that you either don't care about the reality, or don't bother to truly contemplate what it would take for your fantasies to be realities.

I don't have any fantasies nor do I envision future changes in society. My Anarchism applies to me right here and right now, not some time in the future. My Anarchism is the relationship between me and the state/authority and my attitude towards it. I don't consent willingly to the current authority and I practice my Anarchist ideals everyday in life.

...and what about the coach?:

Self-explanatory. The coach tells the team what to do, he calls the shots. Do coaches therefore violate your penchant for anarchism?

False. The players consent to play by the coaches rules by joining the team. If the player doesn't stay in line with the coaches plans, the coach DOES NOT shoot, arrest, imprison, or steal money from the player!

Why don't you get that?

My relationship between me and the government is not consentual like it is between a player and a coach. I don't consent to be arrested for smoking weed, I don't consent to being tazed by cops for not obeying their authority!

A coach is a leader and does not engage in initiatory coercion. The government is authority and DOES engage in initiatory coercion.


False. Government oppression is disorder, so by definition, Anarchism lacks disorder.:

So you really think that government's are the only people who create disorder? You speak of the government as if it were this all-oppressive entity comprised entirely by unfeeling robots. They're people, Geo, just like the one's who live in common society.

You think I don't know that? I work for the government, obviously I know.

People are the common denominator in the oppression of people, not government itself.

Yes, I acknowledge that and also have a problem with that as well. You think I'm only against government oppression? No, I'm against ALL authority.

What makes government's particularly dangerous (from a libertarian perspective) is their ability to attempt to do good (have good intentions) but create policies of inefficiency that stifle, not help. They also have the ability, because of their position, to abuse their powers. There is an inherent danger in that. But more compelling is that ANYONE is capable of the same thing, especially in a society that lacks codified laws.

Anyone is capable as the government? Then why don't I have the capability to arrest cops? The fact is, government is power, so no, not "anyone" is capable of the same thing because not just anyone has the power and authority of government!

In anarchism, the only truly applicable law is kill or be killed. Everything else is just minor details.

False. In Anarchism, there is no initiatory coercion and thus killing would violate the primary principles of Anarchism.

Also, is that how you would act personally? Take away authority and you personally would go around killing?? That's sad.

You seem to be beholden to this absurd notion that once governments dissolve, everyone is going to skip off in to the sunset holding hands through a meadow of dandelions, and that everyone will become as placid as Hindu cows.

Haven't you noticed that most all wars are declared by government (and in the case of the U.S., we don't even declare war, we just go into weaker countries and start killing people).

Disunity? Yes, because we are individuals?

The premise doesn't follow. You say you advocate leaders, just not leaders with authority (which is functionally useless) It's like saying that you want tennis players as long as they don't use tennis balls or rackets.

What is authority without FORCE? Think about it. Leaders, such as coaches, don't have authority because they don't initiate force.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:41:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. "

"the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government. "

"the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration. "

A church leader can fit all these definitions. Chesapeake energy's compound in Oklahoma fits these definitions. They are not governments.

"a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government. "

Circular - defining government as the head of a state. So what is a state?

"
6.
direction; control; management; rule: the government of one's conduct. "

The moderators on internet forums are not governments.

"a district governed; province."

In Somalia, Xeer law protects the rights of Clan members within a geographic area. And yet Somalia is in Anarchy?!?!

Your reliance on dictionary definitions doesn't fly. These people are not specialists trying to figure out the clearest meaning of words. They are only documenting how words are used. Everyone uses "government" as a loaded term to simultaneously mean "these institutions which are called governments" and "that which provides law and order". But if there are all these OTHER institutions which provide law and order that are not routinely called governments, then the mainstream or dictionary definition of government has to be wrong.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:46:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 3:23:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/30/2010 11:50:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I was once one of you, but no longer.


I suspect most anarchists grow out of it.

It's a rite of passage. You know you're an adult as soon as you outgrow anarchism. ;)

lol

And you know you are fully conditioned and have lost your moral will when you embrace capitalism.
no comment
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:47:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 11:51:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I was once one of you, but no longer.

While I will continue to dream of the day when a massive pandemic wipes out enough of humanity to allow any sort of Anarchist society to be implimented, failing that I know it could never possibly work and thus will no longer count myself among your ranks.

NEVER FEAR. I haven't become a right-wing capitalist!
The problem seems to be that some anarchists are convinced that we can have a society without leaders and it simply isn't possible. Some humans need someone to follow. Some people are born to lead.

As it is, I prefer Democracy, where the people elect a leader and they make important choices. The problem isn't Democracy and having a leader. It's Capitalism. Democracy and Capitalism don't correlate.
In a Demoncratic society, the only people with more say should be those that are elected. Everyone else should have equal say on issues. Do you think I have the same political pull as Bill Gates?

I'm an anarchist, once the anarchy is complete, my plan of government is to set up a sort of communist, direct democracy. There is no supreme ruler, but a...organizer elected directly by the people.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:48:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 12:50:11 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
A bit late, but might as well be said...

Sorry Socialists, but I'm no longer a Socialist.

when were you a socialist?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:49:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:36:26 AM, wush wrote:
sorry Theravada Buddhist and agnostics i am now Pastafarian

now we can both celebrate holiday.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:49:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:48:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Anarchist armies without hierarchy must be complete crap, then. Without the power of discipline, organization would be a f*cking miracle.

Corrected.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:50:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:48:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Anarchist armies must be complete crap, then. Without the power of discipline, organization would be a f*cking miracle.

Anarchist armies would be a mob of people, no order, like a tidal wave.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:47:26 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
I'm an anarchist, once the anarchy is complete, my plan of government is to set up a sort of communist, direct democracy. There is no supreme ruler, but a...organizer elected directly by the people.

You aren't really an anarchist if you just want to replace the current government with a different one. To be an anarchist, you'd have to advocate no government at all, not just no longer having the current government.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2010 4:52:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/30/2010 4:49:49 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/30/2010 4:48:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Anarchist armies without hierarchy must be complete crap, then. Without the power of discipline, organization would be a f*cking miracle.

Corrected.

How, pray tell, does an army in an anarchist society function?