Based on the last 20 minutes, I can say with authority...

[Cain]

I sometimes wonder if all the intelligent anarchists (IOZ and Kevin Carson aside) died in the 19th century or something.

Because I'm fairly sure Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon did not go around accosting people about how they are all, like, tools of the machine, man and generally burping out slogans with all the depth and import of a Youtube comment.

It's funnier in person, Cain.  He gets all wound up and bounces up and down.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean.  Because our school teaches a politics class, which is utterly useless (much as you'd expect), and some people know I have a history/poli sci background, I occasionally have to put up with "[retarded idea] is really awesome, don't you think, sir?"  Whereupon I have to disabuse them of their faulty worldview.

Anarchism hasn't come up yet, but when it does it's definitely going to be more "anarchy is your afternoon sports class for all eternity" and less "Go read Demanding the Impossible and get back to me on that."

[Cain]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd Ron Paul.

We have the trifecta.

You need to accuse him of being a closet statist, complicit in the system he decries.

[Doktor Howl]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd Ron Paul.

We have the trifecta.

You need to accuse him of being a closet statist, complicit in the system he decries.

Gonna do just that.

BRB.

[Doktor Howl]

On Nibiru:

"What, do you think I'm some sort of conspiracy freak?"

On being a closet statist:

"Ron Paul is a friend to anarchists, because he supports property rights."   <--- No shit.  He said that.

[Cain]

 

Ask him which is more important - dismantling the state (which, accepting the anarchist premise, is the greatest threat to property rights) or picking a benevolent overlord to make sure the state is a little bit less bad than normal, for a short time.

[Cain]

I've just realised I'm getting into an argument by proxy, here.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

"Ron Paul is a friend to anarchists, because he supports property rights."   <--- No shit.  He said that.

HUH?!

Ask him which is more important - dismantling the state (which, accepting the anarchist premise, is the greatest threat to property rights) or picking a benevolent overlord to make sure the state is a little bit less bad than normal, for a short time.

This thread is highly amusing.

[Freeky]

Do you actually laugh in these people's faces when you talk to them, Dok?  It seems like it would be almost impossible not to.

Also, "What, do you think I'm some kind of conspiracy freak?"  THE IRONY!

[Doktor Howl]

I've just realised I'm getting into an argument by proxy, here.

I prefer to think of it as trans-Atlantic badger-baiting.

[Doktor Howl]

Do you actually laugh in these people's faces when you talk to them, Dok?

Yes.  I don't want to sprain anything.

[Telarus]

OMFGoddess.....   

[Freeky]

Do you actually laugh in these people's faces when you talk to them, Dok?

Yes.  I don't want to sprain anything.

Not laughing would probably require Olympic level training.

[Doktor Howl]

Ask him which is more important - dismantling the state (which, accepting the anarchist premise, is the greatest threat to property rights) or picking a benevolent overlord to make sure the state is a little bit less bad than normal, for a short time.

Current situation --->  Free market libertarianism¹ --->  Anarchy



¹  He added that we have to get rid of banks and corporations first, though.

[Cain]

So...reduce the state to its most coercive elements (Libertarians argue for the existence of armies and police officers...in a public or private/mixed capacity) and then the state will undo itself.

This seems suspiciously similar to Leninism: create a coercive, centralized state in the hands of a few key people, which will lead to the state withering away.  Somehow.  Don't question it, it's science historical necessity.

[Doktor Howl]

So...reduce the state to its most coercive elements (Libertarians argue for the existence of armies and police officers...in a public or private/mixed capacity) and then the state will undo itself.

This seems suspiciously similar to Leninism: create a coercive, centralized state in the hands of a few key people, which will lead to the state withering away.  Somehow.  Don't question it, it's science historical necessity.

Oh, there's no logic to this kid.  He's happy just to drive people into homicidal rages in the lunch room.  He thinks it's because he's blowing their minds...In actuality, it's because he's a lunatic disrupting their lunch hour.