News:

No, we're not mercenaries. We just carry weapons and kill things for the joy of the experience.

Main Menu

ATTN, Von Zwietracht & other libertariantards

Started by The Good Reverend Roger, April 30, 2013, 02:25:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis.  :)

Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.

1.  The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely.  A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.

2.  This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people.  The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.

3.  Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc. 

Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like.  If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.

"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal.  "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.

Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda.  It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.

So the question really is, "What are your goals?"

HAMMER. NAIL. HEAD.

Can I just add that this is a challenge... it's not "YOU'RE WRONG SO YOU MAY NEVER SPEAK HERE AGAIN", but rather, "how well can you go 'Oh, my bad, I'm sorry and let me start over by answering your question'?"
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


P3nT4gR4m

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis.  :)

Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.

1.  The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely.  A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.

2.  This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people.  The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.

3.  Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc. 

Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like.  If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.

"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal.  "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.

Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda.  It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.

So the question really is, "What are your goals?"

The red rag flutters
A herd of bulls charge en masse
Farewell Matador

Would have replied ages ago but got caught up in pretentious haiku bullshit. What were we talking about again?  :oops:

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

von

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Quote from: stelz on May 02, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
I'd like to see your analysis.  :)

Well, Bearman came in and used inaccurate language.

1.  The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely.  A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.

2.  This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people.  The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.

3.  Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc. 

Here's the thing...If someone shows up yelling "LOL, RETARDS", then do whatever you like.  If someone comes in asking a serious question in an expression of interest in the topic, you either A) are interested in talking about it, so you explain the correct terms (ie, COMMUNICATE), and then discuss the topic, or B) You decide that the person is The Other, and you hound them out of the conversation to show to everyone else how ideologically pure you are.

"A" gets people on your side, and increases the pressure exerted toward your goal.  "B" drives away the potential "recruit/convert", causing them to never take the subject seriously again...But at least you get to score points with the people under the blankets with you, as you fart your way to a shinier tomorrow.

Anger doesn't gain converts or further your agenda.  It's "ME ME ME" attention-seeking.

So the question really is, "What are your goals?"
What were we talking about again?  :oops:

the collapse of the icelandic republic in the 13th century? :lulz:

P3nT4gR4m

What happened? Was it climate change? Did it just melt  :?

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Golden Applesauce

I think Somalian pirates out-competed the Vikings with their free market values?  :?
Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.


The Johnny

Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison.  Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich.  We don't even have proper crisis management.  Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.

Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet.  Out of sight, out of mind.  It's pretty horrible.

There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.

Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?

Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?

Seriously.

It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.

Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.

I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.

Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people

We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.

I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.

Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674

Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Yes, fuck arguing amongst ourselves over paltry differences in wording. You need to consider mens rea in these sorts of things. Bearman seemed to have been expressing positive interest in whatever cause you were talking about, but the whole fucking thing turned into a shouting match over whether its ok to call retards "mentally challenged" or "super-duper differently abled"...

I mean, the whole spiel seemed like something moronically silly. I could understand if he'd cone in and been all like "hahaha look at the little extra chromosome potatoes as they do the most debased and useless jobs in society hahaha glad I've got a working brain hahaha"...that would have the mens rea of a dickhole trying to insult a group of people...instead, he said something slightly-less-than 100% PC and got yelled at anyway, regardless of expessing interest in something positive.

I think my comment towards Bearman was decent enough, you then come in, making a reduction of all that was informed to euphemisms, and calling it a "shouting match" and me supposedly walking all over him and dragging him thru the mud.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

The Johnny

Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison.  Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich.  We don't even have proper crisis management.  Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.

Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet.  Out of sight, out of mind.  It's pretty horrible.

There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.

Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?

Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?

Seriously.

It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.

Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.

I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.

Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people

We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.

I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.

Fair enough, i was reacting more to the "hit on the back of the head" comment.

And I even offered an explanation to him on why i reacted and the reasoning behind it. If you notice, my "fuck nomenclature" comment wasnt towards Bear, it was towards you, for overstating things and also making reductions of arguments.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

von

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 02, 2013, 09:23:09 PM
What happened? Was it climate change? Did it just melt  :?

What actually happened:

The regional lords/mayors/judges/chieftains called the Godhar formed relationships with their constituents based on whether or not a given free man decided to support them based on the services offered. In the beginning, this made out for a situation where one Godhi's supporter could live next door to another Godhi's supporter, and this meant that no single Godhi controlled any given geographic region, and thus power was evenly distributed and was difficult to seize in its entirety.
Eventually, this broke down in the 1200s as several godhar began to consolidate power over geographic regions -- this led to warfare between geographically organised factions headed by various godhar. The losing godhar decided to appeal to king haakon of norway and pledge their fealty to him in return for defeating their rivals and ending the civil war.
Haakon did this, and in the late 1200's, the icelandic althing (parliament, kinda), consisting of the remaining godhar, signed a contract with haakon which essentially made iceland a norwegian puppet state -- it remained such through the kalmar union, transferred to danish hands and didn't see independance again until the 20th century.

What a libertarian/norse heathen will say happened:

pretty much everything I mentioned above, except that this group will blame the catholic church for introducing graduated income taxes in the form of tithes. To these people, the godhar who owned the lands upon which churches were built were able to consolidate regional power because they were receiving money without providing competitive services, as it was before christendom.

The asatruar will focus on how jesus caused the problem -- the libertarian will focus on the taxes jesus brought with him.

What a non-libertarian will tell you:

again, same as section 1, but the blame will rest on the inherent flaws of decentralisation, the tendancy for monopolies to form in the wild, etc.






von

Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 11:02:05 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 10:47:55 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on May 02, 2013, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 02, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 11:15:57 PM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on May 01, 2013, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 30, 2013, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
Here, "prevention" means we throw people in prison.  Psychologically speaking, it's non-existent for anyone other than the rich.  We don't even have proper crisis management.  Happy pills, back under your bridge, thank you for your time.

Consider all the school shootings and local bombings a result of a deficient mental health system. Well, maybe thats a bit of a generalization, but i think its a big chunk of the reason.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 10:21:52 PM
I think it's because the social stigma of mental illness makes it really convenient to shove those "useless eaters" under the carpet.  Out of sight, out of mind.  It's pretty horrible.

There's some initiatives to create Radio with people with psychiatric conditions, namely, Radio Colifata, Radio Podemos Volar, Radio Vilar de Voz; its very few of them, but what they attempt to do is create social presence and voice, to counteract discrimination, exclusion and stigma. I work in one of those types of initiatives and it seems to be a net positive on the patients. This is kind of the social aspects of treatment that can be done.

Is this the program where people who are mentally challenged, or were hit on the back of the head via accident; are trained to do simple tasks so they can try to fit into society, or live a some what normal life?

Dude, are you trying to minimise the stigma of mental illness and learning difficulties?

Seriously.

It's a simple question.
There's some program out that helps people do simple things so they don't feel left out, or shunned. Simple things such as emptying trash, and tying things together. A few unions are also paying them a living wage.

Look, i got the same vibe from you as Pixie, but i suppose we can assume you are simply uneducated and therefore use irritating labels to adress them.

I dont even know what "mentally challenged" means to you, i suppose you mean people with low IQs and suffer from retardation? As for "hit in the back of the head" is bordering on asshole, its a very crude expression, its appropiate term is neurological damage.

Having said that: psychiatric patients =/= people with retardation =/= neurologically damaged people

We attempt for social reintegration, but that is too much to ask for in the short-term for some of them.

I call people with down syndrome, and/or people with some sort of inherit retardation "mentally challenged". I do it out of courtesy to those people who might be sensitive to those words. I didn't know what to call people who accidentally suffered head trauma, and can't do minimal tasks.

Isnt it obvious? The proper terminology for referring to both of these groups of people are respectively:
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #47
And
Non-confrontational and/or non-exclusive euphemism #674

Right, fuck appropiate nomenclature, because they are all the same thing: mentally challenged. Might as well call them useless or disabled, right?
Yes, fuck arguing amongst ourselves over paltry differences in wording. You need to consider mens rea in these sorts of things. Bearman seemed to have been expressing positive interest in whatever cause you were talking about, but the whole fucking thing turned into a shouting match over whether its ok to call retards "mentally challenged" or "super-duper differently abled"...

I mean, the whole spiel seemed like something moronically silly. I could understand if he'd cone in and been all like "hahaha look at the little extra chromosome potatoes as they do the most debased and useless jobs in society hahaha glad I've got a working brain hahaha"...that would have the mens rea of a dickhole trying to insult a group of people...instead, he said something slightly-less-than 100% PC and got yelled at anyway, regardless of expessing interest in something positive.

I think my comment towards Bearman was decent enough, you then come in, making a reduction of all that was informed to euphemisms, and calling it a "shouting match" and me supposedly walking all over him and dragging him thru the mud.

Sorry, I somewhat over reacted. Seeing a huge quote box where most of the replies aren't about "the topic at hand" but are moreso geared towards PC woo kinda tipped me over...


The Johnny

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM

1.  The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely.  A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.

2.  This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people.  The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.

3.  Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc. 

1. I'll admit that my response was made partly in anger, but i did try to clarify terms, and i did tell him about us trying to work for social reintegration.

So i dont think im fully responsible for the shift in the conversation, unfortunate as it is.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

von

Quote from: The Johnny on May 02, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 02, 2013, 05:11:25 PM

1.  The reaction to this was anger, which has the effect of changing the subject to "fuck you; no, fuck YOU", even if it was said politely.  A more productive response would have been a clarification of terms; Bearman's follow up response clearly stated that he was interested in what was being done, and supported it, but the response was, again, anger.

2.  This resulted in the topic changing to that of what is and is not an acceptable description of the people in question, rather than what is being done for said people.  The original topic is gone, and therefore all communication about it has ceased, supplanted by an agenda-driven refocus on what is and is not permitted in conversation.

3.  Nobody is interested in communicating about what is being done for people with mental issues, etc. 

1. I'll admit that my response was made partly in anger, but i did try to clarify terms, and i did tell him about us trying to work for social reintegration.

So i dont think im fully responsible for the shift in the conversation, unfortunate as it is.

Of course you're not fully responsible for the conversation...conversations are two way things. You just happened to be the last post in a string of posts that I happened to aim my argument-cannon at and blast away.

I think things worked out quite well -- everyone now has a bigger vocabulary in terms of how to address those with mental difficulties, and the subject is coming to a well rounded fruitition. Everybody argued, and now everybody wins!

Now then, I wasn't particularly vested in the conversation you guys were having about programs for social integration of the mentally afflicted, so i'll allow the lot of you to continue there and keep up my fanciful rants about viking politics  :p

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Pergamos on May 01, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
Quote from: Pixie on May 01, 2013, 01:08:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 01, 2013, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 30, 2013, 11:46:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 30, 2013, 05:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on April 30, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

I don't think so.  Anarcho means no government.  Anarcho-socialist usually means that there's no government and things are controlled by groups on the local level.  Unions and so forth.  Nobody owns anything privately, things are owned by the people in general and used and taken care of by individuals.

Personally I prefer mutualism, which allows for personal property but not rent seeking, but that also doesn't make room for a government.  If you are in favor of a government, including a benign government that makes surepeople are fed and housed and not being raped or stolen from but otherwise stays out of the way, then you are not an Anarchist.

Not to be pendantic, but Anarchist means no Archons (the leaders of old Greek city-states). The initial concept behind anarchism is not "No government" but rather "No centralized government". If you look at the writings of guys like Lysander Spooner and Joseph Proudhon, they weren't pushing for no law or no government, but rather systems where the individual members/citizens voluntarily agreed to a local system of law. IN modern "Anarchist" terms, well its a mess of libertarian/socialism/No Government/Let's Be Wild and a dash of 8-year old "You Can't tell me what to do" thinking.

In "No Treason" Spooner said this:

Quote...two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.

The initial focus of Anarchism was that any form of government must rest on full voluntary consent of the governed. Spooner was an abolitionist, yet he was horrified by the Civil War, because it enforced the position that the US was no longer a nation of consent, but rather a nation where force ruled. He saw the right of States to secede as analogues to the right of a slave to be free of his master.

It's the Master bit that Anarchism was originally designed to eschew, not all forms of governance and law. 
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Ben Shapiro


Telarus

Tosk is totally right, and totally aware that the word has been co-opted.
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!