Okay, so I was reading the political quotes thread, and for a while it jacked into an anarchism debate.
Personally, I identify as an anarchist, but I side more with what Ratatosk seemed to be talking about in terms of an interpretation of the terms.
I'd argue that individualist anarchism (or rational anarchism) is the preference for a model based on cause and effect, rather than based on legislation: i.e., it is theoretically compatible with any government because it ignores the rhetoric of the government and thinks in terms of 'if I do this, I might get arrested; is it worth it?' or 'if I do this, I might get more little green pieces of paper; is it worth it?'
Anyway, my interpretation isn't a be-all-end-all, but using it as a metric allows for a rational discussion whereas the traditional (i.e., television) perception of anarchy doesn't appear to, since the I-KEEL-YOU argument is too strong.
Keep in mind that I still *can* kill you. I just probably won't, since it is unlikely that it will be awesome enough to make life imprisonment with no parole sound like a good deal.
if you like rational anarchy here is a site you can look at http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
Thanks. That essay elucidates my view, more or less ;-).
Is it? I didn't think I was keeping it a secret.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 17, 2009, 10:32:29 PM
Is it?
No. It totally fits your level of thinking. <--- not a compliment.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 17, 2009, 10:32:29 PM
Is it?
No. It totally fits your level of thinking. <--- not a compliment.
As opposed to you not thinking and just spouting?
:lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 17, 2009, 10:32:29 PM
Is it?
No. It totally fits your level of thinking. <--- not a compliment.
As opposed to you not thinking and just spouting?
:lulz:
Yes, that's correct. We Holy Men™ are not
supposed to think. We just act as a conduit for the Gods. Incidentally, they're all monkeys, too.
Well, if anyone wants to point out where my reasoning is flawed here, be my guest. It is easy to oppose the abolition of government; it is far harder to poke holes in anarchy as it exists.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 18, 2009, 07:30:29 PM
Well, if anyone wants to point out where my reasoning is flawed here, be my guest.
Actually, I think I'll just keep fucking with you.
TGRR,
Knows that anyone can be anything, if you just make up new definitions for words.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:25:42 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:10:21 PM
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 17, 2009, 10:32:29 PM
Is it?
No. It totally fits your level of thinking. <--- not a compliment.
As opposed to you not thinking and just spouting?
:lulz:
Yes, that's correct. We Holy Men™ are not supposed to think. We just act as a conduit for the Gods. Incidentally, they're all monkeys, too.
Ha!
Well, my argument is gonna start like this:
1. Either an individual believes that the government has a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life, or an individual believes that the government does not have a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life.
2a. If an individual believes the former then breaking any law is a failure on their part to stay within their moral views.
2b. If an individual believes the latter then they are an anarchist on some level somewhere between a rational anarchist, an Anarcho-communist, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-syndicatist (I don't think thats thr right conjugation)... and the half dozen or so other philosophies that fall within the generic idea of self-governing.
As you have often made noises which don't sound like a bleating sheep willing to follow every law laid down by the government... then you are, at least, in the same philosophical boat as Enki... the only difference being that Enki admits it and you don't.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:51:05 PM
1. Either an individual believes that the government has a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life, or an individual believes that the government does not have a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life.
False dilemma. There are intermediary conditions.
According to Ratatok's potted history of political thought there, liberalism, socialism, communism and various forms of constitutionalism apparently do not exist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 07:51:05 PM
1. Either an individual believes that the government has a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life, or an individual believes that the government does not have a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life.
False dilemma. There are intermediary conditions.
I thought Holy men didn't think? :wink:
Even if you believe that "sometimes" the government has a moral right to tell you what to do... it still falls within the position of Rational Anarchy. As soon as you recognize that you the individual, MUST decide for themselves if they Will or Will Not obey a law (and that Not obeying a law, isn't necessarily bad/wrong... but there may be consequences) you have stepped into the kidde pool of rational anarchism.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 07:59:12 PM
According to Ratatok's potted history of political thought there, liberalism, socialism, communism and various forms of constitutionalism apparently do not exist.
Truth. There is only total state worship, or absolute anarchy.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 08:00:04 PM
I thought Holy men didn't think? :wink:
We don't. I was channeling Benjamin Franklin.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 08:00:04 PM
Even if you believe that "sometimes" the government has a moral right to tell you what to do... it still falls within the position of Rational Anarchy. As soon as you recognize that you the individual, MUST decide for themselves if they Will or Will Not obey a law (and that Not obeying a law, isn't necessarily bad/wrong... but there may be consequences) you have stepped into the kidde pool of rational anarchism.
So, basically, you just made up a new word for Jeffersonianism.
Except liberals were around 200 years before "rational anarchism" was ever written about, talking about the divide between private and public life. Or are you now claiming all philosophies which include a limit on government actions are now rational anarchism? Because that is one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard.
The gradiation of association of morality with government is, imo, not meaningful to the argument. You do things, or you don't do things; I'm not arguing from the point of view of whether or not you regret things after you have done them.
I'm not claiming that government doesn't exist. I am claiming that government is a name given to one of a number of groups, all of whom try to get people to do things by rewarding or punishing them, and that it doesn't particularly matter whether or not you apply the term 'government' to it, because the carrot/stick treatment is the carrot/stick treatment regardless of its source.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 18, 2009, 08:03:03 PM
I'm not claiming that government doesn't exist.
That was your first mistake.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 08:02:03 PM
Except liberals were around 200 years before "rational anarchism" was ever written about, talking about the divide between private and public life. Or are you now claiming all philosophies which include a limit on government actions are now rational anarchism? Because that is one of the most stupid arguments I have ever heard.
I am confused. I thought Rat was past college age.
I mean, Enki has an excuse. His balls haven't dropped yet.
Quote from: Cain on September 18, 2009, 07:59:12 PM
According to Ratatok's potted history of political thought there, liberalism, socialism, communism and various forms of constitutionalism apparently do not exist.
Not at all. Rational Anarchism lies at a layer below all of those. Those are all social systems. Rational Anarchy is an personal system which can underlie any particular system of social organization.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 18, 2009, 08:01:43 PM
So, basically, you just made up a new word for Jeffersonianism.
No, Jeffersonianism like Libertarianism is about the social group, what the government can and cannot do... Rational Anarchism is individual... what the individual will and will not do, regardless of the government in place.
Personally, I would like to see the US run under a liberal government, where the fed supplies health care options, public schools, roads etc. However, I will still determine for myself if I will or will not follow the laws in place. Its not about governments role in society, as much as its about governments role in the individuals decisions.
I'd argue that the distinction between a government and a mafia is arbitrary. Somalia isn't in 'pure' anarchy -- it's just that its government thinks it's a mob and its mob thinks it's a government.
That said, all societies are examples of 'rational' anarchy, because the individual still decides whether or not to follow laws. I'm going to behave much differently in a facist society than I am in a libertarian one, but I still decide how I will behave.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 08:05:44 PM
Not at all. Rational Anarchism lies at a layer below all of those. Those are all social systems. Rational Anarchy is an personal system which can underlie any particular system of social organization.
A personal system isn't a political philosophy. I see what you are saying now, but using political terms to define a personal ethos, for want of a better word, is bad appropriation, and leads to confusion among the levels of analysis, namely the individual/social levels.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 18, 2009, 08:05:44 PM
No, Jeffersonianism like Libertarianism is about the social group, what the government can and cannot do...
Have you ever read any of Jefferson's writings? Or are you implying that Jefferson and Madison were in fact the same person?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 18, 2009, 08:08:33 PM
I'd argue that the distinction between a government and a mafia is arbitrary. Somalia isn't in 'pure' anarchy -- it's just that its government thinks it's a mob and its mob thinks it's a government.
That said, all societies are examples of 'rational' anarchy, because the individual still decides whether or not to follow laws. I'm going to behave much differently in a facist society than I am in a libertarian one, but I still decide how I will behave.
So, you just slapped a new meaning on a word, and then tried to pass it off.
Thanks for your time.
Which meaning was new?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 18, 2009, 08:15:46 PM
Which meaning was new?
"Classic liberalism" as "rational anarchy".
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 18, 2009, 08:08:33 PM
I'd argue that the distinction between a government and a mafia is arbitrary. Somalia isn't in 'pure' anarchy -- it's just that its government thinks it's a mob and its mob thinks it's a government.
That said, all societies are examples of 'rational' anarchy, because the individual still decides whether or not to follow laws. I'm going to behave much differently in a facist society than I am in a libertarian one, but I still decide how I will behave.
all society's aren't rational anarchy, all individuals are unless they believe the
QuoteEither an individual believes that the government has a moral right to tell them what to do in all aspects of their life,
theory mentioned by rat.. try to keep up enki
cains point that rational anarchy is a personal system ( there should be a better description) is right and i think that is part of the tenets of rational anarchy they admit it is about how individuals relate to government not about a political philosophy
i think enki has the levels mixed
Yeah, Fomenter puts it pretty succintly.
It happens a fair bit. I know in IR classes, we had it drilled into our heads to pay attention to certain levels of analysis (usually individual, "unit-level", state level and "system level" which encompasses the entire international system. Sociologists have a few more, but I tend to work from individual to sub-social to social to state to regional to system, usually with a few units thrown in at each level). Alot of confusion in certain theoretical texts came from either people reading them and misunderstanding the different levels of analysis, or the author themselves confusing the levels of analysis.
I recognize the difference between the levels. I just am not sure why the government level needs to be considered since everything operates just fine from the individual level.
It might make more sense to consider cultures rather than governments, since for the most part a society will systemize cultural rules as law, and may ignore those laws that conflict with their culture, in which context culture matters more than government.
You honestly see no difference in how a government acts and how an individual acts? Group psychology doesn't exist for you?
Oh, so there is only one culture within a state boundary now?
No. I am saying that the individual variation works better for determining individual actions than the collective variation does, not vice versa. Furthermore, I am arguing that state boundaries are more or less meaningless in many cases since without a major dissonance between culture and law combined with pretty extreme punishments for things required or expected culturally, culture supercedes law. Even in some cases where draconian punishments counter culturally expected practices the culture still supercedes the law in practice (ex. marijuana smoking).
Yes, these are good comments, thanks Cain and Foamy!
Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy about how much (or little) control a government actually has in practice, over the individual. So if you live in Nazi occupied Germany and you see your neighbors getting hauled out of their homes due to being Jewish, JW or Gay... you have to decide if the Government is in charge of you (and you bow your head and close the curtains), or if the government cannot impose their immoral actions and decisions on you, and that you personally are responsible as a rational human being to act. Obviously, there are many ways you could act, some stupid (running out and hitting the Gestapo guy with a club), or smart (joining a group that's trying to stop/overthrow the existing government) or tricky (see Oskar Schindler). Rational Anarchy is the personal philosophy of TFY,S! in the realm of governance. That being said, the "rational" bit has a lot to do with the fact that its irrational to assume that all humans can function fine without any government at all. Government, for now, appears necessary, at least, because many humans appear to need it.
Is that less confusing then?
I have identified myself as an Anarchist of late. I had trepidations about doing so because peopel around here are very politically conscious and religiously conscious as well. I use the term conscious loosely, but they pay attention to these things here. But I must say that my coming to the conclusion that I am an Anarchist was born of revelations in how I viewed the existing governments of the world, those revelations being that I do not feel that the government of any nation has the right, morally or otherwise, to tell me how to live. I am guided by the rational ideas that killing someone for insufficient reasons is simply wasteful of materiel, that stealing is a weak persons way of attaining things that they could do with a suitable application of work. Various other moral concepts I have are based on my own thoughts on why things are unwise to do. Does this mean that I am an Anarchist? I have not read many of the sociological treatises and essays that you folks have so I am hoping you may illuminate me in this matter.
:lulz: Ok, those of you wanting "no government" need to go LIVE in a place that has little to none and see what you think. About the no running water, about the no electricty, no shots if you need them, no food when you need it, shit running down the fucking streets when there's no sewer, fuckers raping your mom and your sister because you're not home to protect them, cops raping you of your meager wages you worked 18 hours to get because no one says different, the government taking your car, you walk in rutted roads with shit running down them and no taxis affordable or buses available to get from point a to fucking b...
yeah. Try. Go and try.
and I won't even get into who is selling whose child to what pimp and whatever.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 04:05:59 AM
I have identified myself as an Anarchist of late. I had trepidations about doing so because peopel around here are very politically conscious and religiously conscious as well. I use the term conscious loosely, but they pay attention to these things here. But I must say that my coming to the conclusion that I am an Anarchist was born of revelations in how I viewed the existing governments of the world, those revelations being that I do not feel that the government of any nation has the right, morally or otherwise, to tell me how to live. I am guided by the rational ideas that killing someone for insufficient reasons is simply wasteful of materiel, that stealing is a weak persons way of attaining things that they could do with a suitable application of work. Various other moral concepts I have are based on my own thoughts on why things are unwise to do. Does this mean that I am an Anarchist? I have not read many of the sociological treatises and essays that you folks have so I am hoping you may illuminate me in this matter.
its pretty simple to figure out, if you believe there should be no government you are a anarchist (and an idiot see jenne' s post)
if you believe every human is ultimately responsible for their own actions and the choices they make, the laws they obey and the laws they ignore or break and so on, you have the personal philosophy we are referring to as rational anarchist (see ratta's definition or the link i posted on the first page)
HA! We have people breaking into houses all the time now doing all the stuff that you mention Jenne. And most of the time they either get away or get slaps on the wrist, depending on whether the ACLU decides to step in on the behalf of some lame ass git that they think has lived an underpriveleged life. Roads? Have you seen some of the roads these days? They are disintegrating, as are the bridges and the power grids. If this is the result of a governments kindly intervention then complete Anarchy might be a step up as then everyone will at least be slitting each others throats honestly. While the government whines about people being uncivil at Town Hall meetings and and who should be covered by a public option insurance, where is the money to repair and maintain the infrastructure of America, a so-called Super Power? We are only a few major storms or earthquakes away from being a third world style nation, if not in whole then in regions. Of course I can only speak for the United States as far as this goes.
Fomenter, I appreciate what you said, I suppose I am one of the Rational Anarchists as I do actually have a vision of a form of decentralized governmental system. I would not think that the masses could find their own assholes without some form of government to create a PSA about it.
Quote from: Jenne on September 19, 2009, 04:23:13 AM
:lulz: Ok, those of you wanting "no government" need to go LIVE in a place that has little to none and see what you think. About the no running water, about the no electricty, no shots if you need them, no food when you need it, shit running down the fucking streets when there's no sewer, fuckers raping your mom and your sister because you're not home to protect them, cops raping you of your meager wages you worked 18 hours to get because no one says different, the government taking your car, you walk in rutted roads with shit running down them and no taxis affordable or buses available to get from point a to fucking b...
yeah. Try. Go and try.
I don't need to remove government. Government is irrelevant enough to be arguably nonexistent already ;-)
Someone who is going to fuck people over is going to fuck people over regardless of whether or not it's against the law. The difference is that if it's against the law, they will probably do it in private so they don't get arrested.
That said, nobody here (aside from the people arguing AGAINST anarchy) in this thread are associating anarchy with the lack of government.
Really real anarchists don't recognize the authority of dictionaries (or the bourgeois companies who print them) to tell them the meanings of words.
/
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/unicorncycleSmall.gif)
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 19, 2009, 02:07:28 PMI don't need to remove government. Government is irrelevant enough to be arguably nonexistent already ;-)
:?
In what way are entities that spends billions or trillions of dollars every year, wage war against other countries, provide services to citizens, and enforce laws, irrelevant enough to be "arguably nonexistent"?
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 19, 2009, 02:07:28 PMSomeone who is going to fuck people over is going to fuck people over regardless of whether or not it's against the law. The difference is that if it's against the law, they will probably do it in private so they don't get arrested.
Right, and it would be so much better if they could openly fuck people over without fear of arrest.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 19, 2009, 02:07:28 PMThat said, nobody here (aside from the people arguing AGAINST anarchy) in this thread are associating anarchy with the lack of government.
That's what I don't get. Why would anyone associate the term "anarchy" with "the lack of government"?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on September 19, 2009, 02:10:51 PM
Really real anarchists don't recognize the authority of dictionaries (or the bourgeois companies who print them) to tell them the meanings of words.
/
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/unicorncycleSmall.gif)
:lulz:
On the other hand, I've met people who claim any "word" that's not in the OED isn't really a word.
Both are annoying as fuck.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on September 19, 2009, 04:04:51 PM
In what way are entities that spends billions or trillions of dollars every year, wage war against other countries, provide services to citizens, and enforce laws, irrelevant enough to be "arguably nonexistent"?
None of those statements are meaningful unless you assume the existence of government. They resolve into: "In what way are groups of people who trade lots of pieces of green paper, kill other people, give green paper to other people, and kill and/or lock up other people irrelevant enough to be nonexistent?"
After all, we're talking fiat currency here. Without government enforcement, the currency has no value. Likewise, law and country borders, as well as the concept of citizenship, are all meaningless outside the context of assumed governance. A government is a group of people who decides to call itself a government; whether or not you consider a given group a government is approximately as relevant as whether or not it considers itself a government, because in the end there is no hard and fast rule distinguishing a government from any other organization that trades currency and kills or imprisons people it doesn't like. Generally, the acceptance of sovergnity is based on whether or not it's accepted by other governments, which of course relies upon you believing that THEY are governments first.
I don't deny that governmental organizations have importance to everyday life. I deny that they are distinguishable from any other group of people who have equal importance to everyday life.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 04:05:59 AM
I have identified myself as an Anarchist of late.
Well, this thread is good for one thing. Flushes out the Starbucks crowd.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 19, 2009, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 04:05:59 AM
I have identified myself as an Anarchist of late.
Well, this thread is good for one thing. Flushes out the Starbucks crowd.
I didn't realize that I fit the descriptor until recently either mate. Just like I didn't realize that I was best suited to Discordianism until I found the Principia and started to grasp the tenets. Like I said, I have not read as much on the subject as I would like, and I intend to deal with that. The point of my inquiry is not to make myself seem like I am something or somebody, but rather to get a better understanding of the term since I have people like you guys who have already delved into it. I am a n00b, I realize that and I want to wrap my pitiful little chunk of gray matter around the concpts that I am now becoming aware of.
And just for reference, I can't stand Starbucks. When I want coffee I want COFFEE not this Vente Drip bullshit they talk about and I don't wanna spend five bucks for the crap that the peddle. The fuck is that stuff, caffeine from the teet of Eris herself or what?
Oh my god. Is it naivete or stupidity? I can't tell.
Also, having worked at what was at the time Portland's best (award-winning) roaster for about five years, as a barista, as a tea and spice blendmaster, and as a coffee taster and purchasing assistant, I have very little patience for people who pretend Starbucks coffee is undrinkable swill in order to appear "counterculture".
It's not excellent coffee, it's all overroasted (their definition of "Full City" is everyone else's definition of "Italian", for fuck's sake) but it's decent, consistent, and completely drinkable.
The company itself is pretty remarkably ethical, pays decently, and gives full-time benefits at 20 hours. They also engage in fair trade and buy directly from growers. Furthermore, their presence in a neighborhood ensures that any nearby indie coffee shop will do better business
Fucking anarchists.
i will assume naive for a moment ...
as you may be beginning to realize we laugh at anarchists because anarchy cant exist!!
if you do away with government me my buddies and our guns will form a mob take all your stuff leave you and all the other intellectual anarchist bleeding face down in a mud puddle,
and we will become the next system of government, the one that will always naturally occur due to human nature when there is a vacuum to fill, that is mob rule the government of the strong controlling the weak through violence...
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Also, having worked at what was at the time Portland's best (award-winning) roaster for about five years, as a barista, as a tea and spice blendmaster, and as a coffee taster and purchasing assistant, I have very little patience for people who pretend Starbucks coffee is undrinkable swill in order to appear "counterculture".
It's not excellent coffee, it's all overroasted (their definition of "Full City" is everyone else's definition of "Italian", for fuck's sake) but it's decent, consistent, and completely drinkable.
The company itself is pretty remarkably ethical, pays decently, and gives full-time benefits at 20 hours. They also engage in fair trade and buy directly from growers. Furthermore, their presence in a neighborhood ensures that any nearby indie coffee shop will do better business
Fucking anarchists.
Except for the above informative post (thank you Nigel, I am now informed), this whole thread reeks of philosophical anarchist wankery and mental masturbation.
Anarchy is your sixth-grade gym class for all eternity!
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Also, having worked at what was at the time Portland's best (award-winning) roaster for about five years, as a barista, as a tea and spice blendmaster, and as a coffee taster and purchasing assistant, I have very little patience for people who pretend Starbucks coffee is undrinkable swill in order to appear "counterculture".
It's not excellent coffee, it's all overroasted (their definition of "Full City" is everyone else's definition of "Italian", for fuck's sake) but it's decent, consistent, and completely drinkable.
The company itself is pretty remarkably ethical, pays decently, and gives full-time benefits at 20 hours. They also engage in fair trade and buy directly from growers. Furthermore, their presence in a neighborhood ensures that any nearby indie coffee shop will do better business
Fucking anarchists.
I'll concede Starbucks beans are drinkable, but the last time I got coffee there the cup was full of coffee grounds, its the brewing not the beans they suck at. (Indie coffee shops I've been to have the same problem, even though a lot of them use the exact blends/brands I usually drink).
7.75/hr while disallowing full time status is a decent wage? You'd make more doing minimum wage full time.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 09:47:48 AM
HA! We have people breaking into houses all the time now doing all the stuff that you mention Jenne. And most of the time they either get away or get slaps on the wrist, depending on whether the ACLU decides to step in on the behalf of some lame ass git that they think has lived an underpriveleged life. Roads? Have you seen some of the roads these days? They are disintegrating, as are the bridges and the power grids. If this is the result of a governments kindly intervention then complete Anarchy might be a step up as then everyone will at least be slitting each others throats honestly. While the government whines about people being uncivil at Town Hall meetings and and who should be covered by a public option insurance, where is the money to repair and maintain the infrastructure of America, a so-called Super Power? We are only a few major storms or earthquakes away from being a third world style nation, if not in whole then in regions. Of course I can only speak for the United States as far as this goes.
Fomenter, I appreciate what you said, I suppose I am one of the Rational Anarchists as I do actually have a vision of a form of decentralized governmental system. I would not think that the masses could find their own assholes without some form of government to create a PSA about it.
Dude, you seriously, most seriously need to hie thee to a 3rd world country that's truly 3rd world if you think you are dealing with even a 10th of what they have to put up with.
I have no respect for the above words, none, because they do NOT represent a semblance of understanding between what you go through everyday and what millions across the globe are subject to.
Fuck.
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 06:30:49 PM
Oh my god. Is it naivete or stupidity? I can't tell.
It's rejection of some things that are so obvious, it's "cool" to ignore them.
Like the direction the sun sets/rises in, gravity...etc.
Quote from: fomenter on September 19, 2009, 06:49:22 PM
i will assume naive for a moment ...
as you may be beginning to realize we laugh at anarchists because anarchy cant exist!!
if you do away with government me my buddies and our guns will form a mob take all your stuff leave you and all the other intellectual anarchist bleeding face down in a mud puddle,
and we will become the next system of government, the one that will always naturally occur due to human nature when there is a vacuum to fill, that is mob rule the government of the strong controlling the weak through violence...
No, it's arrogance. It's the same damned so-called logic that I'm calling EMOTION that the teabaggers, truthers and other idiots are on about in this stupid country of ours. It's the ability to hone in on minutiae that don't get to the bottom of the actual question and instead obliterates the real problem.
There's no fucking way in hell that the US has a semblance of comparison to Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Nicaragua. Except they're populated by ignorant jackasses and hairless apes. Who breed and make more hairless apes.
i was overcome by a moment of uncharacteristic generosity, normally people who are that oblivious to the obvious would be treated to the internet equivalent of being left bleeding in a mud puddle,
carefully and genitally explaining it to them may never work, but now as i crush there skulls and steal there goods during the aftermath i can say..... i told you so..
I've given up on this thread. Those who wish to know why should read the first three posts and compare them to the last three pages.
Oh boo fucking hoo.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 19, 2009, 09:13:11 PM
I've given up on this thread. Those who wish to know why should read the first three posts and compare them to the last three pages.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Welcome to PD.com Enki... also don't talk about Magic.
:| Oh I'm sorry--what's the title of this subforum again? :roll:
the difference between anarchy and rational anarchy have been pretty well covered...
any one who claims there should be no government or that the USA=Somalia
hasn't been paying attention to what has been said so far, and probably earned some grief..
Okay, I am guessing that what I said has been misunderstood and that I have epic failed at trying to convey my sentiments. Let me try to explain without my characteristic snarkiness and sarcasm.
1. I didn't say the coffee was undrinkable, just that they want too much for coffee. As though it were extracted from the teet of a god/goddess. The pretentiousness of the names they give coffee was another point, but who is really the crazy one? Starbucks for selling coffee for $5 a pop, or the people who pay $5 for a cup joe?
2. I am very aware of the plight of actual third world countries, I am saying that the States are headed there if they don't do something. The fact that I am tired of waiting is why I am an Anarchist of some sort because I think that we need a radical restructuring to accomplish anything.
3. As I live in a place where any non accepted political practices are considered very UNCOOL, I have had NO exposure to other people of truly anarchistic tendencies. Thus I have had to piece together my own ideals and concepts.
My beliefs are essentially Discordian and I agree with most things that are said here, but I also have my own mind about things and I truly do not care if you lot disapprove. But I felt that what I had said was not represented well so I have taken this time to clarify. Perhaps I am not truly an Anarchist, I don't know, I haven't had the opportunity to find out until now. Perhaps being a Discordian is enough. I don't know, but I am trying to find out and I appreciate the...critiques of what I thought.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 09:37:09 PM
2. I am very aware of the plight of actual third world countries, I am saying that the States are headed there if they don't do something. The fact that I am tired of waiting is why I am an Anarchist of some sort because I think that we need a radical restructuring to accomplish anything.
the plight of the third world, and some rusting infrastructure and the crime level we have here have little or nothing in common.
a radical restructuring is not anarchy, and if you think that what would rise up out of anarchy is better than what we have now you are nuts
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 19, 2009, 07:51:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Also, having worked at what was at the time Portland's best (award-winning) roaster for about five years, as a barista, as a tea and spice blendmaster, and as a coffee taster and purchasing assistant, I have very little patience for people who pretend Starbucks coffee is undrinkable swill in order to appear "counterculture".
It's not excellent coffee, it's all overroasted (their definition of "Full City" is everyone else's definition of "Italian", for fuck's sake) but it's decent, consistent, and completely drinkable.
The company itself is pretty remarkably ethical, pays decently, and gives full-time benefits at 20 hours. They also engage in fair trade and buy directly from growers. Furthermore, their presence in a neighborhood ensures that any nearby indie coffee shop will do better business
Fucking anarchists.
I'll concede Starbucks beans are drinkable, but the last time I got coffee there the cup was full of coffee grounds, its the brewing not the beans they suck at. (Indie coffee shops I've been to have the same problem, even though a lot of them use the exact blends/brands I usually drink).
7.75/hr while disallowing full time status is a decent wage? You'd make more doing minimum wage full time.
Your local has a problem, apparently.
Also. Um. They hire full time, but
start giving benefits at half time. And it may be $7.75 to start where you are but it's over ten here. And it's NATIONAL CHAIN FOOD SERVICE, basically... so are you really complaining that they start at just a couple bucks above minimum? They've always paid as well as or better than local espresso shops, around here anyway.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 09:37:09 PM
1. I didn't say the coffee was undrinkable, just that they want too much for coffee. As though it were extracted from the teet of a god/goddess. The pretentiousness of the names they give coffee was another point, but who is really the crazy one? Starbucks for selling coffee for $5 a pop, or the people who pay $5 for a cup joe?
Starbucks coffee, per ounce, is cheaper than Dunkin' Donuts and quite a few other chains. The price goes up for their small batch coffees, which are increasingly brewed in a Clover machine that makes one cup at a time and costs $11,000 in addition to having the beans come from A SINGLE source, making it the coffee equivalent of a single malt scotch. Then it costs more for making a latte or a cappucino.
Regular ol' drop coffee, though? Pretty reasonable if you don't mind it tasting a little burnt. And Nigel's dead on about their treatment of employees and their trade practicies. It's one of the most ethically sound chains you're likely to find.
I'm out of the running on the starbucks question. I think all coffee is undrinkable.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 09:47:48 AM
HA! We have people breaking into houses all the time now doing all the stuff that you mention Jenne. And most of the time they either get away or get slaps on the wrist, depending on whether the ACLU decides to step in on the behalf of some lame ass git that they think has lived an underpriveleged life.
Goddamn, you're a fucking moron.
Quote from: Broken AI on September 20, 2009, 10:37:14 AMYeah Halfbaked1! fight the power!
stick it to the man!
Anarchy is the only viable option!
You should convince your neighbors and friends IRL that this is the way to go. I suggest petrol bombing a police station, just so's we all know that the revolutions gonna start comrade, and we'll all totally back you up dude.
Power to the tipton massive!
Fuck you BAI! praise the Power!
bring the Man some slippers and a Pipe!
Bureaucracy is the only viable option!
You should convince your clerks and collegues that this is the way it should stay. I suggest getting a coffee at the nearest Starbucks, just so's we all show the revolutions doomed hipster, and we will drink overpriced coffee with ground up bits in it and fucking like it.
What's on TV tonight?
Yup! I am a moron. :mrgreen:
But luckily i am a genius compared to the morons that I live around, so i don't fuckin care dude. Sooner or later we are all morons and most of us don't care. I do wish I were more of a moron so that I wouldn't see the world going to hell sans hand basket, but I do. So all I can say is get over it TGRR, but you did give me a smile so thanks, now I can go all sleepy time.
The purpose of revolution is to make people feel like they can move while keeping them where they are. Take that as you will; I am operating on three or four hours of restless sleep and I'm glad I can put together a sentence with capital letters, a verb, and punctuation.
Not bad! You even got a semicolon in :)
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 19, 2009, 09:37:09 PM
3. As I live in a place where any non accepted political practices are considered very UNCOOL, I have had NO exposure to other people of truly anarchistic tendencies. Thus I have had to piece together my own ideals and concepts.
1. Discordianism does not equal anarchism.
2. You struggled and worked to piece together your own ideals and concepts, and then flushed it all down the shitter by labeling yourself...and what's more, labeling yourself an
anarchist? HAW HAW!
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 20, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
Yup! I am a moron. :mrgreen:
But luckily i am a genius compared to the morons that I live around, so i don't fuckin care dude. Sooner or later we are all morons and most of us don't care. I do wish I were more of a moron so that I wouldn't see the world going to hell sans hand basket, but I do. So all I can say is get over it TGRR, but you did give me a smile so thanks, now I can go all sleepy time.
Yes, the ACLU is your enemy, the cops only arrest innocent people, and Rush Limbaugh will explain it all to you later.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 20, 2009, 11:28:38 AM
Quote from: Broken AI on September 20, 2009, 10:37:14 AMYeah Halfbaked1! fight the power!
stick it to the man!
Anarchy is the only viable option!
You should convince your neighbors and friends IRL that this is the way to go. I suggest petrol bombing a police station, just so's we all know that the revolutions gonna start comrade, and we'll all totally back you up dude.
Power to the tipton massive!
Fuck you BAI! praise the Power!
bring the Man some slippers and a Pipe!
Bureaucracy is the only viable option!
You should convince your clerks and collegues that this is the way it should stay. I suggest getting a coffee at the nearest Starbucks, just so's we all show the revolutions doomed hipster, and we will drink overpriced coffee with ground up bits in it and fucking like it.
What's on TV tonight?
Fuck you both! Poomp in the gears!
Don't let the man know you exist!
Bureaucracy is your best ally!
You should remember that human politics are for humans, anarchy is politics for French gits who hold their cigarettes backward and complain of ennui, and coffee is THE ONLY GOD YOU NEED (well, except when you need rain).
What's for dinner, you fucks?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 20, 2009, 04:36:08 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 20, 2009, 11:28:38 AM
Quote from: Broken AI on September 20, 2009, 10:37:14 AMYeah Halfbaked1! fight the power!
stick it to the man!
Anarchy is the only viable option!
You should convince your neighbors and friends IRL that this is the way to go. I suggest petrol bombing a police station, just so's we all know that the revolutions gonna start comrade, and we'll all totally back you up dude.
Power to the tipton massive!
Fuck you BAI! praise the Power!
bring the Man some slippers and a Pipe!
Bureaucracy is the only viable option!
You should convince your clerks and collegues that this is the way it should stay. I suggest getting a coffee at the nearest Starbucks, just so's we all show the revolutions doomed hipster, and we will drink overpriced coffee with ground up bits in it and fucking like it.
What's on TV tonight?
Fuck you both! Poomp in the gears!
Don't let the man know you exist!
Bureaucracy is your best ally!
You should remember that human politics are for humans, anarchy is politics for French gits who hold their cigarettes backward and complain of ennui, and coffee is THE ONLY GOD YOU NEED (well, except when you need rain).
What's for dinner, you fucks?
Fuck you all! Rub my ass, a genie will pop out and give you three wishes!
A man is as good as a woman, in a pinch, but neither are as good as a plump sheep!
Bureaucracy is paying the farmer to let you loose in his fields for a couple hours, no questions asked! IT PWNS!
You should convince everyone that it's not wrong if it's FILMED, preferably in SWEDEN!
I just ate my latest partner with couscous. Very Moroccan.
It's true. Scotsmen keep genies up their arses.
Quote from: Payne on September 20, 2009, 04:41:36 PM
You should convince everyone that it's not wrong if it's FILMED, preferably in SWEDEN!
This actually sounds like a *good* idea. The only one of the bunch, imo.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 20, 2009, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Payne on September 20, 2009, 04:41:36 PM
You should convince everyone that it's not wrong if it's FILMED, preferably in SWEDEN!
This actually sounds like a *good* idea. The only one of the bunch, imo.
Your opinion has already been weighed and found lacking. It had to do with the original fuckup you made when you arrived here.
Which one? There were quite a few.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 20, 2009, 06:14:49 PM
Which one? There were quite a few.
"Hi, my name is Enki ][!"
I don't remember introducing myself...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 20, 2009, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 20, 2009, 12:07:44 PM
Yup! I am a moron. :mrgreen:
But luckily i am a genius compared to the morons that I live around, so i don't fuckin care dude. Sooner or later we are all morons and most of us don't care. I do wish I were more of a moron so that I wouldn't see the world going to hell sans hand basket, but I do. So all I can say is get over it TGRR, but you did give me a smile so thanks, now I can go all sleepy time.
Yes, the ACLU is your enemy, the cops only arrest innocent people, and Rush Limbaugh will explain it all to you later.
I don't truts the ACLU, nor the cops, can't stand Limbaugh. I hate having to look at several different news sources just to get a look at the truth between the lines. But you have a point, I have called myself an Anarchist simply because I really didn't know where I fit in...but I have taken up Discord as my way of looking at things so really that trumps Anarchism and in a better way. That answers my question from my first post, thanks for helping me with that guys.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on September 20, 2009, 08:09:40 PM
I don't truts the ACLU,
Neither do I. They're out to keep us from stomping Jews, queers, and other anti-American terrorist kissers.
Or words to that effect.
Fucking dittohead.
Call me naiive, but by and large I doubt most organizations and individuals are fundamentally and inherently malicious. (Yes, yes, you can argue that this forum makes a counterpoint, but I didn't say that people don't ACT malicious, nor that people CANNOT be malicious, merely that it is not the default state for most of humanity, by and large.) Due to this boneheaded optimism and severe misanthropy deficiency, I also lack the level of paranoia that attacks J Random Normal (be he discordian or greyface or little green man). I don't deny that people do shitty stuff to each other, but I do think that if people can avoid getting shit on, they would rather stop shitting on people and not get shit on than shit on other people and get shit on more. If you are already getting shit on, however, it's natural to shit on other people, and if life is shitting on you, it is pretty natural to want to shit on life. However, I don't think that most people, given the complete absence of shit in their life, would seek out things to shit on, if they knew it would attract more shit.
And so, I can say that I don't mind the ACLU, the bavarian illuminati, the federal reserve bank, the bilderberg group, the council on foreign relations, microsoft, the bush administration, earth coincidence control center, the NSA, the project MK-ULTRA, MK-NAOMI, COINTELPRO, and Paperclip members, and the dog damn venusians while still not agreeing with a number of things they do publically and fearing a number of the things they might do nefariously, because I figure that even if they are shitting on people, their intention probably isn't to shit on everyone for the hell of it.
And this may be the shittiest post I have ever written, dog damn it.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 21, 2009, 01:46:57 AM
Call me naiive, but by and large I doubt most organizations and individuals are fundamentally and inherently malicious. (Yes, yes, you can argue that this forum makes a counterpoint, but I didn't say that people don't ACT malicious, nor that people CANNOT be malicious, merely that it is not the default state for most of humanity, by and large.) Due to this boneheaded optimism and severe misanthropy deficiency, I also lack the level of paranoia that attacks J Random Normal (be he discordian or greyface or little green man). I don't deny that people do shitty stuff to each other, but I do think that if people can avoid getting shit on, they would rather stop shitting on people and not get shit on than shit on other people and get shit on more. If you are already getting shit on, however, it's natural to shit on other people, and if life is shitting on you, it is pretty natural to want to shit on life. However, I don't think that most people, given the complete absence of shit in their life, would seek out things to shit on, if they knew it would attract more shit.
And so, I can say that I don't mind the ACLU, the bavarian illuminati, the federal reserve bank, the bilderberg group, the council on foreign relations, microsoft, the bush administration, earth coincidence control center, the NSA, the project MK-ULTRA, MK-NAOMI, COINTELPRO, and Paperclip members, and the dog damn venusians while still not agreeing with a number of things they do publically and fearing a number of the things they might do nefariously, because I figure that even if they are shitting on people, their intention probably isn't to shit on everyone for the hell of it.
And this may be the shittiest post I have ever written, dog damn it.
See the funny thing about what you describe as malicious is that while it isn't the default state of affairs for most people, it does happen to be one or two in a bunch who are, and a whole lot of followers who will enable them time and again.
I don't disagree with that.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 21, 2009, 02:27:28 AM
I don't disagree with that.
Then your entire premise is fatally flawed.
Explain where the conflict is?
I don't trust any bureaucracy, I feel they are all inherently corrupt, but that is simply my opinion and since they are in charge then there is not much I can do aside from my little acts of mindfuck to try and make the sheep become not sheep.
But I was wrong about my Anarchistic delusions. And it's thanks to you lot that I realized it. It bothers me that I am still so hung up on labels, but I think I am smart enough to realize that I am nowhere near done in rewriting the way I think. My apologies if I was unneccessarily confrontational in my replies.
Smart enough to change your mind and your approach
I respect that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 20, 2009, 04:33:13 PM
the cops only arrest innocent people.
Technically, this is actually true; they are innocent until proven guilty in a court. At the time of the arrest, they are "innocent".
Sometimes, being innocent isn't that safe
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/01/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-another-way-to-do-the-time-even-if-you-didn-t-do-the-crime.aspx
QuoteNot only have many defendants been sentenced for stuff the jury said they didn't do (or at least wasn't proven), but yesterday the Supreme Court refused to do anything about it. The cert denial came in the case of Mark Hurn of my hometown, Madison, Wis. Hurn ate 15 years extra years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. It's true. Though he was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, (for which he was looking at two or three years in prison), he was sentenced to almost 18 years. Why? Because even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."
Yeah, that's the problem with "technically" -- it rarely is reflected in actuality.
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2009, 03:09:28 PM
Sometimes, being innocent isn't that safe
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/01/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-another-way-to-do-the-time-even-if-you-didn-t-do-the-crime.aspx
QuoteNot only have many defendants been sentenced for stuff the jury said they didn't do (or at least wasn't proven), but yesterday the Supreme Court refused to do anything about it. The cert denial came in the case of Mark Hurn of my hometown, Madison, Wis. Hurn ate 15 years extra years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. It's true. Though he was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, (for which he was looking at two or three years in prison), he was sentenced to almost 18 years. Why? Because even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."
See, halfbaked? You were right about the ACLU. They'd try to do something about this shit on 5th and 6th amendment grounds, and we can't have that, can we?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2009, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2009, 03:09:28 PM
Sometimes, being innocent isn't that safe
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/01/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-another-way-to-do-the-time-even-if-you-didn-t-do-the-crime.aspx
QuoteNot only have many defendants been sentenced for stuff the jury said they didn't do (or at least wasn't proven), but yesterday the Supreme Court refused to do anything about it. The cert denial came in the case of Mark Hurn of my hometown, Madison, Wis. Hurn ate 15 years extra years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. It's true. Though he was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, (for which he was looking at two or three years in prison), he was sentenced to almost 18 years. Why? Because even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."
See, halfbaked? You were right about the ACLU. They'd try to do something about this shit on 5th and 6th amendment grounds, and we can't have that, can we?
I oft times find myself agreeing with the ACLU when it comes to civil liberties. But i do not trust them because they seem to be slanted to an overly liberal side of things and that is corrupt as it gives the appearance of having personal interest in one side or another. I want all religion out of schools for instance, but I seldom see the ACLU go to bat when anyone other than the Christian types do something. Not saying that I see everything the ACLU does though, I am no watchdog, but the ones where they go after Christians seem to get noticed more.
Their work in the Civil Rights of minorities is laudable, but that is only one aspect. I expect them to be impartial to all parties because Civil Liberties are not just for some, but for all. However, since civil liberties only exist in reality due to society then I wonder what they use as a measuring stick for their activities. The Constitution has been stepped on for years IMO, so if they are using that document then they are seemingly one of very, very few.
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 06:58:18 AM
QuoteI can say that I don't mind the ACLU, the bavarian illuminati, the federal reserve bank, the bilderberg group, the council on foreign relations, microsoft, the bush administration, earth coincidence control center, the NSA, the project MK-ULTRA, MK-NAOMI, COINTELPRO, and Paperclip members, and the dog damn venusians while still not agreeing with a number of things they do publically and fearing a number of the things they might do nefariously, because I figure that even if they are shitting on people, their intention probably isn't to shit on everyone for the hell of it.
Its the lizard people from the lower fifth dimention and NASA's project blue beam you have to worry about not all that.
When space babies rupture from your eyelids and rape your nose, don't say I did not warn you. repeatedly. with mumbles. on a street corner. with gestures and wild rantings.
don't ever say that. that's what my teeth say ...
This is why i love you guys. In that Uncle that hugs too long kinda way. :lulz:
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 06:58:18 AM
QuoteI can say that I don't mind the ACLU, the bavarian illuminati, the federal reserve bank, the bilderberg group, the council on foreign relations, microsoft, the bush administration, earth coincidence control center, the NSA, the project MK-ULTRA, MK-NAOMI, COINTELPRO, and Paperclip members, and the dog damn venusians while still not agreeing with a number of things they do publically and fearing a number of the things they might do nefariously, because I figure that even if they are shitting on people, their intention probably isn't to shit on everyone for the hell of it.
Its the lizard people from the lower fifth dimention and NASA's project blue beam you have to worry about not all that.
When space babies rupture from your eyelids and rape your nose, don't say I did not warn you. repeatedly. with mumbles. on a street corner. with gestures and wild rantings.
don't ever say that. that's what my teeth say ...
See, I tell people that, but they *still* don't fear me.
I have to do the metamorphosis in front of them first.
Speaking of, what IS the meaning of fear? The dictionary only has circular definitions.
That which initiates activation syndrome?
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 03:57:06 PM
y'know? fear. when your stomach turns cold and reality seems to lurch upwards into your face. bowel splitting oh fuck I am actually going to die pance shitting shaking puking sobbing snot dripping fear.
That sounds more like Sexhurt™.
It's 2020 and anarchism is now all about getting addicted to drugs and having to sell your bumhole cheaper and cheaper until you are completely free.