Principia Discordia

ITT: vote on your political affiliation.

 I try to avoid the spectrum altogether, although I'm typically center-leftish on most issues.

Edit: I do not, however, identify with any particular political party. In Canada we've got (in order from left-wing to right-wing) the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives. NDP are quite socialist, the Liberals have a weathervane where their heart should be, and the Conservatives have a media-shy automaton as leader. In short, they're all crap. I'm intending to vote for either the Green Party or the Pirate Party when election time rolls around.

Personally, I consider myself a mix between what republicans claim to stand for but often don't in practice (individual rights, minimal interference with citizen's daily life, and small government) and what democrats claim to stand for (and sort of sometimes stand for when they grow a spine, which seems to be a rare occurrence).

On one hand I think the 2nd amendment should be fiercely defended, on the other hand I think gays should have all the rights everyone else has and they ought to be able to marry.

On one hand I believe that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, on the other hand I believe people should be provided with bootstraps.

All-in-all, I'd say my country seems to have a lot of lipservice to ideals that don't see a lot of practice and it's YOUR FAULT!*

I guess you could call me a moderate?



*provided you're an American citizen eligible to vote and take political actions such as writing letters to your representatives and sponsoring candidates you support either with time or money

I'm a bleeding heart liberal but voted for about as many Republicans as Democrats in the last election. That's only because my local government is very odd. The local democrats were too nutty for me so I voted for republicans for governor, state rep and a couple of other minor offices.

That being said, the national Republican Party can suck my dick. A bunch of heartless authoritarian wackos, they are.

I vote in the UK usually for the Lib Dems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib_Dems#Ideology), but not always, mainly because this area is mostly split between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and they are the only party with a sensible opinion on human rights, and they want to shift the tax burden onto people who can more easily support it. 

I don't agree with all of their policies, and I disagree with the fundamental philosophical basis of their political position (LOL JOHN STUART MILL), but as of now, they are the only party with any chance of breaking Westminter's duopoly before I die.  They also got it surprisingly right on a number of large issues such as counter-terrorism laws, the war on Iraq and the recession, and that deserves some credit.

On the other hand, the extent to which they have been co-opted by their proximity to Westminster in the last 20 years is an important question.  The Cabinet has moved strongly to the right, perhaps to pre-empt a Conservative government (the Lib Dems always balance towards the government in power, in hope of splitting their vote) but it is still disturbing how much libertarian entryism and continued whisphers of Tory alliances are heard.

I guess I'm kind of a moderate.  In state politics I've voted for the current Republican Senators, Snowe and Collins and I voted for my Democratic Representative Mike Michaud.  I didn't vote for my Democratic Governor John "Smeagol" Baldacci because frankly he's awful.  Before him I voted for our Independent Gov. Angus King. 

I think I agree with a lot of the things that Slanket talked about, and I'm also obviouly not very liberal on issues like drugs.  But I support gay marriage, I'm pro-choice.  My stance on the environment is probably centrist in that I certainly believe in conservation but I also believe that needs to be weighed against the impacts it has on the people living in those areas.  An example being the push a few years ago in Maine to create a big ass national forest in the middle of the state that would have taken millions of acres of land off tax roles and increased everybody else's property taxes. 

So that's generally where I am.  Wherever that is. 

Though when I vote, I tend to vote democrat, they're far too centrist and moderate for me. I'm more of a Democratic Socialist than anything. I believe that when everyone benefits I benefit, that education and good health belongs to the entire public and not just those who can pay for it, and that corporations and so called "free market" economics usually fucks most people over without good regulation. People are social animals that have depended upon each other for well being and survival for at least a million years; unless a person wants to live as a true hermit they live in a culture and society with networks they and everyone else depends upon. I also don't believe in restricting the freedoms of individuals when their actions don't hurt other people, and that due to the interconnectedness of planetary processes we have an obligation to our fellow humans not to fuck up the environment.

In other words, I don't belong in the USA.

I'm registered Republican to throw them off my trail, but I usually vote Democrat. I think they're all crapweasels though.

I forgot to mention that I voted for both of my senators, Bayh (D) and Lugar (R). They are both great senators. I'm going to be sad when Lugar quits after this term. You just know the Republicans will come up with some dumbass to replace him.

Local politics are pretty shit.  The legislature is majority democratic, but they are essentially Republican-lite, being moderately more progressive in health care / education than the Republicans.  By a very slim margin.  There are a few "out there" non-centrist Dems, but all of them are from N'awlins and all they give a shit about is N'awlins.  And most of the dems are banker scum.

Otherwise, no tangible difference.  They are banker scum.  They will do almost nothing that could scare away the religious freaks who could potentially support them:  gay rights movement has slowed to a crawl here.  When Blanco was in office, a bill was passed which added sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination in employment statute, but she was swiftly booted out and Jindal tore the shit out of it with no noteworthy opposition from the Dems.

Oh, and all of the Dems are banker scum.  Did I mention that?  And the Republicans are complete bastards (moderately better than most Southeast USA republicans though).

Also, the primates here have yet to fully enact English Common Law, still loving the Roman system to death

Arbitrary Egocentric Draconian

Those who fail to comply to my fleeting and contradictory whims are subject to righteous and absurd retribution.

I'm registered Republican because my grandfather was running for county commissioner as a Republican when I became voting age.  I never changed it because I don't see any point in going through the trouble of doing so.  In the primaries, I vote for whichever Republican seems to be most capable of forming his or her own opinions rather than just taking the party platform as holy writ, or failing that I'll vote for whichever one has the lowest rating from the American Family Association.

In the general election, I look at the coalition of special interests that own each candidate, try to guess what they are hoping to get if their candidate wins, and then vote for the one that seems least harmful to my own interests.

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 01, 2009, 05:30:48 AM
ITT: vote on your political affiliation.

Other.  I'm a member of the All Humans Must Die Party.

In fact, I'm the only member.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2009, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 01, 2009, 05:30:48 AM
ITT: vote on your political affiliation.

Other.  I'm a member of the All Humans Must Die Party.

In fact, I'm the only member.

Screw that, I'll join the party.

I've got an idea for a slogan: "You First".

Quote from: Sir Remington III on October 01, 2009, 11:25:27 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2009, 11:22:45 PM

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 01, 2009, 05:30:48 AM
ITT: vote on your political affiliation.

Other.  I'm a member of the All Humans Must Die Party.

In fact, I'm the only member.

Screw that, I'll join the party.

I've got an idea for a slogan: "You First".

Sorry, the party is not taking applications for admissions at this time.

And we have a slogan:  "GET THE HELL OFF OF MY PLANET, MONKEYBOY!"

Pretty moderate--and my views change almost daily with everything I learn.  I started out College Republitard and now am somewhere between RWHN, Slanket and Kai.

I'm becoming more and more socialist, though, as time wears on.

Quote from: Jenne on October 02, 2009, 12:35:51 AM
I'm becoming more and more socialist, though, as time wears on.

You're doing it wrong, Jenne! You are supposed to become a cold, heartless conservative as you get older.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 02, 2009, 04:50:48 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 02, 2009, 12:35:51 AM
I'm becoming more and more socialist, though, as time wears on.

You're doing it wrong, Jenne! You are supposed to become a cold, heartless conservative as you get older.

I'm becoming a cold, heartless liberal as I get older.

Quote from: Idem on October 01, 2009, 09:17:11 PM
Local politics are pretty shit.  The legislature is majority democratic, but they are essentially Republican-lite, being moderately more progressive in health care / education than the Republicans.  By a very slim margin.  There are a few "out there" non-centrist Dems, but all of them are from N'awlins and all they give a shit about is N'awlins.  And most of the dems are banker scum.

Otherwise, no tangible difference.  They are banker scum.  They will do almost nothing that could scare away the religious freaks who could potentially support them:  gay rights movement has slowed to a crawl here.  When Blanco was in office, a bill was passed which added sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination in employment statute, but she was swiftly booted out and Jindal tore the shit out of it with no noteworthy opposition from the Dems.

Oh, and all of the Dems are banker scum.  Did I mention that?  And the Republicans are complete bastards (moderately better than most Southeast USA republicans though).

Also, the primates here have yet to fully enact English Common Law, still loving the Roman system to death

How did I miss the fact that you're from Louisiana?

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on October 01, 2009, 05:39:55 AM
Personally, I consider myself a mix between what republicans claim to stand for but often don't in practice (individual rights, minimal interference with citizen's daily life, and small government) and what democrats claim to stand for (and sort of sometimes stand for when they grow a spine, which seems to be a rare occurrence).

On one hand I think the 2nd amendment should be fiercely defended, on the other hand I think gays should have all the rights everyone else has and they ought to be able to marry.

On one hand I believe that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, on the other hand I believe people should be provided with bootstraps.

All-in-all, I'd say my country seems to have a lot of lipservice to ideals that don't see a lot of practice and it's YOUR FAULT!*

I guess you could call me a moderate?



*provided you're an American citizen eligible to vote and take political actions such as writing letters to your representatives and sponsoring candidates you support either with time or money

^
\
  me too.

I'm a registered republican, mostly to waste their postage. Guilty of voting for McCain in the primaries last year, but I was secretly in the "Anybody but Mitt Romney" party.

But usually, I vote Dem.


if there was a version of libertarianism that didn't venerate the free market as the one true expression of the human soul, I might be able to get behind that.

I think the entire concept of political parties and institutionalised loyalties is the biggest chunk of the problem. Make everyone independent and invent a bad name for politicians who use anything other than relevant logic/reason to influence other politicians on particular issues.

You are asking humans to go against their hard-wired need to categorize and compartmentalize.  Good luck with that fight. 

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PMGuilty of voting for McCain in the primaries last year

Me too.  I considered him to be the least-bad choice among the Republican candidates.  For the general election, I was on the fence between McCain and Obama until McCain announced his choice of running mate.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 02, 2009, 02:53:42 PM
You are asking humans to go against their hard-wired need to categorize and compartmentalize.  Good luck with that fight. 

Back in the day, when news was carried by horseback.. it made sense to have political parties. But I'm thinking of a project like votorola or metagovernment where individuals can register an opinion on issues they care about, then compare against politicians to see which ones have the closest ideological match. The categories and compartments are still there, just more dynamic and numerous.

In the 60's the argument ran "The Beatles" or "The Rolling Stones?" - now technology and communication have allowed for a zillion genres with crossover appeal, and it seems unlikely that any one band will be as influential as was possible before. People enjoy sub-compartmentalisation more than compartmentalisation. Thing is, while it is a modest goal to buy a guitar and start a band in your bedroom, not until now has it been feasible to have any level of political impact with the low-investment widely-available tools.

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 02, 2009, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PMGuilty of voting for McCain in the primaries last year

Me too.  I considered him to be the least-bad choice among the Republican candidates.  For the general election, I was on the fence between McCain and Obama until McCain announced his choice of running mate.

Um, yeah.  Because we NEEDED another war, and Iran would do as well as anyplace else, right?

Palin was icing on the cake, but McCain was no choice at all.

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PM
if there was a version of libertarianism that didn't venerate the free market as the one true expression of the human soul, I might be able to get behind that.

This. I normally avoid identifying myself with parties when I can and describe my politics based on my stance on individual issues, which ends up as a mishmash of shit that the Republicans support, shit Democrats support, shit Libertarians support, and shit that no politician supports because it runs counter to the interests of professional politicians.

Quote from: fictionpuss on October 02, 2009, 03:10:00 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 02, 2009, 02:53:42 PM
You are asking humans to go against their hard-wired need to categorize and compartmentalize.  Good luck with that fight. 

Back in the day, when news was carried by horseback.. it made sense to have political parties.

Learn to monkey.

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PM
if there was a version of libertarianism that didn't venerate the free market as the one true expression of the human soul, I might be able to get behind that.

Bingo

Um, wouldn't that be something like libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)?

Quote from: Cain on October 03, 2009, 12:21:55 AM
Um, wouldn't that be something like libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)?

I'm well aware of Libertarian socialism, and used to identify myself as such. I've got some problems with the workability of a lot of the models proposed by them, though, and generally place it on the level of a nice, but generally impractical, at least for now, idea.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2009, 11:16:53 PM

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on October 02, 2009, 02:59:22 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PMGuilty of voting for McCain in the primaries last year

Me too.  I considered him to be the least-bad choice among the Republican candidates.  For the general election, I was on the fence between McCain and Obama until McCain announced his choice of running mate.

Um, yeah.  Because we NEEDED another war, and Iran would do as well as anyplace else, right?

Palin was icing on the cake, but McCain was no choice at all.

Oh yeah, that too, but IIRC he started talking crazy about Iran until about the same time he announced Palin, so I guess I kind of lumped the whole thing together in my mind.  But yeah, I would not have voted for McCain even if he had chosen sane running mate.

I decided to change my political party's (I am the leading and only member) name to something more appropriate given recent shift in my political beliefs.

I have no idea what that will be.

I am my own party, voting for the assholes that are slightly less, or possibly more acceptably asshole-like than the other assholes that run for office of chief asshole. 

according to my father I'm a "god damned left wing liberal dirty european socialist"

because i want insurance, will feed my friends if they lose their jobs and think war is stupid.






go fig.

What's a poltical? A poll that tickles?

Also I would vote for Femke Halsema if anyone would ask me right now, but before there's any elections or poll tickling I will check what D66 has to say, but last I heard of it was that they have interesting ideas but no good people on the list to make something of it. Which means fuck it, what use is a political party that just has good ideas on paper :)

They're your Green Party right? 

Oh, I forgot to mention, if all over things are equal, then the OMRLP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party) are actually pretty cool.  Not only do they, for some reason, have a large number of Wessex sepratists in the party (the region I am in is part of Wessex) they actually have had more success than, say, our Greens, or the Socialist Workers Party, in getting elements of their agenda passed.

Sadly, this agenda has only included pet passports, voting at 18 and all day pubs.

Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on October 03, 2009, 12:34:51 AM

Quote from: Cain on October 03, 2009, 12:21:55 AM
Um, wouldn't that be something like libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)?

I'm well aware of Libertarian socialism, and used to identify myself as such. I've got some problems with the workability of a lot of the models proposed by them, though, and generally place it on the level of a nice, but generally impractical, at least for now, idea.

Surely you mean Awesome But Impractical (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical)?

Yeah, I know what you mean though.  On the other hand, I think its worth highlighting, since some currents within libertarian socialism include Situationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International) and Autonomism, which have influence in Discordian circles.  Plenty of avant-garde movements seem to come from this sort of direction too, and I would certainly consider Discordianism as a potential avant-garde, if not one that has thus far reached its potential.

Quote from: Cain on October 03, 2009, 01:14:23 PM
They're your Green Party right? 

yep, but also her in particular. she does the green + liberal thing quite well, and is (for instance) not afraid to say that burqa's are a slap in the face of female emancipation, where your regular organic treehugger green politician wouldn't dare to say anything remotely negative about islam. not that I think that particular issue is so incredibly important to state, but it does show a certain amount of backbone. also, she's pretty hot.

She's scary!
she never moves her jaws when talking.
I'm starting to doubt she can.


srsly it is impossible to find a pic where she has her jaws more than 1cm apart.

i tried googling 'Femke Halsema kaken van elkaar' but got no pics with her jaws apart (lots of pics of her naked though)

:lulz:

 :lulz:

Other: I carry the torch of the secular leftist.

For a few reasons.

I'd vote for Famke Janssen. (http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=famke%20janssen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi&safe=active)

In my bed.

Does she support a pubic option? 

Quote from: Sir Remington III on October 01, 2009, 05:39:10 AM
I try to avoid the spectrum altogether, although I'm typically center-leftish on most issues.

Edit: I do not, however, identify with any particular political party. In Canada we've got (in order from left-wing to right-wing) the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives. NDP are quite socialist, the Liberals have a weathervane where their heart should be, and the Conservatives have a media-shy automaton as leader. In short, they're all crap. I'm intending to vote for either the Green Party or the Pirate Party when election time rolls around.

Wise words, I find 'affiliation' in any case a foolish thing to do, no matter with what, sub cultures, countries, genders, political parties, I choose this issue per issue what my stance is.

I do tend to be an advocate of using sound statistics and proven means and certainly not being with your head up in morals and culture. If it turns out for instance that contrary to popular believe videogames seem to have no effect on children what so ever, then damned let 6 year old children play Quake 4 for all I care no matter how 'immoral' some people might find it. I'm also not that much for sacrificing the needs of the few for the many but more not letting the knowledgeable pay the price for the ignorant.

...that sort of thing works until you are one of the disenfranchised and marginalized "few"...and then you sort of wish some of the majority would make sure you were equally protected at the very least.

I love how when there's a poll at pd, the most popular option is always "other"

I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Dimo!  :argh!:

Quote from: Cramulus on October 29, 2009, 06:05:18 PM
I love how when there's a poll at pd, the most popular option is always "other"

If we could fit in a box properly we wouldn't be Discordians in the first place.  :fnord:

I picked Libertarian because I fall in that spectrum somewhere.  I belong to no party, and hell, I don't even think I am currently registered to vote since my last move.

I believe the current administration is not doing enough to scare the living shitfuck out of our enemies.

Years ago, America did not have a standing army, now we do. Years ago, the UN said genocide was bad. Now, I diagree.

I believe that we should have a standing genocide! None of this namby-pamby "teach 'em to rape virgins to cure HIV" Gen-Faux-Cidal crap that they're doing down in Africa; naw, this is America! We should have a real, God-forsaken "Are those Jews? Really!? JEWS???" Gen-O-Fucking-Cide!

We should make Rhode Island the world's largest mass grave! Why should any other nation have that privilege! We're number 1!

And just to prove our commitment, let's start with the GOP. We'll call it The Public Option.

-toa,
is too close to death, they won't come for me...

Drunk, half naked, dressed as Spider Jerusalem.

Although, when I do vote, I tend to have no affiliation, and just vote for who agrees with my POV and seems least corruptible (which is possible more important).

there's a local election on november 3rd. I'm voting by die roll. again.


RANDOMOCRACY!
:pax:



many people have told me that this is irresonsible, or that I'm squandering my vote.

Hey -- the outcome is arbitrary, why shouldn't my vote be?









also: for the lulz

Quote from: Cramulus on October 31, 2009, 02:37:39 PM
there's a local election on november 3rd. I'm voting by die roll. again.


RANDOMOCRACY!
:pax:



many people have told me that this is irresonsible, or that I'm squandering my vote.

Hey -- the outcome is arbitrary, why shouldn't my vote be?









also: for the lulz

Beautiful.  :lol:

i vote for local representatives
and then i usually just vote for the crazy fucker running

If I have to affiliate myself in any way, I guess I'd have to say that I'm an anarchist, but I don't believe society is ready to exist without a state yet.
I'm not static in my views, though. I'm aware that I'm an ill-informed moron, and if somebody presents me with a good argument against my current position, I'll reconsider. However, this does not mean that I'll convert to their philosophy. I'd say my main rationalization for anarchy is that people are idiots and cannot handle running society. Especially politicians.

Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on November 01, 2009, 07:31:54 PM
If I have to affiliate myself in any way, I guess I'd have to say that I'm an anarchist, but I don't believe society is ready to exist without a state yet.

So, do you think you're better than everyone else? Or are you "not a part of society"? Or do you need the government?

Quote
I'm not static in my views, though.

I haven't had static views since I got Cthulizon. It's the N'yethwork.

Quote
I'm aware that I'm an ill-informed moron, and if somebody presents me with a good argument against my current position, I'll reconsider.

They all say that. Except the ones who don't say that.

Quote
However, this does not mean that I'll convert to their philosophy.

They all say that. Except the ones who hang for not saying that.

Quote
I'd say my main rationalization for anarchy is that people are idiots and cannot handle running society. Especially politicians.

That sounds like a good reason to corral them like animals. And that would require government.

-toa,
don't mind me, just bored

Quote from: Agent Pariah on October 03, 2009, 12:17:35 AM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PM
if there was a version of libertarianism that didn't venerate the free market as the one true expression of the human soul, I might be able to get behind that.

Bingo

Anarchism.  But apparently that's just for dumbasses.

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

I don't know if I'm an anarchist or not. I mean, I've thought about it, and I don't know for sure if anything would be better without a government. It does provide us with some things that I'm definitely in support of, such as health care(I'm Canadian), welfare, civil services, libraries, etc., but I don't like the government itself. I find the politicians hilariously incompetent. I mean, have you ever seen the House of Commons (or your country's equivalent) on TV?
I guess I don't want to topple the government, I just want to thumb my nose at it. Does that count as anarchy?

Quote from: Cramulus on October 31, 2009, 02:37:39 PM
there's a local election on november 3rd. I'm voting by die roll. again.


RANDOMOCRACY!
:pax:



many people have told me that this is irresonsible, or that I'm squandering my vote.

Hey -- the outcome is arbitrary, why shouldn't my vote be?









also: for the lulz

I did a lot of picking at random, last election.  I took the voter guide with me, and many times only one local candidate had any kind of blurb submitted.  I think I tended to vote for them, since it suggested they actually CARED.  Not that it guaranteed it, or that it was a good thing, just that it distinguished one of two candidates at all.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

You realize anarchy is impossible to achieve right? Even if you could achieve it, why would you want it?

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

No they don't.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM
I've been an Anarchist for a long time. 

:lord:

I am still the only librarian.

Quote from: rygD on November 06, 2009, 12:00:54 AM
I am still the only librarian.

How does one get into that line of work? I heard there were ancient blood-guilds and stuff...

I'm a rational anarchist. I realize that it's impossible, but I strive for it anyway. Usually though, I act like a moderate.

Quote from: rygD on November 06, 2009, 12:00:54 AM
I am still the only librarian.

You might be proud to be a librarian but i love liberty.
Screw the french tho...  :argh!:

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on November 05, 2009, 06:30:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

You realize anarchy is impossible to achieve right? Even if you could achieve it, why would you want it?

Not impossible, they did it in Spain.  And the Ukraine.  It was crushed by communism, but it still existed and didn't fall for internal reasons.

Why would I want it, because it means we only have to deal with one another's monkeys at the lowest level, not amplified by being in power.  people are not inherently good, so there's no way we can trust anyone to rule.

I don't fuck with politics. To me it's all retarded. So's everything else, to be fair, but considering I have no real choice in political matters and even if I did, humans have an innate ability to ruin everything that is good... not worth it.

I guess belief-wise....

Quote from: Agent Pariah on October 03, 2009, 12:17:35 AM

Quote from: Cramulus on October 02, 2009, 02:21:46 PM
if there was a version of libertarianism that didn't venerate the free market as the one true expression of the human soul, I might be able to get behind that.

Bingo

This.

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 07:16:40 AM

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on November 05, 2009, 06:30:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

You realize anarchy is impossible to achieve right? Even if you could achieve it, why would you want it?

Not impossible, they did it in Spain.  And the Ukraine.  It was crushed by communism, but it still existed and didn't fall for internal reasons.

Why would I want it, because it means we only have to deal with one another's monkeys at the lowest level, not amplified by being in power.  people are not inherently good, so there's no way we can trust anyone to rule.

If it didn't collapse for internal reasons it is because it didn't have any structure. I don't think it was crushed by communism as much as it sucked communism in like a vacuum.

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html

That's George Orwell's account of Anarchism in Catalonia.  Excellent book on it's own merits.  I can't find one that is as entertaining on Ukraine but Nestor Makhno was an influential man in the Anarchist Black Army and there were sizeable parts of Ukraine which were run in an Anarchist manner.

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

Also, Communism did not organically evolve within Ukrainian or Spanish Anarchism, it conquered with sheer force of arms in Ukraine and in Spain the Anarchists, as well as the Republicans and other allies of the Communists against the Fascists were betrayed by the Communists, allowing the Fascists to overrun them all.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

Disorder
:lulz:

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 07:16:40 AM

Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on November 05, 2009, 06:30:02 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 02, 2009, 12:44:35 AM

Quote from: Jenne on October 29, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
I like how Slanket qualified an Anarchist as a dumbass, and someone still voted for it.

Two somebodies now.  I've been an Anarchist for a long time.  I think it's funny that when you call it libertarian socialism it's ok but when you call it Anarchism it's not.  even though the two mean the same damn thing.

You realize anarchy is impossible to achieve right? Even if you could achieve it, why would you want it?

Not impossible, they did it in Spain.  And the Ukraine.  It was crushed by communism, but it still existed and didn't fall for internal reasons.

Why would I want it, because it means we only have to deal with one another's monkeys at the lowest level, not amplified by being in power.  people are not inherently good, so there's no way we can trust anyone to rule.

Would that be the Spanish Anarchists who accepted government cabinet positions with the Republicans?

Besides, if all a political system has going for it is that "it gets crushed constantly by other systems", then that only really leaves a very altruistic and moral argument to back it up.  Most people are not going to accept a system of social organization that has consistently failed and been defeated in the face of others.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority. 

Of course, the Bolsheviks said the same thing, only with a few more mentions of the working class, the inevitability of History, Hegel and dialectics.

And the winners of the American revolution, only with some stuff about tea and private property.

And modern day liberals, only with much wringing of hands.

And Benito Mussolini, with the caveat that he was the representation of the True Will of the people.

And Christian Identity adherents, with the caveat that the only real people are white Christian males.

And so on and so forth.  Lots of movements give tons of lip service to "giving power to the people", and what they all have in common is that they have exceptions, and are bullshit

Don't forget the executioners operating the electric chairs.

I'm the bad type of socialist who literally wants to take all of your money and give it to lazy people.

I was pretty extreme a few years ago, but I am more Clement Attlee than Vladimir Lenin these days.

Quote from: Malachite on November 08, 2009, 04:46:30 PM
I'm the bad type of socialist who literally wants to take all of your money and give it to lazy people.

I thought that was called Welfare?

Quote from: Malachite on November 08, 2009, 04:46:30 PM
I'm the bad type of socialist who literally wants to take all of your money and give it to lazy people.

Pff that sounds like work, can't I get someone else to take everybody's money and give it to the lazy?

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 08, 2009, 05:40:20 PM

Quote from: Malachite on November 08, 2009, 04:46:30 PM
I'm the bad type of socialist who literally wants to take all of your money and give it to lazy people.

Pff that sounds like work, can't I get someone else to take everybody's money and give it to the lazy?

:memnoch2:

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2009, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system  :lulz: would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

People suck, especially when they have authority.
But also especially when there's none.

Authority gives people license to do whatever they want as long as they don't piss off, or upset the balance of authority.

And the same goes for lack of authority.

Either way, the nature of the limits, socially imposed or otherwise, is the only thing keeping people from eating each other in the streets. That, and electricity.

I just don't see how Anarchy is supposed to solve the Asshole Factor.

Chapter 57

Authority rules through miscommunication.
Wars are waged by pandering to fears.
The world can be won by joining opposites:
Tell people what they want to hear, and they will follow.
Make them think like apes, and they will act like monkeys.
Relieve them of their responsibilities, they will call you wise.
Show them what they fear, they will call you just.

Therefore, the wise spags say,
"Pay no attention to the speeches of Authority,
but listen instead to what the audience is hearing.
And if at all possible,
try to be the one making the speech."


Chapter 58

When Authority imposes Order, people become angry.
When Authority allows Freedom, people become nervous.
To allow for mistakes means accepting mistakes;
To enforce Order ensures future punishment.
The people want Freedom, but at others' expense.
The people want Order, but only to justify their actions.
Therefore the wise spags disrupt Order,
And organize Freedom,
And freely create their illusions.

Also,


Chapter 80

In a place where information is suppressed,
and curiosity stifled,
The people will be uncaring, unwise, and not free.
They will rely on tradition as their guides;
They will not make observations,
Or try things out,
Or experiment,
Or play.
They will be suspicious of outsiders
just as they are with new ideas.
Their minds will be as stagnant
as the pond where they dump their garbage.
They are surely as dead as they can be,
though they still draw breath.

I'm another 'other', a lifelong Trot, but spent half my life voting Tory on the grounds that you probably should have a party in Government that actually believes in the system it is overseeing. Then they lurched so far to the right that I couldn't even see them with a telescope, and dragged all the other parties with them, talk about moving the goalposts . . .sheesh, they moved the halfway line. So I've spent that last 20 yrs voting for a selection of Labour/Lib Dem/Green candidates. They say you get more conservative with age - but that's total BS from my perspective.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 05:07:49 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La?  :wink:

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:05:28 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 05:07:49 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La?  :wink:

No, that's under Chinese control.  What I AM going to do is life my life by my terms.  Or kill me.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 06:07:23 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:05:28 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 05:07:49 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

Whose fault is that?  Oh, yeah, the people who vote for candidates that will be "tough on crime".

It turns out that I am not forced to choose between endorsing anarchy and endorsing police states.

So then you are moving to Shangri-La?  :wink:

No, that's under Chinese control.  What I AM going to do is life my life by my terms.  Or kill me.

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion ;-)

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:11:03 PM

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion ;-)

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

EVERYONE lives by their own terms.  Even if that means they adopt some or all of someone else's terms...most people are more comfortable doing that. 

In my case, I LIKE having police (so long as they are kept under control and have all their vaccinations), fire departments, and public roads and schools.  The fact that I find the above to be substandard recently does not mean that I wish to abolish all of them, rather than attempt to repair them.

So I can't be an anarchist.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 06:22:35 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:11:03 PM

Well then maybe you're a Rational Anarchist like me... I always had a sneaking suspicion ;-)

(I mean, "Live your life by your own terms" is what Heinlein defined rational anarchism as:

Prof La Paz:  "I accept any rules you think you need for yourself. I will continue to live by my own.")

Sometimes I wonder if we don't hit each other cause we're more alike than either of us are comfortable with.

EVERYONE lives by their own terms.  Even if that means they adopt some or all of someone else's terms...most people are more comfortable doing that. 

In my case, I LIKE having police (so long as they are kept under control and have all their vaccinations), fire departments, and public roads and schools.  The fact that I find the above to be substandard recently does not mean that I wish to abolish all of them, rather than attempt to repair them.

So I can't be an anarchist.

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

If the spags can vote and say "No one is allowed to eat cactus" then do you submit to the entity called government or do you say "That's fine for you spags, I'ma have me some cacti now." The former allows the government to direct their life. The latter directs their own life. The former may be a Democrat or a Republican... the latter, is acting as a rational anarchist. The question lies in how you cede your personal power... do you hand it over to the government and let them tell you what to do and how to do it... or do you make all final decisions yourself, based on your views, opinions and ideas?

Do you submit to government, or do you refuse to submit? If you refuse... then we're discussing only the degree to which you are an anarchist.

Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:33:57 PM

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

Then you're going to have to accept some level of government, and last time I checked, the very definition of anarchy is "without government". 

Now, this "rational anarchism" so far as I've seen, seems to be Ayn Rand in a funny dress.  I could be wrong, of course, but so far as I've seen here and elsewhere, it mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Me?  I'm just a criminal.  I was born wrong, or something.  I like laws, yet I also like to break laws, either because I disagree with the law, or because it's something I feel like doing and I am willing to accept the risk.  That's not "rational anarchism", it's criminal behavior (as opposed to morally wrong behavior), as I occasionally break the very same laws I support. 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 06:40:00 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:33:57 PM

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.

Then you're going to have to accept some level of government, and last time I checked, the very definition of anarchy is "without government".  

Now, this "rational anarchism" so far as I've seen, seems to be Ayn Rand in a funny dress.  I could be wrong, of course, but so far as I've seen here and elsewhere, it mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Me?  I'm just a criminal.  I was born wrong, or something.  I like laws, yet I also like to break laws, either because I disagree with the law, or because it's something I feel like doing and I am willing to accept the risk.  That's not "rational anarchism", it's criminal behavior (as opposed to morally wrong behavior), as I occasionally break the very same laws I support.  

Nope its not Ayn Rand, she was trying to argue how everybody should act. Who should be in charge and who should pay the bill and which bits of private enterprise the government should keep their nose out of.

Rational Anarchism is personal... "How will I act, irregardless of what everyone else does?" So I can support whatever democratic government in in place, because the free people who believe that they need it, freely vote for it and freely put themselves under it. They are as free to live under the rules they choose as I am.

And apparently what you call Criminal behavior, Heinlein calls rational anarchism... I don't care what label we use, as long as we both make our own damn decisions and don't play serf to the government.

* EDIT: Also, laissez faire capitalism is not generally considered in the purview of rational anarchism, as it is not a personal issue. Smoking pot  (just like eating cactus) though are personal issues... so...

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:33:57 PM

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.
[...]
Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

The difference between government and your rational anarchism is all in the names.  Replace police with private security force, replace government maintained road with tolls roads, replace public fire departments with private fire departments.  I don't think an anarchic society would look very different from a governed society, because people would instantly replace the illusions of government that they need.

The thing you're missing, Dr. RB, is that the "rational anarchism" you're describing isn't really any different than what's going on right now.  You're free to submit yourself to the police as you like, and if you don't they're going to come down on you unless you're clever enough to get away with it.  How would a privately run police force be different?  If anything it would be worse, since it would be little more than a gang of thugs with no illusory government telling them they have to respect fictional rights.

I like Heinlein too, he was a helluva good science fiction writer, but he was way to pie-eyed and cantankerous to have practical politics for the present generation.  He's probably right though that pseudo laissez faire capitalism is the only sort of economy that can function in an interplanetary society, but that's so far in the distant future that it shouldn't matter to us in the here and now.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 06:40:00 PM
Now, this "rational anarchism" ... mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Actually, you make a pretty compelling argument for rational anarchism right there.

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Yeah, they're called "the pharmaceutical industry."

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
Nope its not Ayn Rand, she was trying to argue how everybody should act. Who should be in charge and who should pay the bill and which bits of private enterprise the government should keep their nose out of.

*shrug*  So do rational anarchists, when you think about it.  They just have a different solution set.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
And apparently what you call Criminal behavior, Heinlein calls rational anarchism...

Tell it to the judge.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
I don't care what label we use, as long as we both make our own damn decisions and don't play serf to the government.

What government, come to think of it?  We're serfs to large corporations that own a collection of fools and thieves a few thousand miles from where I live.

Decide all you like.  If you get out of line, they'll kill you.  Or jail you.  Or maybe not.  Maybe they'll just fire you, and let you be as rational as you like under a bridge.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:20:44 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 07:28:33 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:20:44 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

Only if they hand off responsibility for their decisions to that society. Allow me to let Prof La Paz clarify, cause he says it better than I can:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

So, it's a collection of monkeys, all in their own trees?  I know some huge fucking gorillas that would beg to differ.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:33:40 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 07:28:33 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:20:44 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

Only if they hand off responsibility for their decisions to that society. Allow me to let Prof La Paz clarify, cause he says it better than I can:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

So like I said, rationalizing bad behavior.  The detriment to society claims he isn't a detriment to society because he doesn't recognize society.  It's like a philosophical "Easy Button^tm"

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

So, it's a collection of monkeys, all in their own trees?  I know some huge fucking gorillas that would beg to differ.
[/quote]

But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

So for example, the rational anarchist would say that a CIA agent who tortured a human being is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACT OF TORTURE. The president that ordered it is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THAT ORDER. The guy that pushes the button one day and unleashes hell on earth, is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PUSHING THAT BUTTON. No one gets to escape because they are following orders or are part of a government or the person dumping toxins into the lake... is responsible not a Limited Liability Corporation that he worked for.

So maybe a gorilla would come over and beat my monkey ass for disagreeing with his view of government. He's still guilty, personally for such behavior... no matter what kind of badge, ID, stripes or titles some other monkeys gave him.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 07:36:19 PM
So like I said, rationalizing bad behavior.  The detriment to society claims he isn't a detriment to society because he doesn't recognize society.  It's like a philosophical "Easy Button^tm"

Ummm, no.

Let's use your example of selling drugs to kids.

A person may sell drugs to kids, then when he gets caught he says "I was brought up in hard times, and I was stuck in the inner city and my mom didn't love me..."

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:46:49 PM
But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

Yeah, but they can make THEIR delusions YOUR reality.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 07:52:05 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:46:49 PM
But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

Yeah, but they can make THEIR delusions YOUR reality.

Yes, but they can do that for anyone... no matter what the person might believe. So that doesn't seem to be an issue of Rational Anarchism as much as an issue of very large monkeys.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:46:49 PM

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

What's rational about this?  Those CIA agents are getting a pass, nobody is sending them to Leavenworth.  You say on the one hand that rational anarchism is a personal philosophy, but you're trying to have it both ways.

Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.  But it's something else altogether to say that because the government approved torture they've done something unlawful.  Immoral does not equal unlawful.  The government makes the laws, and they can and do cherry pick the laws and the consequences.  So are you taking that extra step to saying what the law should be (ie making rational anarchism into a political philosophy) or is it a personal philosophy without political or legal ramifications (ie the position you retreat to when somebody checkmates you in debate).

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 11, 2009, 08:40:00 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 07:46:49 PM

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

What's rational about this?  Those CIA agents are getting a pass, nobody is sending them to Leavenworth.  You say on the one hand that rational anarchism is a personal philosophy, but you're trying to have it both ways.

Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.  But it's something else altogether to say that because the government approved torture they've done something unlawful.  Immoral does not equal unlawful.  The government makes the laws, and they can and do cherry pick the laws and the consequences.  So are you taking that extra step to saying what the law should be (ie making rational anarchism into a political philosophy) or is it a personal philosophy without political or legal ramifications (ie the position you retreat to when somebody checkmates you in debate).

Good catch, sorry if I wasn't very clear there.

Let me first restate that more clearly "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

<i>Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.</i>

Yes, that is the first step, the second step is to see the government, or corporation or K Street Firm or Military group, or Military Contractor group ALL being individuals, individually responsible for ALL of their actions.

If Bob the Blackwater contractor shoots someone, HE is responsible for shooting that person. If Joe in the Marines shoots someone, HE is responsible for shooting that person. If a CEO approves a bad investment, HE is personally responsible for the results. Sure our current system of government may not consider them personally responsible, but that is the big problem with most social structures... the group gets confused and doesn't see 'group' as individual+individual+individual.... etc.

If there were lots of Rational Anarchists, then the philosophy might influence law, since all humans tend to vote in line with their philosophy. However, the philosophy itself doesn't have as its goal the overthrow of government.

Quote from: Alty on November 11, 2009, 05:10:47 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2009, 03:16:17 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

People suck, especially when they have authority.
But also especially when there's none.

Authority gives people license to do whatever they want as long as they don't piss off, or upset the balance of authority.

And the same goes for lack of authority.

Either way, the nature of the limits, socially imposed or otherwise, is the only thing keeping people from eating each other in the streets. That, and electricity.

I just don't see how Anarchy is supposed to solve the Asshole Factor.

It's not,  you can't solve the asshole factor.

What anarchy does is keep from exacerbating it by giving some assholes power over the rest of the assholes.

No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 11, 2009, 07:03:56 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 11, 2009, 06:33:57 PM

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.
[...]
Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

The difference between government and your rational anarchism is all in the names.  Replace police with private security force, replace government maintained road with tolls roads, replace public fire departments with private fire departments.  I don't think an anarchic society would look very different from a governed society, because people would instantly replace the illusions of government that they need.

The thing you're missing, Dr. RB, is that the "rational anarchism" you're describing isn't really any different than what's going on right now.  You're free to submit yourself to the police as you like, and if you don't they're going to come down on you unless you're clever enough to get away with it.  How would a privately run police force be different?  If anything it would be worse, since it would be little more than a gang of thugs with no illusory government telling them they have to respect fictional rights.

I like Heinlein too, he was a helluva good science fiction writer, but he was way to pie-eyed and cantankerous to have practical politics for the present generation.  He's probably right though that pseudo laissez faire capitalism is the only sort of economy that can function in an interplanetary society, but that's so far in the distant future that it shouldn't matter to us in the here and now.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2009, 06:40:00 PM
Now, this "rational anarchism" ... mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Actually, you make a pretty compelling argument for rational anarchism right there.

Quote from: R W H N on November 11, 2009, 06:58:33 PM
Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Yeah, they're called "the pharmaceutical industry."

That's not Anarchism, that's Libertarianism.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 06:30:58 AM
No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

You could see that as the Communists being the biggest assholes if you really wanna, but it wasn't a quick thing.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:43:57 AM


That's not Anarchism, that's Libertarianism.

Wrong.  There are two types of anarchism, or rather two schools of predictions as to how an anarchic society will unfold.  One is anarcho-syndicalsm, also called "anarcho-communism," "left anarchism" or simply "anarchism." The other is anarcho-capitalism, also called "right anarchism" or "libertariansm."  QED

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

Quote from: Alty on November 11, 2009, 05:00:34 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2009, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system :lulz: would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 12, 2009, 07:10:41 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

Not until someone else does it more successfully.

Quote from: Alty on November 12, 2009, 07:12:18 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 11, 2009, 05:00:34 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2009, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system :lulz: would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

Well, the assumption is that the system didn't just magically vanish.  It was overthrown, but Anarchists working together.  So those fuckers who want to beat people up, for the fun of it, they got killed in the revolution.

If you think police stop people from committing crimes you really aren't paying attention.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 07:25:16 AM

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 12, 2009, 07:10:41 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

Not until someone else does it more successfully.

In that case I won't be holding my breath.

You know, fascism was pretty popular eighty years ago in Spain, too.  So was phrenology.  Just sayin.

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 12, 2009, 07:36:55 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 07:25:16 AM

Quote from: Guy_Incognito on November 12, 2009, 07:10:41 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

Not until someone else does it more successfully.

In that case I won't be holding my breath.

You know, fascism was pretty popular eighty years ago in Spain, too.  So was phrenology.  Just sayin.

Yep, then the Germans did it better, so nowadays all the Fascists refer back to Germany.

I like the idea, Roger, and actually I think you make a good point - any freethinking person is necessarily their own political party, their own philosophical school of thought, and it only has one member.

As for my own ideas, I haven't really decided yet. I tend to agree with whatever the latest argument I read was, and yes I realize how sad that is. I just can't seem to find a political philosophy I can hold onto tightly. However, whatever I believe I tend to be an idealist and I tend to follow ideals more easily than the complex nature of human nature. Maybe that's a problem I have. I dunno.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 06:30:58 AM
No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

You could see that as the Communists being the biggest assholes if you really wanna, but it wasn't a quick thing.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 07:35:41 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 12, 2009, 07:12:18 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 11, 2009, 05:00:34 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2009, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system :lulz: would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

Well, the assumption is that the system didn't just magically vanish.  It was overthrown, but Anarchists working together.  So those fuckers who want to beat people up, for the fun of it, they got killed in the revolution.

If you think police stop people from committing crimes you really aren't paying attention.

:lulz:
O RLY?

And what the fuck do you know about what I give my attention to?

Let's suppose I just walk around with a blank stare on my face all day, don't notice police brutality, don't notice reports of children getting blown into little pieces in their sleep by drones, don't notice anything at all. Yep, happy as a clam. Look at me, not being protected from people who would cut my throat and steal my watch, not because they need it but because it looks pretty.

OK.

I'm not a violent person, in fact until recently I've held the position of devout pacifism. Even verbal pacifism. This position has since come into doubt. For about a year I had these intrusive, unhealthy, violent, thoughts about someone. This person...stole something from me, something no human being should ever steal from another, and I could not get these thoughts out of my head unless my head was drunk.

I didn't like those thoughts, they scared the fuck out of me; because, you see, the only thing that kept me from indulging in these thoughts was that I didn't want to go to jail. I suppose that makes me a bad person, not finding any moral or ethical problems with that kind of thing.

Maybe you've never entertained thoughts like that. Regardless, I find myself wondering about quiet people next to me, wondering what it would take for them to just snap. And then I wonder about the loud, mean mother-fuckers I see every day. The one's with multiple DUI's and have to attend anger management classes and, for some reason, react to a man with a very soft, almost feminine voice and a swish in his walk the same way a bull reacts when you tie a piece of string real tight around his balls. So I think, what would happen if there were no enforced consequence to their actions?  But then, I'm not really paying attention.

So there's going to be a revolution, eh? Sweet. I'll bring the beer, you bring the Marxists.
What's the plan, exactly? What are the finer points bringing down The Man[tm]? No need to KYFMS, there's nothing to be afraid of since no one is going to stop you from doing it because police don't stop people from committing crimes. Evar. So lay it out.

Revolutions are fun, and if I survive the massive social and economical upheavals, (or, you know, the revolutionaries) I have to wonder...
The Americans got the Independence.
The French got the Reign of Terror.
What do I get out of your revolution, other than an ass-raping from The Lord Humongous?

Also, can you please give me an anarchist, eh, means of dealing with criminal behavior? Would it be defined differently? What about Law? 'splain.

Ah fuck.

I'm a member of the Reboot Party.

We have a simple platform:
Every piece of dry, life-form-friendly piece of land gets napalmed.

I know what you're thinking: Where do you keep all the napalm? How do you cover last the bit without 'palming yourself into a corner? Just like mopping.
That's easy. Set up base on Antarctica.

This way, the fish can have another whack at walking and talking to see if they can get it right.
Or, if not, the future race of sentient, intelligent penguin creatures that will have evolved/interbred with the surviving humans can have a go.

We need your donations now!

Quote from: Alty on November 13, 2009, 06:04:55 PM
I'm a member of the Reboot Party.

We have a simple platform:
Every piece of dry, life-form-friendly piece of land gets napalmed.

I know what you're thinking: Where do you keep all the napalm? How do you cover last the bit without 'palming yourself into a corner? Just like mopping.
That's easy. Set up base on Antarctica.

This way, the fish can have another whack at walking and talking to see if they can get it right.
Or, if not, the future race of sentient, intelligent penguin creatures that will have evolved/interbred with the surviving humans can have a go.

We need your donations now!

You have the support of the "ALLAYOUSE MONKEYS OFF MY PLANET" party.

Quote from: Alty on November 13, 2009, 06:04:55 PM
I'm a member of the Reboot Party.

We have a simple platform:
Every piece of dry, life-form-friendly piece of land gets napalmed.

I know what you're thinking: Where do you keep all the napalm? How do you cover last the bit without 'palming yourself into a corner? Just like mopping.
That's easy. Set up base on Antarctica.

This way, the fish can have another whack at walking and talking to see if they can get it right.
Or, if not, the future race of sentient, intelligent penguin creatures that will have evolved/interbred with the surviving humans can have a go.

We need your donations now!

Vonnegut already wrote that book. It's called Galapagos.

that said, I'm voting for your party's candidates in my next local elections.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 13, 2009, 06:18:38 PM

Quote from: Alty on November 13, 2009, 06:04:55 PM
I'm a member of the Reboot Party.

We have a simple platform:
Every piece of dry, life-form-friendly piece of land gets napalmed.

I know what you're thinking: Where do you keep all the napalm? How do you cover last the bit without 'palming yourself into a corner? Just like mopping.
That's easy. Set up base on Antarctica.

This way, the fish can have another whack at walking and talking to see if they can get it right.
Or, if not, the future race of sentient, intelligent penguin creatures that will have evolved/interbred with the surviving humans can have a go.

We need your donations now!

Vonnegut already wrote that book. It's called Galapagos.

that said, I'm voting for your party's candidates in my next local elections.

Incidentally, Galapagos had the single best Genesis-type creation story ever.

Quote from: Alty on November 13, 2009, 06:04:55 PM
I'm a member of the Reboot Party.

We have a simple platform:
Every piece of dry, life-form-friendly piece of land gets napalmed.

I know what you're thinking: Where do you keep all the napalm? How do you cover last the bit without 'palming yourself into a corner? Just like mopping.
That's easy. Set up base on Antarctica.

This way, the fish can have another whack at walking and talking to see if they can get it right.
Or, if not, the future race of sentient, intelligent penguin creatures that will have evolved/interbred with the surviving humans can have a go.

We need your donations now!

You seem to be gaining supporters left and right.

I'm in...

Roger:
We're grateful for any assistance you can offer. Perhaps you could provide some deeply frightened monkeys as labor. Gotta get them canisters moving.

RCH:
I was being completely original and new!  :argh!:
I did not know that, but it is not surprising. Thanks for giving me a new book to read.

rygD:
People like simplicity. Glad to have you aboard.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 11:21:32 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 06:30:58 AM
No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

You could see that as the Communists being the biggest assholes if you really wanna, but it wasn't a quick thing.

So because the Nazi's conquered France by force does that make a Republic a nonviable political system?

Quote from: Alty on November 13, 2009, 05:36:59 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 07:35:41 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 12, 2009, 07:12:18 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 11, 2009, 05:00:34 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2009, 06:21:08 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 08, 2009, 02:49:12 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 07, 2009, 10:28:01 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2009, 12:02:57 PM
What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system :lulz: would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

Well, the assumption is that the system didn't just magically vanish.  It was overthrown, but Anarchists working together.  So those fuckers who want to beat people up, for the fun of it, they got killed in the revolution.

If you think police stop people from committing crimes you really aren't paying attention.

:lulz:
O RLY?

And what the fuck do you know about what I give my attention to?

Let's suppose I just walk around with a blank stare on my face all day, don't notice police brutality, don't notice reports of children getting blown into little pieces in their sleep by drones, don't notice anything at all. Yep, happy as a clam. Look at me, not being protected from people who would cut my throat and steal my watch, not because they need it but because it looks pretty.

OK.

I'm not a violent person, in fact until recently I've held the position of devout pacifism. Even verbal pacifism. This position has since come into doubt. For about a year I had these intrusive, unhealthy, violent, thoughts about someone. This person...stole something from me, something no human being should ever steal from another, and I could not get these thoughts out of my head unless my head was drunk.

I didn't like those thoughts, they scared the fuck out of me; because, you see, the only thing that kept me from indulging in these thoughts was that I didn't want to go to jail. I suppose that makes me a bad person, not finding any moral or ethical problems with that kind of thing.

Maybe you've never entertained thoughts like that. Regardless, I find myself wondering about quiet people next to me, wondering what it would take for them to just snap. And then I wonder about the loud, mean mother-fuckers I see every day. The one's with multiple DUI's and have to attend anger management classes and, for some reason, react to a man with a very soft, almost feminine voice and a swish in his walk the same way a bull reacts when you tie a piece of string real tight around his balls. So I think, what would happen if there were no enforced consequence to their actions?  But then, I'm not really paying attention.

So there's going to be a revolution, eh? Sweet. I'll bring the beer, you bring the Marxists.
What's the plan, exactly? What are the finer points bringing down The Man[tm]? No need to KYFMS, there's nothing to be afraid of since no one is going to stop you from doing it because police don't stop people from committing crimes. Evar. So lay it out.

Revolutions are fun, and if I survive the massive social and economical upheavals, (or, you know, the revolutionaries) I have to wonder...
The Americans got the Independence.
The French got the Reign of Terror.
What do I get out of your revolution, other than an ass-raping from The Lord Humongous?

Also, can you please give me an anarchist, eh, means of dealing with criminal behavior? Would it be defined differently? What about Law? 'splain.

Criminal behavior would certainly be defined differently.  if what you are doing isn't hurting anyone but you than nobody is going to give a fuck.  if it does, then the people in the community you live in are most likely going to do something about it. 

I don't see any reason that doing something about criminals is something that should be relegated to a specialized class who has, so far, done an incredibly poor job of it.

Do I have a plan for the revolution?  Nope, I don't.  I haven't even managed to get together a little commune of free thinkers to show what life could possibly be like if the revolution happened.  But that doesn't mean I'm not going to dream of it, and giong to put it forth as the best possible system.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 15, 2009, 01:36:18 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 11:21:32 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2009, 06:48:21 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2009, 06:30:58 AM
No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

You could see that as the Communists being the biggest assholes if you really wanna, but it wasn't a quick thing.

So because the Nazi's conquered France by force does that make a Republic a nonviable political system?

The Nazi's were an external force,I don't know about Ukraine, but in Spain it was internal.

My understanding of the spanish anarchists set up during the spanish civil war is that they actually bore remarkably little similarity to what most people think of as anarchism.

For a start, they continued to use a form of currency, except that it was administered by a central bureaucracy and was handed out in the form of hours of work. It didn't matter what job you did, but you were given an amount of vouchers representing time worked, and used those to purchase products which were also assigned amounts of time as value.

Unsurprisingly, this required that members of the spanish anarchist movement take up full time jobs regulating the flow of vouchers, administering the cost of products, and handling the complaints that some things were too cheap and some things were too expensive. They also struck deals with the factory owners and managers, who continued to do their jobs, because it was easier to use the system that was already in place than to start all over again. Said managers ensured that they continued to get decent 'wages' in exchange for their cooperation. More than the workers got.

So essentially, what you wound up getting when the Spanish Anarchists came over, was a rewrite of the standard capitalist model which, given that bizarrely, you didn't get a commensurate amount of 'hours of work' strictly based on how many hours you actually worked, but some jobs haggled for more, would simply have wound up being the exact same system handled from a cumbersome top down perspective in about six months.

However, it is worth noting that the communists that crushed them were not Spanish, they were from the USSR which was 'assisting' during the civil war, and saw the entire experiment as a threat to glorious soviet communism.

That, at least, is the understanding I took away after it was touched on in my political ideologies module last year.

Anarchy as a political model is so utterly fucking retarded that it's not worth talking about.

E/O/T.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 15, 2009, 01:41:20 AMCriminal behavior would certainly be defined differently.  if what you are doing isn't hurting anyone but you than nobody is going to give a fuck.  if it does, then the people in the community you live in are most likely going to do something about it. 

I don't see any reason that doing something about criminals is something that should be relegated to a specialized class who has, so far, done an incredibly poor job of it.

So instead of due process, warrants, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and trial by jury, you think we should have a system based on mob rule, vigilante justice, and lynchings -- is that what you are saying?

Under that system, it seems that "criminal behavior" would be defined as anything that angers a mob, possibly including being a member of the wrong religion, dating the wrong color, or causing the latest drought/earthquake/hurricane/wildfire by angering God with your sinful lifestyle.

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 16, 2009, 08:36:12 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 15, 2009, 01:41:20 AMCriminal behavior would certainly be defined differently.  if what you are doing isn't hurting anyone but you than nobody is going to give a fuck.  if it does, then the people in the community you live in are most likely going to do something about it. 

I don't see any reason that doing something about criminals is something that should be relegated to a specialized class who has, so far, done an incredibly poor job of it.

So instead of due process, warrants, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and trial by jury, you think we should have a system based on mob rule, vigilante justice, and lynchings -- is that what you are saying?

Under that system, it seems that "criminal behavior" would be defined as anything that angers a mob, possibly including being a member of the wrong religion, dating the wrong color, or causing the latest drought/earthquake/hurricane/wildfire by angering God with your sinful lifestyle.

Yep.  Say HELLLLLOOOOOO to pogroms.

I miss the Rhinoceros Party.

Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on November 17, 2009, 02:21:50 AM
I miss the Rhinoceros Party.

Buncha drunken Newfies, right?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 03:06:07 AM

Quote from: Shrunkenheadspace on November 17, 2009, 02:21:50 AM
I miss the Rhinoceros Party.

Buncha drunken Newfies, right?

Damn right.

According to a former Cabinet minister, my political affiliation is "cynical nihilist".

I think that was meant to be an insult, however, I am starting to warm to the idea.  Since, you know, Labour are useless, the Tories are actively evil and the Lib Dems are pathetic beyond all belief.  Lets not even get into discussions about UKIP, the BNP, the Greens and so on.

And besides, I learnt all this cool stuff about insurgencies and organised crime and apparently the government isn't interested in hiring me to help them get around these problems....they do say you should work doing something you love....

Be careful though, Cain, as I tried to "do what I love" and ended up almost out on the street.  Kinda close to stuff that I enjoy now, but I want to choke everyone I work with, and hunt down every idiot who calls me asking for a fone number or to fix their account, etc...wrong fucking section.

Oh yeah, and the hours and the salary suck.

Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2009, 08:47:48 AM
According to a former Cabinet minister, my political affiliation is "cynical nihilist".

That's not possible, anymore.

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 16, 2009, 08:36:12 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 15, 2009, 01:41:20 AMCriminal behavior would certainly be defined differently.  if what you are doing isn't hurting anyone but you than nobody is going to give a fuck.  if it does, then the people in the community you live in are most likely going to do something about it. 

I don't see any reason that doing something about criminals is something that should be relegated to a specialized class who has, so far, done an incredibly poor job of it.

So instead of due process, warrants, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and trial by jury, you think we should have a system based on mob rule, vigilante justice, and lynchings -- is that what you are saying?

Under that system, it seems that "criminal behavior" would be defined as anything that angers a mob, possibly including being a member of the wrong religion, dating the wrong color, or causing the latest drought/earthquake/hurricane/wildfire by angering God with your sinful lifestyle.

if it worked, criminal behavior wouldn't exist. if the it worked...