I have come to realise that Anarchy, means many different things to different people. Lots of people see it as a political movement, and while this is a valid viewpoint, it does seem to dominate peoples perceptions. Politically, Anarchy tends to be about destruction of Governmental systems. The throwing down of an oppressive regieme. This is not really what the spirit of Anarchy is about. If you approach it from this viewpoint, the chances are you are missing the whole point.
Anarchy is not about misrule, or politcal revolution. Not about tearing down a hated government.
It's not about breaking the rules, or setting up a fairer or more tolerant society. It's not about socialism, or communism, capitalism, or fascism. It's not about anything with an "ism" on the end. It's not about casting down social evils, or despots, not about violence, or rioting, or not following leaders.
Etymologically, Anarchy means the rule of one. Contrary to popular belief, it is not anti-government. It is very much about government. Government at it's most basic, and relevant level.
Self government. Not self government as a country, or a bordered land. But self govenment as an independent, self regulating organism. YOU. It's about taking control of how you govern yourself. It's about thinking for yourself. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. About having a set of rules of your own, rules that allow you to co-exist in relative harmony with those around you. Rules that are not impossibly idealistic. That way only leads to disappointment, and bitterness. Rules that are not so rigid, and inflexible that they become a burden to you. Rules that are unwritten. Obvious.
And livable by. It's not about giving anyone else these rules, it's about accepting that these people are as capable as you are of having there own rules too. Now, all this might seem like common sense, and easy to do. And it is. The hard part, is accepting that whatever rules you adopt for yourself to live by, have consequences.
State Governmental systems assume to remove the responsibility for your actions, from your personal life, via judiciary or legislative models. In societies like we have today, this is not practical, workable, or efficient. People break Laws with impunity. The consequences of our actions are soaked up by the system, and rarely come home to roost. The idea of "Justice" has been hi-jacked, and turned on it's head by Judiciary systems. More Laws are made, more legislation is implemented, and the system, though unworkable, is all a Government can offer in the way of "protection" for the populace.
Anarchy is about assuming whatever responsibility you can, back from wherever it is currently hiding, (and it's not as far away as you might think) about thinking hard about the Laws our Leaders give us to regulate us, and then dismissing those that directly stop you from having control of your own life, in the most workable way you can. Even in the most oppressive regieme, there is still room for the individual to say "NO". Fear keeps those voices down, but can never stop them. It doesn't have to be very loud. The only person who needs to hear it is YOU. It is this word that starts it all. Small acts of defiance. Acts that have consequences only for you. Not revolution against the forces of governments, revolution against what you allow yourself to be deluded by. Blakes "Mind forged manacles"
Crowley understood, and his oft quoted, but much misunderstood ''Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law'' pretty much nails it. It is about taking control of our own lives, on a fundamental level. Finding our ''True Will'', piece by piece, and holding to it. Understanding how it affects everything around us, everything we do. When we start to do this, we see how tenuous a grip those who would oppress us with false Laws really have on us. The comfortable illusion of an ''Ordered Society'' is just that. An illusion. And if you are happy with that, then you are saying, in effect, ''I am happy to live on my knees, I accept that I need to be governed by others". But deep down, you know it is a lie. You just don't want to be the only one to rise up. This is the struggle. You HAVE to be the only one to rise up. You HAVE to do this for yourself, otherwise nothing will ever change.
The original Sin of proud Lucifer, was to say, ''No, I will not serve''. And for this, he was not ''cast out out of Heaven'', but given the Earth. That was the consequence of his disobedience. Not so bad when you look at it like that, is it?
great. Tell it to the Anarchists. :lol:
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 15, 2010, 10:22:54 PM
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
:lulz: :argh!:
i really did lol though
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 15, 2010, 10:22:54 PM
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.
The OP is about what I believe. It's a Utopian concept so there's no way it will function in the here and now, but I like to use Anarchism as an ideal to compare against.
I viewed anarchy as lack of outside authority. Still can be an inner voice that gets ignored. Tho accepting divine authority is what... a paradox? then again its different to accept a cloud deity then some dude in a white robe
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 15, 2010, 10:19:56 PM
great. Tell it to the Anarchists. :lol:
Point taken. Although, to be fair . . . . . nope, got nothin'. Spot on. (I'll get my coat . . )
don't get the wrong idea, I liked the rant, but if it ever sneaks out onto the street there's probably a barstool lurking in a dark alley waiting for it.
It's all fine and good to convince people to take control of their lives, to defy the rules that don't suit them.
HOWEVER,
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist, as if they could simply say "I am free of your bonds" and the universe would be at their command. And those who ignore power suffer miserable misfortune. Those who ignore power and claim to have it all on their own are the most powerless. Better to seem to be a statist, than to say "I am an anarchist" and eliminate all power you might have. The only way to take power is to learn how to manipulate others, avoid being manipulated, seize the prize and eliminate your enemies. Control means controlling others, and not just yourself. For how much control do you really have, if other people fuck up your plans?
There is always a state. This one isn't so bad, relatively.
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
I've always considered power to be an illusion, with the exception of violence. If you define power as the ability to force someone to do something, then the only power someone has over you is what you give them. If they hold something over you that you care about, then you're giving them power. But if you don't care or accept the loss of whatever they are threatening, then they cannot do anything to compel you.
The only exception to this is the power of violence, which can only force someone to die. So, if you have a person who doesn't care about friends, family, reputation, etc. and is willing to lose his life, then he cannot be forced to do anything he doesn't want to. All you can do is kill him.
Of course, most people have things they value (such as family, friends, etc.), so they have levers which others can use against them. But the idea is that the only power someone can hold over you is that which you give them.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:14:22 AM
I've always considered power to be an illusion, with the exception of violence.
Political power is by definition violence.
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you?
Yes.
QuoteYes.
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion. The only real power is violence, because violence is the only thing that can truly make you do something against your will, and that is to die. Violence is the only real source of power because of this, but it is limited to this. Trying to make someone do something other than die through violence is just another illusion.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:07:20 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
You don't run around yelling about it though.
QuoteGo up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
Didn't say I was immune to coercion. The threat of violence, and getting my ass arrested are two lever that work fairly well for me. This is just a philosophical idea. Coercion relies on the victim being afraid of whatever he's being threatened with, but given that the only people who aren't afraid of something are zealots and similar crazies, the only thing you can do about it is try and limit the things that can be used to coerce you.
Its like a species wide fiction. Sure, speaking theoretically, most forms of power are based on fiction, but because everyone buys into the fiction, it is functionally true. Am I making sense?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
from TIT.. and one of my favorite parts of that damn book.
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:07:20 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
You don't run around yelling about it though.
*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*
Um, okay. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 16, 2010, 03:57:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
from TIT.. and one of my favorite parts of that damn book.
Yep. It's the only good part of that book.
The way society works is institucionalized violence.
Just because there is no bloodshed, doesnt mean things arent imposed.
I'VE TRIED TO WORK WITH ANARCHISTS
and now i'm prejudiced against people from L.A. AND anarchists. because they suck.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:07:20 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
You don't run around yelling about it though.
*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*
Um, okay. :lulz:
Or more importantly, you don't run around yelling that you are an anarchist.
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
It's all fine and good to convince people to take control of their lives, to defy the rules that don't suit them.
HOWEVER,
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist, as if they could simply say "I am free of your bonds" and the universe would be at their command. And those who ignore power suffer miserable misfortune. Those who ignore power and claim to have it all on their own are the most powerless. Better to seem to be a statist, than to say "I am an anarchist" and eliminate all power you might have. The only way to take power is to learn how to manipulate others, avoid being manipulated, seize the prize and eliminate your enemies. Control means controlling others, and not just yourself. For how much control do you really have, if other people fuck up your plans?
There is always a state. This one isn't so bad, relatively.
I would disagree that there is always a state. Historically speaking, the modern nation-state is a relatively new invention. While some past empires share similarities with the modern day nation-state, they didn't carry certain assumptions re: citizenship and nationalism that modern ones do, and of course, the history of feudalism shows a very different form of social organizing (feudal lords served their Sovereign or Prince, in theory. Some had more than one Prince, which made diplomatic incidents interesting, but more importantly also meant their land, wealth, soldiers etc were considered to be serving two different countries at once. Furthermore, various regional lords, such as the House of Lorraine and House of Guise, were significantly richer and more powerful than their own Kings, and could pursue their own foreign policy and private wars. Intermingled into all this was the power of the Holy Roman Empire and the Vatican, both of which acted as transnational and national actors at the same time, capable of punishing crimes, levying taxes and declaring wars of their own, though with varying degrees of effectiveness, especially in the case of the Emperor). Modern states arose only after Kings hobbled the nobility and the power of the Church, at least in Western Europe, and I would personally associate with the rise of bureaucracy in 17th century Prussia. And I have no doubt that the situation was even more complex in other cultures, such as SE Asia.
The power point is a good one though, and reminds me of something Foucault said:
Quote from: Mark G. E. Kelly, The Political Philosophy of Michel FoucaultMight it not be possible however to constitute resistance in such a way as to utterly refuse and exclude power, and thus eventually abolish it? Hardly, since to utterly annihilate power would mean nothing less than the destruction of all actions upon actions. It cannot be done by appealing to a higher action upon actions that will keep power in check, since that would of course itself still be power, hence the abnegation of total freedom. The complete disappearance of Foucaultian power relations would seem to require nothing less than the total abolition of sociality:
QuotePower relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not a supplementary structure over and above "society" whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. To live in society is, in any event, to live in such a way that some can act on the actions of others. (EW3 343)
Hence Foucault's injunction that "we must stop imagining that we can escape power relations at a stroke, globally, massively, by a kind of radical rupture" (DE2 542), since "there is not then with power relations any one site of the great refusal, no soul of revolt, base of all rebellions, or pure law Resistance of the revolutionary" (VS 126; cf. WK 95–96). Hence, anarchism, qua the project of abolishing government, is a kind of fantasy that belies the real reasons for its existence, which is always in fact the opposition to a real, proximal repression: in the discussion after a 1978 lecture in Paris, Foucault declares,
QuoteI do not think that the will not to be governed at all is something that could be considered an originary aspiration. I think that, in fact, the will not to be governed is always the will not to be governed like this, in this way, by these people, at this price. As for resolving not to be governed at all, it would seem to me to be some kind of philosophical and theoretical paroxysm of something that would be this will not to be governed relatively speaking. (Foucault 1990, 59; cf. PT 72–73)
However, he in fact goes on to make clear that, while he does not endorse a "fundamental anarchism," that is opposed to government, he does not "absolutely exclude it" either. Such anarchism, though "fundamental," is merely opposition to "all governmentalisation" (Foucault 1990, 59), not opposition to power per se. Foucault clearly had certain anarchist tendencies; like Nietzsche (Z:1 "The New Idol"), Foucault (2005, 128) has a keen mistrust of "this monstrosity we call the state," and at times he does indeed seem to endorse a fight against power itself, as in this excerpt from a 1980 interview:
QuoteWe have to rise up against all forms of power—but not just power in the narrow sense of the word, referring to the power of a government or of one social group over another: these are only a few particular instances of power. (Foucault 1988, 1)
Yet, here Foucault does not mean that we must rise up against power itself, but rather that every form which does occur must be fought against. Anarchists, on the other hand, as Todd May (1994, 65) has put it, assume as an a priori that power itself must be fought against. The difference is that the Foucaultian aim of fighting against specific forms of power is not to get rid of power forever, but only to modify the network of power relations in such a way as to change the power with which we are at that moment concerned. As May puts it, the problem with the anarchist attitude, and the reason it is an a priori, is that their opposition to power is not based on an assessment of the tactical situation. Total opposition to power does not allow us to pick our battles, but rather condemns all power by way of a norm of the abolition of power relations which is thoroughly unachievable.
Which is a position I tend to agree with.
Quote from: E.O.T. on September 16, 2010, 06:06:29 AM
I'VE TRIED TO WORK WITH ANARCHISTS
and now i'm prejudiced against people from L.A. AND anarchists. because they suck.
:(
Maybe if you became an anarchist, Jenne, the two would cancel each other out?
So Foucault, if I remember and understand the above quote directly, wanted a more pragmatic stance in fighting "the power." Don't throw away usable power in pursuit of non-subjugation. Rather, fight that which necessarily needs fighting and shape or use to your advantage the power that is still useful. Especially (and this is my own, actually), if you don't have a Plan B for what do once you do, actually, eradicate the current, "oppressive" power.
That's basically always been my complaint about revolutionaries: ok, you overthrew the powers that be, gotcha, what now? Revolutionaries themselves rarely make great planners, doers and executors of anything other than revolution, chaos and confusion.
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2010, 04:26:48 PM
Maybe if you became an anarchist, Jenne, the two would cancel each other out?
:lol: One might even posit coming from there makes you one. I think LA is a cool place if you don't take it seriously. It's easy to be down on CA/LA these days, actually. We are but a mockery of our former selves, after all.
Foucault believed the only way you could escape power relations would be to escape society entirely (and even then that wasn't a given, since a human personality was a result of societal power relations, and so may continue to have a subconscious impact), so pretty much the only reasonable option left which didn't involve meekly acquiesing was picking tactical battles, with an overall strategic aim of correcting currently existing, concrete wrongs.
As far as I understand him. It's been a while, and I haven't read all his lectures with the necessary care and attention needed to have a full grasp of his political theory.
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:07:20 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
You don't run around yelling about it though.
*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*
Um, okay. :lulz:
Or more importantly, you don't run around yelling that you are an anarchist.
Point.
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2010, 04:57:04 PM
Foucault believed the only way you could escape power relations would be to escape society entirely (and even then that wasn't a given, since a human personality was a result of societal power relations, and so may continue to have a subconscious impact), so pretty much the only reasonable option left which didn't involve meekly acquiesing was picking tactical battles, with an overall strategic aim of correcting currently existing, concrete wrongs.
As far as I understand him. It's been a while, and I haven't read all his lectures with the necessary care and attention needed to have a full grasp of his political theory.
...that jives with my memory, too. It's been a fuck of a long time for me.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Finally. A good use for the illegals. We draft them, send them to invade Mexico, welcome them back here as heroes, then deport them.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.
As long as there will be people there will be violence.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 16, 2010, 06:09:20 PM
As long as there will be people there will be violence.
Exactly. There is nothing we can do about it, but sit back and enjoy the ride.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 16, 2010, 06:09:20 PM
As long as there will be people life there will be violence.
Naked apes don't hold a monopoly there.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it. I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it. I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.
Also, you probably weren't swallowing E like Pez anymore, and could understand the concept of the nightstick.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 16, 2010, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.
That's a good point. What will stop him, (or not) will be his own conscience. If he attacks a village, he has to take into account that he will have to be accountable for his actions. In pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers ever. And all without any central Government.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:42:31 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 16, 2010, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Fair point. But on the flip side, what's stopping one person from say, attacking a village of his own accord and that village from retaliating on his own village? Autonomous collectives are just as violence prone as nations, the only difference is scale, at a smaller scale its much easier to just kill everyone and wipe out the village, but on a nation-level scale thousands, maybe millions of people die, but their nations continue on anyway.
That's a good point. What will stop him, (or not) will be his own conscience. If he attacks a village, he has to take into account that he will have to be accountable for his actions. In pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers ever. And all without any central Government.
Interesting stuff. I will think about this and get back to you later tonight when I get home from class.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:32:16 AM
Okay. Thinking about it a little, that is true. Violence is the basis of all power. My point, though, was that the threat of violence is just as much an illusion as any other method of coercion.
Go up and explain to a cop that he's a social fiction, and then give him a boot in the balls for good measure.
What is illusion and what is real will become crystal clear.
Done that Dok, tried it. The social fiction thing goes right over their heads, they can't understand it, but a swift kick in the nuts, they respond to that the same as the next bloke. (Go down like a sack of shit) But one of the consequences of actions like this is that in all likelihood, his mates are going to arrest you, and bust your head open while they're at it. I tried to get around this consequence all through the 1980's, and in the most part, failed admirably.
It was only when I looked at my own reaction to their presence, (I mean, really looked at it) that I understood.
Also, you probably weren't swallowing E like Pez anymore, and could understand the concept of the nightstick.
It wasn't E that stopped me understanding that, it was the alcohol. Every time. E makes it far less likely that I even come into a confrontational situation, and if I do, the ''non aggresive'' facade the drug imbues, generally gets under the radar. Acid, they do not want to know. They will go so far out of their way, to avoid having anything to do with you if you're tripping. Something about it scares them, and it's not implied violence. Not quite sure what it is, but it works.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 16, 2010, 12:35:30 AM
don't get the wrong idea, I liked the rant, but if it ever sneaks out onto the street there's probably a barstool lurking in a dark alley waiting for it.
Oh totally. I'm not getting the wrong idea at all. But I am getting some really decent feedback from this, more than I expected, to be honest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 16, 2010, 03:07:20 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 16, 2010, 12:45:39 AM
most anarchists strike me as simply ignoring power, as if it didn't matter or exist,
I do that. :sad:
You don't run around yelling about it though.
*looks at Or Kill Me & Horrorology*
Um, okay. :lulz:
Or more importantly, you don't run around yelling that you are an anarchist.
Apparently I've been on been on MI5's ''watchlist'' since 1984. So you can probably guess how much of a fuck I give about this.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 16, 2010, 06:02:08 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 16, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on September 16, 2010, 03:21:28 AM
QuotePolitical power is by definition violence.
Hmm. Because it has the threat of violence behind it, or because it is an attempt to force someone else's will upon you? Or did I completely misinterpret, cause I'm never sure.
The threat of violence is always there.
That is just as much a part of the Human condition as anything else. Yes, the threat of violence is always there, and it always has been. It's no greater, or less than it was when we were living in mud huts. The State's Authority tries to portray it's role as a benevolent protector. But this image is easily shown up to be false when faced with non-compliance.
For example, the implied threat of violence to Mexico by Hilary Clinton, last week, when she re-classified Mexico's drug running Gangs as "Insurgents". The US, would be far more likely to take Military Action in a neighbouring Nation that is being over run by ''Insurgents'' than they would to just clean up a troublesome Drug Cartel.
All that violence is being implied on the weight of every American citizen, because the State has assumed the responsibility
for picking all the fights on behalf of it's subjects. But do you really trust it to have your best interests at heart?
Finally. A good use for the illegals. We draft them, send them to invade Mexico, welcome them back here as heroes, then deport them.
:mittens: Nice. Brits are too quick to believe yanks don't 'do' satire. But this certainly raised a giggle.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 15, 2010, 10:42:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 15, 2010, 10:22:54 PM
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.
Generally the complete lack of cohesion is a sign of those labelled by others as Anarchists. Of course as a self labelled Anarchist I may be seeing cohesion where others see only confusion and self contradiction.
I'm also not at all the same sort of Anarchist as Bad Beast. I am very much about opposing oppression wherever possible. It's not so much about overthrowing bad governments as minimizing their effects, and, as an Anarchist, I think they are all bad, just to different degrees.
Like Dok Howl however I am very much in favor of beaurocracy and also oppositional party politics, both tend to keep government from actually getting things done, which is a good thing.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 15, 2010, 10:42:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 15, 2010, 10:22:54 PM
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.
Generally the complete lack of cohesion is a sign of those labelled by others as Anarchists. Of course as a self labelled Anarchist I may be seeing cohesion where others see only confusion and self contradiction.
I'm also not at all the same sort of Anarchist as Bad Beast. I am very much about opposing oppression wherever possible. It's not so much about overthrowing bad governments as minimizing their effects, and, as an Anarchist, I think they are all bad, just to different degrees.
Like Dok Howl however I am very much in favor of beaurocracy and also oppositional party politics, both tend to keep government from actually getting things done, which is a good thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much about opposing oppression. It's just that we are so disempowered that the ''Wherever possible'' tends to just apply to one's own personal shit, and of those around you. That's one of the principle tenets of Anarchy. I will NOT just roll over and comply when faced with someone or something that demands I go along with their rules or thier bullshit. If the fight is worth fighting, I will fight every time. On my own, or someone elses behalf. I don't even know where you got that impression from.
I still maintain that the only sort of Anarchy that could exist in our world is 'rational anarchy'. That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding. It's "Think For Yourself, Schmuck" as a political/philosophical position.
Personally, I think that humans are tribal critters and will always fall into tribal hierarchies. The idea that everyone in the US will agree on anything seems absurd. This is a nation of tribes... religious tribes, political tribes, ethically driven tribes. philosophically driven tribes... the anarchist systems which eschew "The State" in favor of small voluntary associations seems like a natural way to handle these extreme differences. It's impossible in our modern society, but its nice to consider.
However, we'll still make fun of anarchy as impossible, while representative democracy fucks us in the ear, dictatorships fuck other people in the ear and whateverthefuck Russia is, gets drunk on Vodka.
Fuck that first monkey that climbed down out of the trees. Goddamned Stupid Monkey!
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 20, 2010, 05:26:33 PM
That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.
This is patently bullshit.
care to elaborate?
it requires people to be rational.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:01:48 PM
care to elaborate?
Sure. Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences. To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.
Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver. She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning. The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally). The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.
Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?
Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?
Were they both at fault?
Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?
according to rat's definition, if you occasionally break laws which you feel are bullshit, you're acting as a rational anarchist.
Rational Anarchism seems to recognize that human civilization does need laws and order, but as individuals, we should handle everything on a case-by-case basis.
I guess I'm having trouble seeing what's so patently bullshit about that.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:17:25 PM
according to rat's definition, if you occasionally break laws which you feel are bullshit, you're acting as a rational anarchist.
Rational Anarchism seems to recognize that human civilization does need laws and order, but as individuals, we should handle everything on a case-by-case basis.
I guess I'm having trouble seeing what's so patently bullshit about that.
Wait. What?
Dok,
Doesn't know why he bothered.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 20, 2010, 05:26:33 PM
That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.
This is patently bullshit.
THIS is what I was calling "patently bullshit".
sorry, I posted before I saw your post
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:16:36 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:01:48 PM
care to elaborate?
Consequences again. None of them are 100% responsible for this horrible situation. But the drunk driver will have ended up taking the whole rap for it.
(That's part of the reason the Pigs over here are very reluctant to pursue a driver determined not to stop)
Sure. Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences. To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.
Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver. She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning. The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally). The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.
Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?
Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?
Were they both at fault?
Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:16:36 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:01:48 PM
care to elaborate?
Sure. Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences. To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.
Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver. She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning. The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally). The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.
Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?
Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?
Were they both at fault?
Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?
Consequences again. None of them are 100% responsible for this horrible situation. But the drunk driver will have ended up taking the whole rap for it.
(That's part of the reason the Pigs over here are very reluctant to pursue a driver determined not to stop)
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:20:53 PM
sorry, I posted before I saw your post
S'ok.
But the fact is, nobody is 100% responsible for anything, so the core concept of rational anarchism is basically crap.
We could, however, keep the "rational" part, as least as much as we are able. For those who insist on the anarchy bit, there's Somalia.
Dok,
Will take pathetic government over bad government.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:24:22 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:16:36 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:01:48 PM
care to elaborate?
Sure. Most of the consequences of "your" or "my" actions are actually based on a vast array of outside factors and influences. To paraphrase RAW, most people take credit for things that are only partially their doing, and this gives them jumbo-size egos, and most people take the blame for things that are only partially their fault, and this gives them jumbo-size guilt complexes.
Recently, I was on a jury...Not going to go into all the details here, but part of what was discussed were the horrible injuries of a woman who pulled out in front of a drunk driver. She was sober, but was leaving a going-away party at 2AM, in a light rain shower, having been up since 5AM the previous morning. The drunk was travelling at an enormous speed, blissfully unaware of the cop trying to catch up to him (the cop was driving the other way originally). The best models that could be generated showed that the lady would have been okay if the drunk had been going the speed limit (it's hard to judge speed in the desert at night), or even 10MPH over.
Was she at fault for pulling out based on bad data (that being the bad data her exhausted eyes were feeding to her brain concerning the speed of the other vehicle?
Was the drunk at fault for going 97MPH in a 55MPH zone?
Were they both at fault?
Were they both at fault, alongside multiple environmental factors (darkness, rain, lack of points of reference)?
Consequences again. None of them are 100% responsible for this horrible situation. But the drunk driver will have ended up taking the whole rap for it.
(That's part of the reason the Pigs over here are very reluctant to pursue a driver determined not to stop)
Well, he took the consequences, combined with the consequences of not bothering with a seatbelt. He was ejected from the vehicle, which then rolled over him, leaving a Shroud of Chevy imprint on the passenger-side door.
At no point did he know he was being followed. He was just doing 97MPH for kicks, apparently. It's a Tucson thing.
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
I'm with you about responsibility.
Without splitting hairs on what percent responsible we are for anything --
-- which opens up that mucky discussion about causality and free will
I do like the premise - that none of us should ever hide behind "I was just following orders." We are relatively autonomous individuals. We shouldn't choose our actions based purely on whether something is lawful or not, rather we should weigh each action on its individual merits.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is something humans do.
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Only if you're lucky. That would be the 'necessary' part.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:30:02 PM
I'm with you about responsibility.
Without splitting hairs on what percent responsible we are for anything --
-- which opens up that mucky discussion about causality and free will
I do like the premise - that none of us should ever hide behind "I was just following orders." We are relatively autonomous individuals. We shouldn't choose our actions based purely on whether something is lawful or not, rather we should weigh each action on its individual merits.
Just because the consequences are driven by multiple factors doesn't absolve anyone of the factors they introduced.
And a bad law is no law, at least no law that you should obey. The problem is, people conflate "bad laws" (segregation, for example), with "laws they don't like" (copyright law, etc).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is something humans do.
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Anarchy IS Personality despotism! YOUR Personality, rulin' it large, over YOUR own shit!
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:46:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is something humans do.
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Anarchy IS Personality despotism! YOUR Personality, rulin' it large, over YOUR own shit!
Yeah, a few of my mates and I discussed this, and have decided to form a partnership.
Gimme your sammich.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
my GF is friends with these anarchist sect from montreal. I was niggling with them about anarchy, pointing out how despite being so against capitalism, they still have jobs and bank accounts. (well, most of them) Despite being so against police authority, they still call the police after getting robbed.
They pointed out that not all anarchists base their philosophy on some kind of idealized noble-savage narrative, or a vision of utopia. A lot of them recognize that a government and rule of law is necessary to prevent assholes from taking our resources and fucking our dead bodies. But because humans are bad at governance, we individuals need to hold the rule of law at arm's length, follow it when it's good and resist it when it's bad.
I had pointed out that pure anarchism would almost immediately devolve into a bunch of tough guys with no shirts. So much authority is derived from force, and in pure anarchy there is no way to regulate that this force is applied fairly. It turns out, many anarchists agree, and would feel that this is a mis-characterization of their position. Certainly nothing about Ratatosk's description of Rational Anarchism strikes me as a desire to abolish all government. It seems more like an attitude to help deal with the absurd and often contradictory signals that lawful society blasts us with.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:33:03 PM
And a bad law is no law, at least no law that you should obey. The problem is, people conflate "bad laws" (segregation, for example), with "laws they don't like" (copyright law, etc).
totally. It sounds like you're in agreement with Rat too. Not all laws are bad. We need to think for ourselves and decide which laws to follow on an individual basis.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:47:33 PM
totally. It sounds like you're in agreement with Rat too. Not all laws are bad. We need to think for ourselves and decide which laws to follow on an individual basis.
Just so long as we all understand that district attorneys are notoriously lacking in philosophical understanding, and that judges aren't too keen on it, either...And that a little bit of disregard for rotten laws can translate into a great deal of time having no fun at all.
Not saying that bad laws should be obeyed, I'm just saying that The Machine™ will keep playing long after it stops being fun for the individual in question.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Horseshit. Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting someone to kill them and take their sammich.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:46:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is something humans do.
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Anarchy IS Personality despotism! YOUR Personality, rulin' it large, over YOUR own shit!
Yeah, a few of my mates and I discussed this, and have decided to form a partnership.
Gimme your sammich.
Come and get it, if you think you're up to it.
How much is a bit of my sarny worth, when divided between you and your mates? Is it worth trying to stomp me for? Just how badly do you want it? And how did I get in the priviliged position of having such a covetous sammich?
Is it because I have resources you are not aware of?
Is it because I don't consider you and your mates a threat?
Do I look like a halfwit?
If not, then it's best to think twice before you try and take it. But if you want a bite, . . . . *Hands Dok the sammich*
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:52:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:47:09 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:46:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is something humans do.
Any anarchist system would instantly devolve into a cult of personality despotism.
Anarchy IS Personality despotism! YOUR Personality, rulin' it large, over YOUR own shit!
Yeah, a few of my mates and I discussed this, and have decided to form a partnership.
Gimme your sammich.
Come and get it, if you think you're up to it.
How much is a bit of my sarny worth, when divided between you and your mates? Is it worth trying to stomp me for?
1. No problem. We had decided to smack you over the head with a bit of steel pipe while you weren't looking.
2. We plan to do this wholesale, and make up the shortages in volume.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
It is also my personal responsibility to test for lead in paint and melamine in food.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
It is also my personal responsibility to test for lead in paint and melamine in food.
It is also my personal responsibility to maintain the roads.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 06:58:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
It is also my personal responsibility to test for lead in paint and melamine in food.
It is also my personal responsibility to maintain the roads.
No, we can give the roads to corporations, and then everyone will have the joys of driving on Chicago's tollway system, no matter where they are!
Dok,
Might suggest you invest in a halftrack.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 06:58:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
It is also my personal responsibility to test for lead in paint and melamine in food.
It is also my personal responsibility to maintain the roads.
And to make sure there are no drunks going 97 miles an hour in the wrong lane.
Quote from: Cain on September 16, 2010, 04:57:04 PM
Foucault believed the only way you could escape power relations would be to escape society entirely (and even then that wasn't a given, since a human personality was a result of societal power relations, and so may continue to have a subconscious impact), so pretty much the only reasonable option left which didn't involve meekly acquiesing was picking tactical battles, with an overall strategic aim of correcting currently existing, concrete wrongs.
As far as I understand him. It's been a while, and I haven't read all his lectures with the necessary care and attention needed to have a full grasp of his political theory.
Hmm, perhaps I should start to call myself a Foucaltian Anarchist (even if that is a contradiction in terms)
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 02:32:34 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 15, 2010, 10:42:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 15, 2010, 10:22:54 PM
Anarchism is libertarianism for teenagers.
I don't think most self titled anarchists are even close to libertarianism.... that would require at least some kind of cohesive thought process.
Generally the complete lack of cohesion is a sign of those labelled by others as Anarchists. Of course as a self labelled Anarchist I may be seeing cohesion where others see only confusion and self contradiction.
I'm also not at all the same sort of Anarchist as Bad Beast. I am very much about opposing oppression wherever possible. It's not so much about overthrowing bad governments as minimizing their effects, and, as an Anarchist, I think they are all bad, just to different degrees.
Like Dok Howl however I am very much in favor of beaurocracy and also oppositional party politics, both tend to keep government from actually getting things done, which is a good thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much about opposing oppression. It's just that we are so disempowered that the ''Wherever possible'' tends to just apply to one's own personal shit, and of those around you. That's one of the principle tenets of Anarchy. I will NOT just roll over and comply when faced with someone or something that demands I go along with their rules or thier bullshit. If the fight is worth fighting, I will fight every time. On my own, or someone elses behalf. I don't even know where you got that impression from.
From you OP where you said that it was not about fighting specific oppression.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:33:03 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 06:30:02 PM
I'm with you about responsibility.
Without splitting hairs on what percent responsible we are for anything --
-- which opens up that mucky discussion about causality and free will
I do like the premise - that none of us should ever hide behind "I was just following orders." We are relatively autonomous individuals. We shouldn't choose our actions based purely on whether something is lawful or not, rather we should weigh each action on its individual merits.
Just because the consequences are driven by multiple factors doesn't absolve anyone of the factors they introduced.
And a bad law is no law, at least no law that you should obey. The problem is, people conflate "bad laws" (segregation, for example), with "laws they don't like" (copyright law, etc).
Copyright law is a bad law. That's a whole different discussion, but locking down creative ideas for the length of time copyright locks them down does not have a good effect.
It's certainly not as bad an effect as segregation, but it's still not a good effect. Also, unlike segregation, it is not wholy evil, just several steps too far.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
Somali Pirates FTW
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
And now this thread will spiral out of control much like any thread that mentions pot.
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
Somali Pirates FTW
Wait. Are you suggesting that the Somali pirates are actually brave freedom fighters, opposing Chinese fishing fleets?
I guess the ones that attacked that French yacht just got carried away.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 07:32:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
And now this thread will spiral out of control much like any thread that mentions pot.
:lulz: :lulz:
That's a chance I'm willing to take, for the lulz I get when "libertarians" explain that "personal property" is an invalid concept.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
I'm not opposed to copyright for 15 years, Even for the life of the original creator, when that original creator is a mere mortal human. Copyright for an indefinite and apparently eternal period however is not a good idea. (I know there is still an official limit, but every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of expiring they extend it)
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:34:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
I'm not opposed to copyright for 15 years, Even for the life of the original creator, when that original creator is a mere mortal human. Copyright for an indefinite and apparently eternal period however is not a good idea. (I know there is still an official limit, but every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of expiring they extend it)
When you own your house for 15 years, squatters should be able to live in the closets legally.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:33:32 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Yes, because its my personal responsibility to make sure that the Chinese fishing companies don't kill every fish in American waters.
Somali Pirates FTW
Wait. Are you suggesting that the Somali pirates are actually brave freedom fighters, opposing Chinese fishing fleets?
I guess the ones that attacked that French yacht just got carried away.
Stopping Chinese and Indian fishing boats from overfishing their waters was their original stated purpose for pirating (that and stopping them dumping toxic waste in Somali waters). I'm not saying they stuck to their mission, turned out pirating was a lot easier and more profitable and Somalians don't really eat that much fish anyways, it was fished for economic reasons (someone took "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" literally in the case of Somalia a few decades back)
Like just about everyone the pirates are a mixture of good and bad. I'm just pointing to an attempted Anarchist model for keeping the Chinese from taking all the fish.
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:35:45 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:34:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
I'm not opposed to copyright for 15 years, Even for the life of the original creator, when that original creator is a mere mortal human. Copyright for an indefinite and apparently eternal period however is not a good idea. (I know there is still an official limit, but every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of expiring they extend it)
When you own your house for 15 years, squatters should be able to live in the closets legally.
Yes, and police should get involved to defend their access rights to pathways to and from those closets.
Physical objects and intellectual property are different. I have no problem with patent law, why not treat Copyright the same way?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:39:22 PM
Stopping Chinese and Indian fishing boats from overfishing their waters was their original stated purpose for pirating (that and stopping them dumping toxic waste in Somali waters). I'm not saying they stuck to their mission, turned out pirating was a lot easier and more profitable and Somalians don't really eat that much fish anyways, it was fished for economic reasons (someone took "teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" literally in the case of Somalia a few decades back)
Like just about everyone the pirates are a mixture of good and bad. I'm just pointing to an attempted Anarchist model for keeping the Chinese from taking all the fish.
Yeah, and what a great model. Attacking all those container ships is a great example of anarchist models to stop overfishing.
:lulz:
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness. Mickey mouse, in specific, is only a small loss to the collective consciousness. Although he has been remixed repeatedly, it just happens to be illegal. There is some great art that has incorporated Mickey in illegal ways (well, technically legal, Satire is protected speech, but there have been people successfully sued over it, Disney is just too busy with other things to sue everyone who uses Mickey satirically) A much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available. So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:45:03 PM
Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.
That's not creativity, it's being derivative. Please link me to where Rudyard Kipling was just remixing other peoples' poetry. Thanks.
So you know what I am going to do?
I am going to copy le Morte d'Arthur, but change everyone's name, and then sell it under the title "King Bob and his group of Badasses" And slap a copyright it on it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.
to quote the Kopyleft notice at poee.co.uk:
QuoteCopyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited
from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not
the individual artist.
Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.
In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade's work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.
For Eris' sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.
I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should
certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are
dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property,
especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this
is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of
campaign contributions.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Intellectual property is easier to replicate. It is also much harder to qualify. Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law. Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.
Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property. Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of
A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.
With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on
Romeo and Juliet.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Intellectual property is easier to replicate.
To steal, you mean.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Intellectual property is easier to replicate. It is also much harder to qualify. Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law. Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.
Also, your evidence that creativity has ended or declined since 1790? Thanks.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.
I don't agree with that at all. Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head. I'm not "remixing" anything.
QuoteA much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available. So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.
So? We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
to quote the Kopyleft notice at poee.co.uk:
QuoteCopyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited
from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not
the individual artist.
Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice
in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of
artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived
on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not
possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.
In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global.
Scheherazade's work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as
Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works
enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and
provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.
For Eris' sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National
Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free
on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.
I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most
from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their
versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should
certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are
dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property,
especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this
is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of
campaign contributions.
Property is property. If I as an artist sell my property to a corporation, then they own it, just as if I'd sold a car. If I sign a contract that rips me a new ass, I should learn to read what I sign.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Intellectual property is easier to replicate. It is also much harder to qualify. Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law. Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.
Also, your evidence that creativity has ended or declined since 1790? Thanks.
Yes, I'm interested to hear that as well.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:52:38 PM
So? We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.
Fuck rights and law. We can just chuck those out the window so "anarchists" can download free music.
Property means nothing, your work is valueless, and you should spend all those hours practicing your instrument and writing lyrics just for the fucking joy of it, and so some pimple-faced shits can
swipe it "share" it.
And THAT is what anarchy is all about. Personal gratification at any cost.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.
First, that assumes that it would not have been available to our culture had it been under copyright control.
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.
They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.
They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it.
And depend on the kindness of others to toss them loose change and scraps of food to survive.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Intellectual property is easier to replicate. It is also much harder to qualify. Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law. Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.
Um, yeah, you kinda need the force of law to hand down houses too. That's part of the mountain of paperwork you have to fill out when you buy a home, or when you do your will. If you don't fill out that paperwork, your house doesn't magically go to your next of kin.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:01:07 PM
Second, I would argue that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it steals an artist's ability to derive income from their product.
They're supposed to do it for the sheer joy of doing it.
And depend on the kindness of others to toss them loose change and scraps of food to survive.
Sure. But they had better still record shit for me to steal. I will not tolerate having to wait for the local buskers to play the songs I like.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Physical objects and intellectual property are different.
In what way? Intellectual property is easier to steal...That's the only difference I see.
Intellectual property is easier to replicate. It is also much harder to qualify. Unlike a house, which can be handed down to someone exclusively upon death, an idea can only be made exclusive by force of law. Using that force of law can be useful to spur intellectual creation, but when it is extended indefinitely it does not spur it, instead it stifles it.
Um, yeah, you kinda need the force of law to hand down houses too. That's part of the mountain of paperwork you have to fill out when you buy a home, or when you do your will. If you don't fill out that paperwork, your house doesn't magically go to your next of kin.
It shouldn't. It should go to deserving anarchist communes. :lulz:
Well I suppose that would have worked out better for Randy Quaid.
"Nobody owns the homes man! You're just trying to repress my nomadic creativity!"
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:10:46 PM
Well I suppose that would have worked out better for Randy Quaid.
:lulz:
Also, your boss should have the option of paying you each week, instead of the requirement.
Well that would be a fun game wouldn't it?
"Uhh, sorry honey, I guess it's bread and water again this week!"
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:12:58 PM
Well that would be a fun game wouldn't it?
"Uhh, sorry honey, I guess it's bread and water again this week!"
Well, if artists aren't worth their pay, who is?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Obviously.
But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Definitely agreed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:14:46 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Obviously.
But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.
I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:17:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:14:46 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Obviously.
But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.
I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.
Go right ahead.
They state a different premise, but every anarchist/libertarian thread always winds up with the anarchists/libertarians bitching about the fact that they can't steal music and movies without breaking the law.
Every single time.
We even had one spag claiming that artists really SHOULD do what they do just for "the joy of creating", and that it's a damn sin and a shame that anyone should have to pay $0.79 for a song.
$0.79.
Not only are anarchists opposed to anyone keeping what they make or earn, they're also cheapskates. I'd hazard a guess that this is because they are poor, which may or may not be related to the fact that nobody in their right mind would hire a vocal anarchist, and there aren't any other kinds.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:21:24 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:17:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:14:46 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 08:13:33 PM
For the record, I think it should be pointing out that supporting public domain, as long as a creator wants to put his or her work there, is not a bad thing, and isn't the same as wanting to get rid of copyright laws altogether.
Obviously.
But the whole thing here is that doesn't allow you to rip music off without breaking the law, which seems to be the heart and soul of anarchism.
I'll have to go back through and read the thread again to agree or disagree with that.
Go right ahead.
They state a different premise, but every anarchist/libertarian thread always winds up with the anarchists/libertarians bitching about the fact that they can't steal music and movies without breaking the law.
Every single time.
We even had one spag claiming that artists really SHOULD do what they do just for "the joy of creating", and that it's a damn sin and a shame that anyone should have to pay $0.79 for a song.
$0.79.
Not only are anarchists opposed to anyone keeping what they make or earn, they're also cheapskates. I'd hazard a guess that this is because they are poor, which may or may not be related to the fact that nobody in their right mind would hire a vocal anarchist, and there aren't any other kinds.
I remember that. I thought it was a lot of nonsense, too.
I'm gonna show my optimistic side again (I know, I'm being silly), and propose that it might be that the arguments tend toward that because more often than not they hold the two separate views at once? It seems to me like it's a pretty convoluted view to hold just for free music.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:50:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.
Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property. Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.
With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on Romeo and Juliet.
Straw man. Nobody is arguing to eliminate intellectual property. We are arguing to redefine it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:52:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.
I don't agree with that at all. Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head. I'm not "remixing" anything.
QuoteA much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available. So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.
So? We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.
No, but we would be better off if we were able to. And the original creators of those works would not be harmed in any way (assuming we were to take on a "copyright expires upon death" approach
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:50:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 20, 2010, 07:48:03 PM
Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, and our culture is richer for it.
Well, obviously, that's grounds for eliminating intellectual property. Because what the world needs is yet another "translation/adaptation" of A Midsummer Night's Dream, instead of something original.
With any luck at all, they'll start doing a sitcom based on Romeo and Juliet.
Straw man. Nobody is arguing to eliminate intellectual property. We are arguing to redefine it.
Yeah, and the neocons tell me they're just trying to "redefine" my other rights.
I fail to see any difference.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:30:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:52:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 07:39:42 PM
Why is it a bad thing that Mickey Mouse isn't in the public domain? Who does that hurt? I mean, besides uncreative plagiarist copycats?
Most creative ideas are the result, not of purely original thought, but of remixing ideas which are already a part of the collective consciousness.
I don't agree with that at all. Speaking as a musician, I am certainly influenced by other musical artists I like, but my creations are from my head. I'm not "remixing" anything.
QuoteA much greater loss are all the other things which have been copywritten since Mickey was created, the vast majority of which is not in print and not available. So long as copyright continues to be extended none of it is going to be made freely available by projects like the Internet Audio Archive.
So? We don't have any inherent rights to hear or see those creations.
No, but we would be better off if we were able to. And the original creators of those works would not be harmed in any way (assuming we were to take on a "copyright expires upon death" approach
Unless we want to see anything, you know, original.
And I like the idea that my children can inherit from my work, or from the sale thereof. I am sure artists feel the same way.
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Then that person can right their own limited word rhymes to pop songs.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
How is that "creative"? It's plagiarism.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
How is that "creative"? It's plagiarism.
You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
How is that "creative"? It's plagiarism.
You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.
Fair use is also part of the law. You knew that, but you deliberately ignored that fact.
Why is that?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:42:36 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 08:39:05 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
How is that "creative"? It's plagiarism.
You'd better stop citing copywritten characters in your work, Larry Curly and Moe, for example, are the intellectual property of C3 entertainment ltd.
Fair use is also part of the law. You knew that, but you deliberately ignored that fact.
Why is that?
Probably the same reason you ignore that nobody has been arguing to remove copyright protections completely. Exaggeration in order to make a point.
However if your works were to become popular C3 certainly could sue you over dilution of property. The way you portray Curly is not the same as the way they portay him and it is quite possible they could make a real case that you are reducing the value of their property with your work.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:46:37 PM
Probably the same reason you ignore that nobody has been arguing to remove copyright protections completely. Exaggeration in order to make a point.
Bullshit. I was arguing that children should be able to inherit ANY form of property from their parents, and that property can be sold, whatever form it's in.
I think we're done here. Let me know when you can make your point without lying.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Yep, after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO. I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive. Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.
So shitty musicians could rip off his shit, instead of coming up with something new.
Great plan. :lulz:
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Yep, after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO. I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive. Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.
Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Yep, after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO. I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive. Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.
Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?
Not if it means that we'll have to pay $0.79/song.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:03:29 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Yep, after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO. I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive. Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.
Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?
Not if it means that we'll have to pay $0.79/song.
So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:02:17 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 08:48:38 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
A concrete example of intellectual property law hampering creativity is "Dylan hears a who" An artist, who I do not know the name of, took music by Bob Dylan and then sung/spoke the words of Dr. Seuss books over the music. Bob Dylan (who, IMO should still have exclusive right to his work, being as he is alive) had no problem with this. The estate of the late Theodore S Geisel however did and filed an injunction and the music was taken down. These songs may not have been great cultural masterworks, however they were enjoyable and I, and others, would have loved to hear more Dr. Seuss books done in the style of Bob Dylan (or put to music period, for that matter, in some manner other than Seussicle) Because of the way IP is structured and because Seuss' heirs chose to use that law to their advantage this is not going to happen.
Sorry but that just sounds selfish to me. Yeah, it probably did sound neat to hear Seuss put to Dylan, but so what? There are two artists in this scenario and ideally both should agree to the marrying of one creation to the other. As it turns out, one of them is dead so whether or not that happens is decided by his heirs who get part of their living from the proceeds of his works. If the Seuss gives up IP to all of the Seuss works, then it will be the wild west. Nobody will need to buy the books anymore and their funds will dry up.
But, at least you get your novel MP3 of Dylan doing Green Eggs and Ham.
Yep, after Geisel's death his work should have become public domain IMO. I'm really not in favor of people making their livelihood off of rent seeking when they themselves are in no way productive. Inheriting the money Seuss himself made and then reinvesting it in productive ways, absolutely, simply seeking rent on creative endeavors they had no part in creating, no.
Ya um, no?
Let's play a little thought experiment. Let us compare IP to manufacturing machines. I publish a novel. I die. In my will I left ALL rights to that novel to my children. If I left it to them then it obvious I want them to do what ever they want with it, that includes making money off of MY IP. I would hope that my children would be creative enough in their own rights to come up with unique non-derivative works of their own, but whatever.
What does this have to do with my machine analogy? Instead of a novel, I made a unique machine than makes an unduplicatable unique product. I sell the product that this machine produces. I die and will it to my children to with as they see fit.
Or to be less weird, it is like I owned a small industrial plant and willed it to my children. I was the one who founded the company and did the majority of the real work, my children weren't even alive and could not be said to have had anything to do with it. Should they not be allowed to inherit my company?
If you created a unique product you have the option of patenting it. Which allows you to exclusively make money off of it for a limited amount of time. After that time it enters the public domain.
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be
kopy left ALONE
Quote from: Pēleus on September 20, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be kopy left ALONE
I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
Bloody Libertarian!
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:05:50 PM
So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.
Why do you hate
pretentious derivative shit creativity?
Quote from: Pēleus on September 20, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
Copyright law is a bad law.
Yes, because the worker is not worth his wages, and personal property is for statists.
:lulz:
Example for writting we went from two year terms to seventy years after death
Books should be twenty years from published date and anything to do with dna should be kopy left ALONE
A book (or music or film, or whatever) should not have to be published to be copywritten. Proof of creation just needs to be established.
And to Dok on DNA, the problem with patenting modified DNA is that if it spreads into someone else's crops, as has happened, that person become guilty of replicating patended material without the proper license. Monsanto has successfully sued farmers of Canola over this.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:13:05 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:05:50 PM
So totally right. Fuck the children. Let's have free music instead, and have free shit that claims to be music but is really just remixes of other music and Dr Suess and Lambchop.
Why do you hate pretentious derivative shit creativity?
I hate America.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Holy shit. :lol:
NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.
:lol:
Well, fuck it. Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984. You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Holy shit. :lol:
NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.
:lol:
Well, fuck it. Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984. You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?
Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Holy shit. :lol:
NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.
:lol:
Well, fuck it. Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984. You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?
Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.
I'm going to set Kipling to Ethel Merman tunes. I am the next Don McLean.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Holy shit. :lol:
NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.
:lol:
Well, fuck it. Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984. You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?
Art requires effort and input. More than manufacturing I'd say. Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime. That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets. Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it. This is not true of intellectual property.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:27:09 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:17:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
As far as a factory, we're dealing with physical vs. ideological goods again. They aren't the same. Not just because ideological goods are far easier to duplicate, also because they can be combined and altered in ways that are not possible with physical goods.
So your argument is that an arms manufacturer should have more rights than an artist? Okay.
Yes, Manufacturing requires continual effort and input. It is not purely rent seeking. I read that initially as any manufacturer, not an arms manufacturer, but as I am completely in favor of the right to bear(and manufacture) arms that doesn't have much bearing on what sort of rights the manufacturer should have.
I'm really more in favor of worker ownership of production, but that's a whole other can of worms (although admittedly perhaps more closely related to the original topic of Anarchy than Copyright is)
Holy shit. :lol:
NO, ART DOES NOT TAKE ANY EFFORT.
:lol:
Well, fuck it. Now Anarchism is the utilitarian state ala 1984. You have everything you NEED, why do you WANT art?
Didn't you know that anyone can create art by downloading stuff from the internet and pushing random buttons.
I'm going to set Kipling to Ethel Merman tunes. I am the next Don McLean.
I believe Kipling is in the public domain, so this is allowed. I know I have enjoyed hearing Poe's works set to music and I don't think the fact that the words were not written by the person who did the production changes the fact that the works were still creative works of art.
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:28:32 PM
Art requires effort and input. More than manufacturing I'd say. Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime. That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets. Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it. This is not true of intellectual property.
Sure it is. If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.
When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement. It says so right on the package.
But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.
Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines
Quote from: Pēleus on September 20, 2010, 09:32:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.
Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines
:spit:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:28:32 PM
Art requires effort and input. More than manufacturing I'd say. Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime. That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets. Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it. This is not true of intellectual property.
Sure it is. If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.
When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement. It says so right on the package.
But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?
You didn't sell the music, you sold the rights.
And you have the right to do as you wish with the Album itself. You can make it into a coaster, you can smash it, you can also sell it someone else. Just why selling the physical album is not illegal redistribution of the music on the album I am not sure, but apparently it isn't.
Quote from: Pēleus on September 20, 2010, 09:32:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 07:25:55 PM
I agree that DNA, etc, shouldn't be patentable unless it's a modified form.
Sorry Emperor, Haliburton says you can't make anymore space marines
Holy fucking upsets, Batman...Yatto just won PD. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else. Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:36:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:28:32 PM
Art requires effort and input. More than manufacturing I'd say. Enough that people should get an absolute right to control distribution and reproduction of their creation for a lifetime. That's actually considerably more rights than a manufacturer gets. Once a product is sold it belongs to the person who bought it. This is not true of intellectual property.
Sure it is. If I sell the rights to my music to Sony, they own those rights.
When you buy an album, those rights are not part of the purchasing agreement. It says so right on the package.
But, hey, what the fuck are terms and conditions, when stacked up against our need for free music?
You didn't sell the music, you sold the rights.
And you have the right to do as you wish with the Album itself. You can make it into a coaster, you can smash it, you can also sell it someone else. Just why selling the physical album is not illegal redistribution of the music on the album I am not sure, but apparently it isn't.
Because you aren't copying it.
I fail to see why this is so difficult to comprehend. I mean, are you one of those guys that thinks we can pay off the national debt by printing more money?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else. Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.
That's nice. Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.
Not seeing a problem, here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else. Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.
That's nice. Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.
Not seeing a problem, here.
And permission to use the choreography. As intellectual property that is also subject to Copyright. Establishing creation of a particular dance style is more difficult than establishing creation of a novel or song, certainly, but it can be done. It could also, potentially, become very messy since dance is even more obviously a remix of previous dance than other creative endeavors.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:42:31 PMIn pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers ever. And all without any central Government.
Almost the entire quoted post is complete horseshit, but I especially appreciated the bolded and underlined part, which is something that has literally NEVER existed in known human history.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 20, 2010, 09:47:19 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:42:31 PMIn pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers ever. And all without any central Government.
Almost the entire quoted post is complete horseshit, but I especially appreciated the bolded and underlined part, which is something that has literally NEVER existed in known human history.
heh, that's an amusing statement. I'm pretty sure he meant pre the current conflict with the US though.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 20, 2010, 09:47:19 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 16, 2010, 06:42:31 PMIn pre-conflict Afghanistan,the Tribal thing worked pretty well. Everyone had access to AK47's, so if someone attacked another village, the consequences of this wouldn't be some abstract, that he's have to think about before setting off, it would be a a village full of angry tooled up villagers, looking to kill you. There was no gun crime there. People didn't go about shooting the fuck out of each other over some dispute involving a couple of goats, or a spilled pint of beer. They had rules. They are all well aware of the consequences of any action like this, so their behaviour towards each other reflects this. These people have inviolable rules of hospitality, are fiercely independent, and they're as hard as coffin nails. In fact as a model of an anarchist society, Afghanistan is ideal. They have been there since Alexander the Great's Army's dissipated after his death. They haven't been conquered since, not by anyone. But they never waged War on any other Nation. The Afghan Taliban never put a bomb in any other country, or picked a War with anyone. The Afghanis have always pretty much got on with their own shit, unless someone is trying to invade them. In modern times they have fought off invasion from the two biggest Superpowers ever. And all without any central Government.
Almost the entire quoted post is complete horseshit, but I especially appreciated the bolded and underlined part, which is something that has literally NEVER existed in known human history.
I meant while they are not being invaded by someone.
Before humans lived there?
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else. Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.
That's nice. Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.
Not seeing a problem, here.
And permission to use the choreography. As intellectual property that is also subject to Copyright. Establishing creation of a particular dance style is more difficult than establishing creation of a novel or song, certainly, but it can be done. It could also, potentially, become very messy since dance is even more obviously a remix of previous dance than other creative endeavors.
Sure. Still not seeing a problem.
But I took your post to mean the dancer and the choreographer were working together.
But I have to ask...Who the fuck choreographs
interpretive dance?
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:50:12 PM
Before humans lived there?
Almost tempted to cite Somalia too, but I'd be flogging a dead horse here too wouldn't I?) Bloody Statists!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:54:10 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:38:09 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:36:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 09:32:12 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 09:31:12 PM
Interpretive art, including acting, dancing, musical performance, and production of audio or visual material (I mean the actual production, not the organizational work done by someone with the title "Producer") is still art, and it is still creative.
Interpretive dances? :lulz:
No sweat. License the right to use the music and go nuts, Moonflower.
I meant dance which has been choreographed (created) by someone else. Both the choreographer and the dancer are engaged in creative art.
That's nice. Now all they have to do is get permission to use the music.
Not seeing a problem, here.
And permission to use the choreography. As intellectual property that is also subject to Copyright. Establishing creation of a particular dance style is more difficult than establishing creation of a novel or song, certainly, but it can be done. It could also, potentially, become very messy since dance is even more obviously a remix of previous dance than other creative endeavors.
Sure. Still not seeing a problem.
But I took your post to mean the dancer and the choreographer were working together.
But I have to ask...Who the fuck choreographs interpretive dance?
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
So we have to let people rip music off, so the choreographers don't destroy Hollywood?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
So we have to let people rip music off, so the choreographers don't destroy Hollywood?
Either we get free music or Hollywood is destroyed?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:05:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
So we have to let people rip music off, so the choreographers don't destroy Hollywood?
Either we get free music or Hollywood is destroyed?
Don't FUCK with choreographers.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:05:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
So we have to let people rip music off, so the choreographers don't destroy Hollywood?
Either we get free music or Hollywood is destroyed?
OK, but where's the incentive to not let people rip music off?
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 10:10:01 PM
Quote from: Cudgel on September 20, 2010, 10:05:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 10:03:06 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 20, 2010, 10:01:11 PM
I wasn't talking about interpretive dance I was saying that dance, like producing or performing music, is an interpretive artform.
The problem is that dance which has been choreographed by someone else originally has been used, widely, in creative works. Musical theater and film contain dances which are largely derivative of earlier dances. Some savvy choreographers could destroy the theater and film industry if they so chose. And using derivative dance really cannot be avoided without avoiding using dance at all. Strict enforcement of copyright law would destroy an entire segment of the creative industry in this case.
So we have to let people rip music off, so the choreographers don't destroy Hollywood?
Either we get free music or Hollywood is destroyed?
OK, but where's the incentive to not let people rip music off?
I was wondering that.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 09:57:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:50:12 PM
Before humans lived there?
Almost tempted to cite Somalia too
you probably should. After all, the Horn of Africa has a long tradition of peaceful interaction between neighbors.
also, I am in favor of anything that utterly destroys the "art form" of interpretive dance.
also also, and I think this got lost a few pages back but bear with me because I just read everything after page 2 just now...
as near as I can figure out, "rational anarchism" is what you call it when you espouse a philosophy of living by a combination of common sense and personal responsibility within the larger framework of a governed society, only you think that somehow calling yourself an "anarchist" will make it easier to sleep with smelly hippie chicks who probably have trust funds.
because really, there's no reason not to just call that philosophy "rational personhood".
You gotta have a label for your identity ECH, else how will you tell yourself apart from the other monkeys?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 21, 2010, 12:19:35 AM
You gotta have a label for your identity ECH, else how will you tell yourself apart from the other monkeys? the other monkeys that are non-conforming just like you know that you are one of them.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 21, 2010, 12:17:59 AM
also, I am in favor of anything that utterly destroys the "art form" of interpretive dance.
also also, and I think this got lost a few pages back but bear with me because I just read everything after page 2 just now...
as near as I can figure out, "rational anarchism" is what you call it when you espouse a philosophy of living by a combination of common sense and personal responsibility within the larger framework of a governed society, only you think that somehow calling yourself an "anarchist" will make it easier to sleep with smelly hippie chicks who probably have trust funds.
because really, there's no reason not to just call that philosophy "rational personhood".
Once again, ECH cuts through the bullshit.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 21, 2010, 12:17:59 AM
also, I am in favor of anything that utterly destroys the "art form" of interpretive dance.
also also, and I think this got lost a few pages back but bear with me because I just read everything after page 2 just now...
as near as I can figure out, "rational anarchism" is what you call it when you espouse a philosophy of living by a combination of common sense and personal responsibility within the larger framework of a governed society, only you think that somehow calling yourself an "anarchist" will make it easier to sleep with smelly hippie chicks who probably have trust funds.
because really, there's no reason not to just call that philosophy "rational personhood".
Personally I'd call it Personal Anarchism rather than Rational Anarchism. I'm not saying it is irrational, but I don't really find it to be any more rational than any of the coherent forms of Anarchy. The focus isn't on rationality, it is on creating an Anarchy of one, a Personal Anarchy.
That's just my take on it though, I am not a Rational Anarchist (heh, yeah, sure, call me irrational, that was sort of my point. Calling it Rational Anarchism is kind of like me calling my brand intelligent Anarchism, or reasonable Anarchism or something of the sort) I'm a Libertarian Socialist, also known as an Anarcho-Socialist or simply Anarchist (back before the Libertarian Capitalists and Anarcho-Primitivists and Rational Anarchists got in on the game)
Rational Personhood would be closer to Rationalism (or at least I'd think so), the philosophical approach to life espoused by the lesswrong blog. It's not incompatible with Rational Anarchism, any more than than it is incompatible with Humanism, or Hobbesism or any other non-mystical rational philosophical school.
Rational Anarchism meanwhile is definitely Anarchist, in that it does include the philosophy of no ruler over me, which is the core of Anarchy. It is however more of a philosophy than a political stance.
I'm just a person.
But enjoy your labels!
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 21, 2010, 12:14:08 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 09:57:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2010, 09:50:12 PM
Before humans lived there?
Almost tempted to cite Somalia too
you probably should. After all, the Horn of Africa has a long tradition of peaceful interaction between neighbors.
Not to mention "50+ different armed groups all trying to establish a centralized government, and failing in various degrees" does not seem to meet any critireon of anarchist self-governance I've read about.
no, but it's a perfect example of what would happen if the anarchists ever actually got their way. :lol:
Especially the failure part.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 20, 2010, 05:26:33 PM
That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.
This is patently bullshit.
I think you might be misunderstanding the statement.
If you do X, you are responsible for doing X. There may be additional factors in overall guilt for the consequences (like your example), but the actions of each individual involved are their responsibility. We just discussed this recently and you and I were in agreement on that particular topic.
IF you shoot a person, you are responsible for that act. You may not be responsible for "murder", ie it may have been self defense, the person may have been hiding behind a shooting target where you were unable to see them. You are still responsible for your act of pulling the trigger. Every choice we make, every act we take is influenced by thousands and millions of data points, memetitic entities, shrapnel, BIP's etc etc etc... that may help us understand WHY a person made a choice, but it does not alleviate their responsibility for making that choice.
I may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:
Bob is a pilot, Dave is an evil bastard that wants to blow up a building. He gets into the cockpit, points a gun at Bob and says "Fly into that building or I will shoot you." Bob has several choices. He could fly into the building, he could fly into an empty patch of ground, he could fly into the water, he could try to fight with the guy and there's probably some other options as well.
No matter what he chooses, the pilot is responsible for that choice. There are absolutely outside factors, Dave with a gun, Bob's years of training, Bob's philosophy, etc etc... but in the end its Bob's hands on the wheel and based on his decision, either a plane full of people will die, or a plane full of people AND a building full of people will die.
Bob's responsibility for that decision though, in no way alleviates Dave's responsibility for the whole damn mess in the first plnce.
Sergeant Joe is personally responsible for torturing insurgents, even though his President is responsible for getting him into the war with the insurgents.
Dok Howell is responsible for stealing my sammich, even though I am responsible for its awesome deliciousness.
I
QuoteI may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:
You may want to re-write this part, as it seems to contradict the rest of the post.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 23, 2010, 02:54:45 PM
QuoteI may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:
You may want to re-write this part, as it seems to contradict the rest of the post.
may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are
notresponsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:[
Thanks Dok!! That's what I get for typing while on a conference call.
I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 05:26:04 PM
I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".
If it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't have an edgy label, it's boring.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 05:26:04 PM
I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".
I didn't come up with the concept. So I use the term to reference the concept that already exists.
given how quick you are to blurt out "RATIONAL ANARCHISM!!!!" anytime something even remotely resembling the subject comes up, and knowing that you know what sort of response anything to do with anarchism will bring here, I have to believe that you are more invested in the terminology of the label than you claim to be.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 20, 2010, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 20, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 20, 2010, 06:27:55 PM
I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil? :?
Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.
Horseshit. Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting someone to kill them and take their sammich.
I think Blackstone had a lot to say on this subject. And he said most of it very well.
more succinctly, since the concept has ALWAYS existed and someone recently decided to attach some idiotic "anarchist" label to it, why NOT just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person"?
you say: I'm a rational anarchist! and everybody thinks that's retarded to the point that most don't even bother to understand what you're trying to say.
I say: I try to live like I'm not a total doucehbag, and it means the same thing and people respect it.
so I ask again, are smelly trustafarian girls REALLY worth it? :lulz:
Again, it isn't real unless it has a recognized label.
Which, given the label in question, is the first real irony I've seen on the board since the bad old days.
Those who practice free love, although often smelly, tend to be better at the luvvins (due to experience) than those that don't practice free love.
Just one arguement in favor of smelly trustafarian girls.
Plus dreadlocks are awesome to hang onto during coitus.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Those who practice free love, although often smelly, tend to be better at the luvvins (due to experience) than those that don't practice free love.
Just one arguement in favor of smelly trustafarian girls.
Plus dreadlocks are awesome to hang onto during coitus.
This is another reason to dislike anarchists.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Those who practice free love, although often smelly, tend to be better at the luvvins (due to experience) than those that don't practice free love.
Just one arguement in favor of smelly trustafarian girls.
Plus dreadlocks are awesome to hang onto during coitus.
Well, at least the motivation has been established. Have fun with herpes and shit.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Those who practice free love, although often smelly, tend to be better at the luvvins (due to experience) than those that don't practice free love.
Just one arguement in favor of smelly trustafarian girls.
Plus dreadlocks are awesome to hang onto during coitus.
I'd have to agree with that. (Unless they are pubic dreadlocks)
And Patchouli Oil covers a whole host of ponky whiffs.
I hate the smell of patchouli oil even more than I hate the stench of anarchists.
And dreadlocks on white people are just utter fail.
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
I'll second that. Jeebus!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath the kind of girls that are attracted to self-proclaimed anarchists.
I fucking hate you all.
I took the liberty of fixing that for you. No thanks are necessary.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
It's something I'd expect Marty Stouffer to say when describing a couple of Badgers getting down to business. Which probably isn't far removed from the afore-described stomach-lurching activities.
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Fuck that. You need some of us to carry on what used to be normal perversion, but will soon just be "normal". I don't particularly want any bugs or brands or weird diseases.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Hey now...I'm a couple years shy of 35 and I'm no pseudo-anarchist smelly-chick-banger.
ECH,
old school pervert extraordinaire
"Suitors'' is almost as bad as ''coitus''. (But not as bad as suitors seeking coitus)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
I'm 32, so not exactly a new breed of pervert.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Your daughter has dreadlocks?
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Hey now...I'm a couple years shy of 35 and I'm no pseudo-anarchist smelly-chick-banger.
ECH,
old school pervert extraordinaire
Right. You kill everyone else under 35.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Your daughter has dreadlocks?
That was possibly the most uncool thing ever said on PD, ever.
You should KYSFTB about now.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 10:21:54 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Your daughter has dreadlocks?
That was possibly the most uncool thing ever said on PD, ever.
You should KYSFTB about now.
That's what I was thinking.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 23, 2010, 09:28:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Fuck that. You need some of us to carry on what used to be normal perversion, but will soon just be "normal". I don't particularly want any bugs or brands or weird diseases.
That's because you aren't
serious about having a good time.
Dok,
Considers his parasites to be a defense system.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 10:21:14 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Hey now...I'm a couple years shy of 35 and I'm no pseudo-anarchist smelly-chick-banger.
ECH,
old school pervert extraordinaire
Right. You kill everyone else under 35.
Gotcha. Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Your daughter has dreadlocks?
dude, are you trying REALLY hard to be this big of a douchetard, or is it coming naturally to you?
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 10:48:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 10:21:14 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 09:16:19 PM
All I'm saying is, if Babylon Patchoulippltan or whoever he is now represents the new breed of perverts, everyone under the age of 35 should just kill themselves now.
Hey now...I'm a couple years shy of 35 and I'm no pseudo-anarchist smelly-chick-banger.
ECH,
old school pervert extraordinaire
Right. You kill everyone else under 35.
Gotcha. Sounds good to me.
Wait. Don't kill Freeky, though, she makes AMAZING Indian food.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 10:49:30 PM
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
Your daughter has dreadlocks?
dude, are you trying REALLY hard to be this big of a douchetard, or is it coming naturally to you?
I think he had an "Eric" moment.
:facepalm:
Forgot RWHN kid was like 8. Although he's the one that mentioned suitors. My post was meant as a "what are you worried about, without dreadlocks she won't attract the wrong sort of guy" thing, not a "ooh, you daughter has dreadlocks? hawt" sort of thing.
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 11:22:22 PM
Forgot RWHN kid was like 8. Although he's the one that mentioned suitors. My post was meant as a "what are you worried about, without dreadlocks she won't attract the wrong sort of guy" thing, not a "ooh, you daughter has dreadlocks? hawt" sort of thing.
You should stop now, really.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
I hate the smell of patchouli oil even more than I hate the stench of anarchists.
And dreadlocks on white people are just utter fail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
It's something I'd expect Marty Stouffer to say when describing a couple of Badgers getting down to business. Which probably isn't far removed from the afore-described stomach-lurching activities.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
You can heap as much scorn and derision upon us ''Righteous ones'' as you like, and mockery from those who live upon thier knees, sounds about as hollow as sheep, bleating about what fine clever fellows they are, as they are rounded up to be fleeced and slaughtered.
Blake understood how the embers of freedom smoulder in the hearts of Englishmen, when he wrote of the "Countenance Divine" shining forth among these Satanic Mills. He may not have thought of himself as an Anarchist, but he certainly inspired a few! That's what we beat Hitler with! Us Englishmen each have the strength of ten Lions, because our hearts are pure.
Our Ancestors, from Boudicca to, Wat Tyler, King Alfred, to Churchill, all knew the value of well-placed defiance, in the face of hopeless odds. This is also why we CELEBRATE the life of one particular Man, who against the odds, came whithin a whisker of purging the Nation of it's overprivileged rulers, from the Crown and it's sycophantic Aristo wheedlers and arse kissers.
All in one fell swoop.
Fawkes was Just a man, with a man's courage! Nothing but a man, who could never fail!
Until he was broken on the wheel, then hanged, drawn, and quartered, of course.
Still that did nothing to dampen our enthusiasm (Or mine, at any rate) for taking it to the streets
wherever possible, in the hopes of a good riot season. We've not had a decent riot here since
Broadwater Farm, and the smoking, and slicing of PC Keith "Who makes the best Bacon" Blakelock. When the Witch Queen of Grantham was still in ascendant.
As a wise Man once said, "We're the humans, in your human machine, we're the flowers in the dustbin! We're the future, YOUR future, there's NO future for you!"
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Answers%20Avatars%20AND%20Arseholery/anarchy.jpg)
Quote from: Xochipilli on September 23, 2010, 11:22:22 PM
Forgot RWHN kid was like 8. Although he's the one that mentioned suitors. My post was meant as a "what are you worried about, without dreadlocks she won't attract the wrong sort of guy" thing, not a "ooh, you daughter has dreadlocks? hawt" sort of thing.
6 actually. And I kinda figured it was obvious and a given I was referring to would-be-suitors when she's of age.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 23, 2010, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
I hate the smell of patchouli oil even more than I hate the stench of anarchists.
And dreadlocks on white people are just utter fail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
It's something I'd expect Marty Stouffer to say when describing a couple of Badgers getting down to business. Which probably isn't far removed from the afore-described stomach-lurching activities.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
You can heap as much scorn and derision upon us ''Righteous ones'' as you like, and mockery from those who live upon thier knees, sounds about as hollow as sheep, bleating about what fine clever fellows they are, as they are rounded up to be fleeced and slaughtered.
Blake understood how the embers of freedom smoulder in the hearts of Englishmen, when he wrote of the "Countenance Divine" shining forth among these Satanic Mills. He may not have thought of himself as an Anarchist, but he certainly inspired a few! That's what we beat Hitler with! Us Englishmen each have the strength of ten Lions, because our hearts are pure.
Our Ancestors, from Boudicca to, Wat Tyler, King Alfred, to Churchill, all knew the value of well-placed defiance, in the face of hopeless odds. This is also why we CELEBRATE the life of one particular Man, who against the odds, came whithin a whisker of purging the Nation of it's overprivileged rulers, from the Crown and it's sycophantic Aristo wheedlers and arse kissers.
All in one fell swoop.
Fawkes was Just a man, with a man's courage! Nothing but a man, who could never fail!
Until he was broken on the wheel, then hanged, drawn, and quartered, of course.
Still that did nothing to dampen our enthusiasm (Or mine, at any rate) for taking it to the streets
wherever possible, in the hopes of a good riot season. We've not had a decent riot here since
Broadwater Farm, and the smoking, and slicing of PC Keith "Who makes the best Bacon" Blakelock. When the Witch Queen of Grantham was still in ascendant.
As a wise Man once said, "We're the humans, in your human machine, we're the flowers in the dustbin! We're the future, YOUR future, there's NO future for you!"
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Answers%20Avatars%20AND%20Arseholery/anarchy.jpg)
Funny, I thought you English beat Hitler with the US 101st Airborne. My bad.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 23, 2010, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
I hate the smell of patchouli oil even more than I hate the stench of anarchists.
And dreadlocks on white people are just utter fail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
It's something I'd expect Marty Stouffer to say when describing a couple of Badgers getting down to business. Which probably isn't far removed from the afore-described stomach-lurching activities.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
You can heap as much scorn and derision upon us ''Righteous ones'' as you like, and mockery from those who live upon thier knees, sounds about as hollow as sheep, bleating about what fine clever fellows they are, as they are rounded up to be fleeced and slaughtered.
Blake understood how the embers of freedom smoulder in the hearts of Englishmen, when he wrote of the "Countenance Divine" shining forth among these Satanic Mills. He may not have thought of himself as an Anarchist, but he certainly inspired a few! That's what we beat Hitler with! Us Englishmen each have the strength of ten Lions, because our hearts are pure.
Our Ancestors, from Boudicca to, Wat Tyler, King Alfred, to Churchill, all knew the value of well-placed defiance, in the face of hopeless odds. This is also why we CELEBRATE the life of one particular Man, who against the odds, came whithin a whisker of purging the Nation of it's overprivileged rulers, from the Crown and it's sycophantic Aristo wheedlers and arse kissers.
All in one fell swoop.
Fawkes was Just a man, with a man's courage! Nothing but a man, who could never fail!
Until he was broken on the wheel, then hanged, drawn, and quartered, of course.
Still that did nothing to dampen our enthusiasm (Or mine, at any rate) for taking it to the streets
wherever possible, in the hopes of a good riot season. We've not had a decent riot here since
Broadwater Farm, and the smoking, and slicing of PC Keith "Who makes the best Bacon" Blakelock. When the Witch Queen of Grantham was still in ascendant.
As a wise Man once said, "We're the humans, in your human machine, we're the flowers in the dustbin! We're the future, YOUR future, there's NO future for you!"
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Answers%20Avatars%20AND%20Arseholery/anarchy.jpg)
:lol:
I assume that I'm laughing WITH you, because there's just no way you can actually believe all that crap you just typed without some major cognitive dissonance going on.
:lol:
also, try to remember that V for Vendetta, as much fun as it is to watch, is just a movie.
:lol:
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 12:21:11 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 23, 2010, 11:28:07 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 23, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
I hate the smell of patchouli oil even more than I hate the stench of anarchists.
And dreadlocks on white people are just utter fail.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
This entire page has made my lunch roil about in my guts like a 400 pound trailer princess in a mud bath.
I fucking hate you all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 23, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
Also, who the fuck says "coitus"?
Coitus? What the hell is wrong with "FUCKING"?
Or "screwing"? Or "Sex"?
I mean, it's not like "making love" is appropriate, given who we're talking about, but goddamn. "Coitus"? That kind of creeps me the fuck out. It sounds like a doctor describing his latest illegal and inappropriate behavior with anesthetized patients.
It's something I'd expect Marty Stouffer to say when describing a couple of Badgers getting down to business. Which probably isn't far removed from the afore-described stomach-lurching activities.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 23, 2010, 09:26:41 PM
It also means I'll need to add a chainsaw and blowtorch to the "Welcoming Committee" for all of my daughter's would-be-suitors.
You can heap as much scorn and derision upon us ''Righteous ones'' as you like, and mockery from those who live upon thier knees, sounds about as hollow as sheep, bleating about what fine clever fellows they are, as they are rounded up to be fleeced and slaughtered.
Blake understood how the embers of freedom smoulder in the hearts of Englishmen, when he wrote of the "Countenance Divine" shining forth among these Satanic Mills. He may not have thought of himself as an Anarchist, but he certainly inspired a few! That's what we beat Hitler with! Us Englishmen each have the strength of ten Lions, because our hearts are pure.
Our Ancestors, from Boudicca to, Wat Tyler, King Alfred, to Churchill, all knew the value of well-placed defiance, in the face of hopeless odds. This is also why we CELEBRATE the life of one particular Man, who against the odds, came whithin a whisker of purging the Nation of it's overprivileged rulers, from the Crown and it's sycophantic Aristo wheedlers and arse kissers.
All in one fell swoop.
Fawkes was Just a man, with a man's courage! Nothing but a man, who could never fail!
Until he was broken on the wheel, then hanged, drawn, and quartered, of course.
Still that did nothing to dampen our enthusiasm (Or mine, at any rate) for taking it to the streets
wherever possible, in the hopes of a good riot season. We've not had a decent riot here since
Broadwater Farm, and the smoking, and slicing of PC Keith "Who makes the best Bacon" Blakelock. When the Witch Queen of Grantham was still in ascendant.
As a wise Man once said, "We're the humans, in your human machine, we're the flowers in the dustbin! We're the future, YOUR future, there's NO future for you!"
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Answers%20Avatars%20AND%20Arseholery/anarchy.jpg)
:lol:
I assume that I'm laughing WITH you, because there's just no way you can actually believe all that crap you just typed without some major cognitive dissonance going on.
:lol:
At some point, I believed some of it. (Probably) But at no point did I ever believe all of it. If I had, I would probably have forgotten to keep breathing or something.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 12:22:45 AM
also, try to remember that V for Vendetta, as much fun as it is to watch, is just a movie.
:lol:
And a comic book!
True dat. And though I still liked the movie quite a bit, the book is far far better.
And yeah, don't get me wrong, I had some similar beliefs in my misguided youth. Now that I've reached my misguided adulthood I've tried to substitute beliefs for half-formed ideas and vague notions. I stay more flexible that way.
It's one thing to be an anarchist, it is another to be a preachy evangelizing asshat anarchist.
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
I really fucking hate -isms.
and the ultimate irony of it all is that if someone were a real anarchist, they wouldn't find it necessary to tell you.
That's because anarchists all have the zeal of converts, because they're either new to it, or they're all fucked up on bad E.
"Fawkes" :lulz:
I've read somewhere the demon, Asmodeus, symbol is an a with a circle around it
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 08:06:16 AM
"Fawkes" :lulz:
I've read somewhere the demon, Asmodeus, symbol is an a with a circle around it
Not quite.
(http://www.esotericarchives.com/gifs/g32.gif)
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
I'd put the odds of that in the same catagory as winning the lottery.
The type of people who are anarchists are the type of people who
have to convert you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:12:47 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
I'd put the odds of that in the same catagory as winning the lottery.
The type of people who are anarchists are the type of people who have to convert you.
That makes sense because of some basic aspects of Anarchism. For Anarchy to work the vast majority of people have to be Anarchists, otherwise they are going to end up setting up a government. Instituting an Anarchist society by a coup is not just ineffective it also goes against basic Anarchist principles.
Anarchism is also based on consensus and free association, so, as an Anarchist, if I want to work with you in a way that I can be morally comfortable with I have to convince you to do so, not coerce you to do so.
I'm pretty sure those aspects are common to any and all threads of Anarchism, although I suppose Anarcho-primitivism could be imposed via a coup. If they managed to destroy our access to technology thoroughly enough. Those guys scare me though.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:18:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:12:47 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
I'd put the odds of that in the same catagory as winning the lottery.
The type of people who are anarchists are the type of people who have to convert you.
That makes sense because of some basic aspects of Anarchism. For Anarchy to work the vast majority of people have to be Anarchists, otherwise they are going to end up setting up a government. Instituting an Anarchist society by a coup is not just ineffective it also goes against basic Anarchist principles.
Anarchism is also based on consensus and free association, so, as an Anarchist, if I want to work with you in a way that I can be morally comfortable with I have to convince you to do so, not coerce you to do so.
I'm pretty sure those aspects are common to any and all threads of Anarchism, although I suppose Anarcho-primitivism could be imposed via a coup. If they managed to destroy our access to technology thoroughly enough. Those guys scare me though.
Anarchism doesn't work, period.
No matter how much you really, really want it to.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:21:50 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:18:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:12:47 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
I'd put the odds of that in the same catagory as winning the lottery.
The type of people who are anarchists are the type of people who have to convert you.
That makes sense because of some basic aspects of Anarchism. For Anarchy to work the vast majority of people have to be Anarchists, otherwise they are going to end up setting up a government. Instituting an Anarchist society by a coup is not just ineffective it also goes against basic Anarchist principles.
Anarchism is also based on consensus and free association, so, as an Anarchist, if I want to work with you in a way that I can be morally comfortable with I have to convince you to do so, not coerce you to do so.
I'm pretty sure those aspects are common to any and all threads of Anarchism, although I suppose Anarcho-primitivism could be imposed via a coup. If they managed to destroy our access to technology thoroughly enough. Those guys scare me though.
Anarchism doesn't work, period.
No matter how much you really, really want it to.
Trying to debate that with you is like debating theology with an Atheist. My point was that even according to Anarchist doctrine Anarchy doesn't work unless most of the people in an Anarchist society (and not just 51% but the vast majority) are Anarchist.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:37:34 PM
Trying to debate that with you is like debating theology with an Atheist. My point was that even according to Anarchist doctrine Anarchy doesn't work unless most of the people in an Anarchist society (and not just 51% but the vast majority) are Anarchist.
The fact that you said the word "doctrine" should give you pause for thought.
Xoch, I think the bit you're missing is that not even self-professed anarchists can be sufficiently anarchic for the amount of time needed to establish an anarchy.
Ook, ook.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:40:20 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:37:34 PM
Trying to debate that with you is like debating theology with an Atheist. My point was that even according to Anarchist doctrine Anarchy doesn't work unless most of the people in an Anarchist society (and not just 51% but the vast majority) are Anarchist.
The fact that you said the word "doctrine" should give you pause for thought.
All political philosophies have doctrine. In order to be a coherent philosophy you have to have certain beliefs about how people and the world work and how those beliefs can be put into practice.
Alpha. I didn't miss that part. That's also more than a "long enough to establish an Anarchy" issue, it's a forever issue since people have to stay Anarchist once the Anarchist society has been established. A state can always be erected.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:55:09 PM
All political philosophies have doctrine. In order to be a coherent philosophy you have to have certain beliefs about how people and the world work and how those beliefs can be put into practice.
Wait. I thought we were talking about a functional or potentially functional political
system.
You know, a workable one that takes into account the nature of the beings that make up that system.
QuoteAlpha. I didn't miss that part. That's also more than a "long enough to establish an Anarchy" issue, it's a forever issue since people have to stay Anarchist once the Anarchist society has been established. A state can always be erected.
Which leads you back to our point: Anarchy will never work, no matter
what percentage of so-called Anarchists you have.
This argument still going? Move all anarchists to Somalia. If they can fix that shit I will be convinced, but not until.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 06:59:04 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:55:09 PM
All political philosophies have doctrine. In order to be a coherent philosophy you have to have certain beliefs about how people and the world work and how those beliefs can be put into practice.
Wait. I thought we were talking about a functional or potentially functional political system.
You know, a workable one that takes into account the nature of the beings that make up that system.
An Anarchist political system is going to have to include a variety of philosophies. Sort of the way the American system includes Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressives, etc. But the vast majority of those are going to have to be Anarchist of some sort for Anarchy to work, just as in the American system a slim majority have to be in favor of a democratic republic. Thus the desperate evangelism of Anarchists.
Human Nature doesn't keep Anarchy from working any more than it requires that a Monarchy be oppressive.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 24, 2010, 07:01:39 PM
This argument still going? Move all anarchists to Somalia. If they can fix that shit I will be convinced, but not until.
Obvious argument is obvious.
The principle problem with anarchists is that they understand how they themselves think, or like to think they think (BH would make a terrible anarchist, by the way), but they refuse to examine how groups of people think, because that collection of ugly facts would gang-rape their beautiful theory.
This is why anarchism has not functioned after a century and more of people professing its virtues.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
Human Nature doesn't keep Anarchy from working any more than it requires that a Monarchy be oppressive.
Gimme your sammich. And your woman.
Or better yet
*thud* <--- lead pipe in the skull from behind.
Nice sammich. Hiya, doll. You're coming with me.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
An Anarchist political system is going to have to include a variety of philosophies. Sort of the way the American system includes Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressives, etc. But the vast majority of those are going to have to be Anarchist of some sort for Anarchy to work, just as in the American system a slim majority have to be in favor of a democratic republic. Thus the desperate evangelism of Anarchists.
I'm not sure you realize how little sense that makes. There might be different approaches on how to go about living in a stateless society, but the instant someone slips and becomes less-than-pure, the whole thing goes to shit.
Which means a true anarchy would last about 0.000001ms.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
Human Nature doesn't keep Anarchy from working any more than it requires that a Monarchy be oppressive.
Gimme your sammich. And your woman.
Or better yet
*thud* <--- lead pipe in the skull from behind.
Nice sammich. Hiya, doll. You're coming with me.
Fuck yeah.
Hawk,
now converted!
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 24, 2010, 07:08:46 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
An Anarchist political system is going to have to include a variety of philosophies. Sort of the way the American system includes Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressives, etc. But the vast majority of those are going to have to be Anarchist of some sort for Anarchy to work, just as in the American system a slim majority have to be in favor of a democratic republic. Thus the desperate evangelism of Anarchists.
I'm not sure you realize how little sense that makes. There might be different approaches on how to go about living in a stateless society, but the instant someone slips and becomes less-than-pure, the whole thing goes to shit.
Which means a true anarchy would last about 0.000001ms.
Or to put it another way, under most political philosophies, it is not necessary that everyone believe in it. Liberal democracy, for example "works" even if ~40% of the population do not believe in it as a viable system.
Anarchism on the other hand, is much more fragile and as a consequence falls apart very quickly. The only way to enforce an Anarchist community would be to allow no-one with differing opinions to include themselves, violating a basic Anarchist principle and so betraying the entire ideological premise on which it is based.
'Anarchy will never work'
Indeed it requires everyone to agree to terms,
Which is why it often changes into a personality cult
Quote from: Cain on September 24, 2010, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 24, 2010, 07:08:46 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
An Anarchist political system is going to have to include a variety of philosophies. Sort of the way the American system includes Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Progressives, etc. But the vast majority of those are going to have to be Anarchist of some sort for Anarchy to work, just as in the American system a slim majority have to be in favor of a democratic republic. Thus the desperate evangelism of Anarchists.
I'm not sure you realize how little sense that makes. There might be different approaches on how to go about living in a stateless society, but the instant someone slips and becomes less-than-pure, the whole thing goes to shit.
Which means a true anarchy would last about 0.000001ms.
Or to put it another way, under most political philosophies, it is not necessary that everyone believe in it. Liberal democracy, for example "works" even if ~40% of the population do not believe in it as a viable system.
Anarchism on the other hand, is much more fragile and as a consequence falls apart very quickly. The only way to enforce an Anarchist community would be to allow no-one with differing opinions to include themselves, violating a basic Anarchist principle and so betraying the entire ideological premise on which it is based.
Unless of course you can somehow convince 100% of people (or close enough) to become Anarchists, which seems a very unlikely proposal.
I can haz be an anarchy of one?
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
Freedom of association is really more of a freedom of nonassociation, as my choice not to associate with you sort of has to take precedence over your choice to associate with me.
Small societies based on Anarchist principles already exist, I grew up in one. Yes, the members abided by the rules and conventions of outside society (for the most part) when they went out in it.
And in response to Charley's post, I think that's the rational Anarchist concept. Personally I don't think a society of one is a concept that works.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
Freedom of association is really more of a freedom of nonassociation,
That's like saying the first amendment provides freedom OF religion, but not freedom FROM religion.
Also, go right ahead and form your exclusive society, and good luck. Just do it somewhere else.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
Freedom of association is really more of a freedom of nonassociation, as my choice not to associate with you sort of has to take precedence over your choice to associate with me.
Small societies based on Anarchist principles already exist, I grew up in one. Yes, the members abided by the rules and conventions of outside society (for the most part) when they went out in it.
And in response to Charley's post, I think that's the rational Anarchist concept. Personally I don't think a society of one is a concept that works.
Oxymoron much?
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
Small societies based on Anarchist principles already exist, I grew up in one. Yes, the members abided by the rules and conventions of outside society (for the most part) when they went out in it.
Hippie communes are one thing.
Now try it on a regional scale.
Guard your sammich.
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Because we're all just a bunch of computer generated programs, and most humans run on 8-bit processing?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 24, 2010, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Because we're all just a bunch of computer generated programs, and most humans run on 8-bit processing?
:lulz:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 24, 2010, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Because we're all just a bunch of computer generated programs, and most humans run on 8-bit processing?
OMG. Freeky wins an internet.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
So it
is just like religion, in other words, with exile of "heretics" and "unbelievers".
And given throwing someone out of a community would be directly violating the principle of non-aggression and creates merely another body which can coerce and dispossess others. Smells like a government to me.
Quote from: Cain on September 24, 2010, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
So it is just like religion, in other words, with exile of "heretics" and "unbelievers".
And given throwing someone out of a community would be directly violating the principle of non-aggression and creates merely another body which can coerce and dispossess others. Smells like a government to me.
The beauty of this argument is that Cain has a built-in Xanatos Gambit that was installed by his opponents. :lol:
:thanks:
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 24, 2010, 07:32:55 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 24, 2010, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Because we're all just a bunch of computer generated programs, and most humans run on 8-bit processing?
OMG. Freeky wins an internet.
:thanks:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Mathematically speaking, the number of different combinations you can have with a certain set of point is called a factorial (that's a shitty definition. I know).
For example, the factorial of four (written 4!) is 4*3*2*1 = 24. That's a low enough amount to keep in your head at any one time.
5! = 120
6! = 720
7! = 5040
8! = 40,320
There's a hell of a jump between 7! and 8!. My guess is that there's too much of an opportunity for shit to completely fail without anyone noticing when you get to 8!.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 24, 2010, 07:45:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on September 24, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
So
Anarchy, like a commune, fails when it gets more then eight people and you have to put up with hairy females?
Army of one is guarding your grilled cheese
Actually, the politics change AT 8 people, and again at multiples of 8. Not sure why this is.
Mathematically speaking, the number of different combinations you can have with a certain set of point is called a factorial (that's a shitty definition. I know).
For example, the factorial of four (written 4!) is 4*3*2*1 = 24. That's a low enough amount to keep in your head at any one time.
5! = 120
6! = 720
7! = 5040
8! = 40,320
There's a hell of a jump between 7! and 8!. My guess is that there's too much of an opportunity for shit to completely fail without anyone noticing when you get to 8!.
I understand factorials, but had never thought to apply them in this manner.
SCIENCE!
Shouldn't the sammich taking be being done with a barstool?
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:56:32 PM
Shouldn't the sammich taking be being done with a barstool?
It's a recession.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:56:32 PM
Shouldn't the sammich taking be being done with a barstool?
Rules, in Anarchy? Please.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 24, 2010, 07:46:32 PM
I understand factorials, but had never thought to apply them in this manner.
SCIENCE!
:roflcake: :magick:
Quote from: Cain on September 24, 2010, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
So it is just like religion, in other words, with exile of "heretics" and "unbelievers".
And given throwing someone out of a community would be directly violating the principle of non-aggression and creates merely another body which can coerce and dispossess others. Smells like a government to me.
I was about to say this, but Cain put it better.
Also, LULZ @ pre-installed Xanatos Gambit and Freeky's 8-bit processing comment.
EDIT: And Aphlapance totally jumps me on the factorial business (I had seriously typed out a whole freaking long post, even going and quoting the part of the Illuminatus Trilogy where RAW explains it). :fuckmittens:
Quote from: Cain on September 24, 2010, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 07:22:51 PM
The part of Cain's post that I do not agree with is the idea that setting up an Anarchist society that excludes anyone who is not an Anarchist is a violation of Anarchist principles.
So it is just like religion, in other words, with exile of "heretics" and "unbelievers".
And given throwing someone out of a community would be directly violating the principle of non-aggression and creates merely another body which can coerce and dispossess others. Smells like a government to me.
Non Aggression is a Libertarian principle, not an Anarchist one (not saying Libertarians aren't Anarchists, just that not all Anarchists are Libertarians.) Anybody can coerce and dispossess others, that's part of the rules of physics and biology. Anarchy doesn't mean nobody can, it means body can any moreso than anyone else. (or at least not to the great deal moreso currently possible for those acting as agents of a government.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
so what's your excuse?
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
There are rumours that The Anarchists are nothing more than The Discordian's secret military operations wing.
The fact that there are people (Ok, it's only Oldghost from TCC as far as I know) who believe we have a secret Army of Anarchists at our beck and call keeps me laughing on the inside all day long.........(Through the constant stream of bitter tears I cry from being a misunderstood Anarchismist, that is!)
Anarchy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Anarchy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 24, 2010, 06:10:15 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 24, 2010, 04:46:05 AM
In my experience, that's 99% of them.
Chances are you don't know the rest are Anarchists because they've kept their mouths shut about it.
so what's your excuse?
Well ECH, if I don't open my mouth you can't put your enormous prick in it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 05:25:51 AM
Democracy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned or best speakers, or richest, is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Democracy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
Edited for my personal amusement.
Let's goto candy mountain Charlie
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 05:25:51 AM
Anarchy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Anarchy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
You do not ride a fucking unicorn, man!
Unicorns live free or die! :argh!:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on September 25, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 05:25:51 AM
Anarchy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Anarchy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
You do not ride a fucking unicorn, man!
Unicorns live free or die! :argh!:
I reject your notion, and I wear spurs when I ride.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 25, 2010, 08:32:41 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 05:25:51 AM
Democracy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned or best speakers, or richest, is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Democracy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
Edited for my personal amusement.
You're correct, too.
But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic...Which, unlike the pipe dreams of communists, anarchists, and libertarians, actually works.
Quote from: Pēleus on September 25, 2010, 09:54:34 AM
Let's goto candy mountain Charlie
Caaannnnddddyyyyy Mountain!
As far as anarchy goes, I wouldn't trust a society full of anarchists not to stab me in my sleep if I looked at them wrong.
Yeah you can say anything you like about people having control over their own life, and not letting the power of others faze them or what have you, but when it comes right down to it, you CANNOT TRUST people to have the same morals as you. And if nothing was stopping them, I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe around a lot of the people I know now.
So, that being said, I _will_ follow the law and I _will_ do what the laws say, because in the end, it is those same laws which are stopping the MAJORITY of people from hurting me.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 25, 2010, 09:19:01 PM
As far as anarchy goes, I wouldn't trust a society full of anarchists not to stab me in my sleep if I looked at them wrong.
And you sleep better living in a society full of armed, self obsessed greed junkies? What makes you think Anarchists are more violent than, for instance, Baptists? Or Nudists?
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 25, 2010, 09:19:01 PM
Yeah you can say anything you like about people having control over their own life, and not letting the power of others faze them or what have you, but when it comes right down to it, you CANNOT TRUST people to have the same morals as you. And if nothing was stopping them, I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe around a lot of the people I know now.
Whatever Society you live in, you cannot trust people to have the same morals as you! And what the Hell makes you think they should have? Are your morals the best ones? Do you really think a State Sanctioned code of Morality makes people behave well? Look around you, it does no such thing. You are falling for the same tired old line of bullshit designed specifically to re-inforce a disproportionate sense of what Government can do.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 25, 2010, 09:19:01 PM
So, that being said, I _will_ follow the law and I _will_ do what the laws say, because in the end, it is those same laws which are stopping the MAJORITY of people from hurting me.
This only proves my point! You are afraid that the majority of people want to hurt you! Why? Are you some kind of monster? Have you done terrible, awful things, that most people want vengeance on you? This fear has been carefully planted, nurtured, and fed by those who want to rule you. It's like they've broken your legs, and you saying "Thank you" when they offer you crutches!
Also, in a Democracy, if the majority of people want to hurt you, you'll get hurt.
Maybe not in a constitutional republic, then it's more about what the people in charge want.
Denying that masses of people would do horrible things to singular people that the individuals in the mass would not do on their own is retarded.
An anarchist society and a democratic society share one major commonality: they both contain people. And people are horrible, especially in groups.
Reading The Dark Side of Democracy, it is easy to see how the maintanence of that particular order leads to terrible things like ethnic cleansing of all shapes and sizes.
However, letting go of it in favor of anarchy isn't going to remove the problem because with anarchy you're still dealing with the same exact problem: humans. Except with anarchy there's no system in place to seperate the truly awful people.
What about serial killers? Right now, in our fucked up system, it's pretty challening to cut people up and shove the pieces of their bodies into your fridge because things are kept orderly. People are accounted for. In an anarchist system (lol), wouldn't people like that be more free to engage in such behavior?
Whether they call themselves Anarchists or WHATEVER, I fear them because the have those nasty human habits like murder and rape and genocide and egotistical violence.
And while they're not always the best option, those armed and greedy folks do often keep me from being raped/murdered etc for the majority of the time. Sure, THEY may end up doing the raping/murdering. But from what I can tell, that thin veneer we call civilization does lessen such things.
Oh, nevermind. Cudgel put it better and more succinctly than I was able to do.
I don't think the reality of how shity people can be is going to sink in.
Quote from: Cudgel on September 26, 2010, 09:00:58 PM
Denying that masses of people would do horrible things to singular people that the individuals in the mass would not do on their own is retarded.
I don't think anyone denied it. It's just that, for some reason, statists tend to exclude the state from their consideration as a mass of people more likely to do horrible things than people are likely to do as individuals.
Quote from: Alty on September 26, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
An anarchist society and a democratic society share one major commonality: they both contain people. And people are horrible, especially in groups.
Reading The Dark Side of Democracy, it is easy to see how the maintanence of that particular order leads to terrible things like ethnic cleansing of all shapes and sizes.
However, letting go of it in favor of anarchy isn't going to remove the problem because with anarchy you're still dealing with the same exact problem: humans. Except with anarchy there's no system in place to seperate the truly awful people.
What about serial killers? Right now, in our fucked up system, it's pretty challening to cut people up and shove the pieces of their bodies into your fridge because things are kept orderly. People are accounted for. In an anarchist system (lol), wouldn't people like that be more free to engage in such behavior?
Whether they call themselves Anarchists or WHATEVER, I fear them because the have those nasty human habits like murder and rape and genocide and egotistical violence.
And while they're not always the best option, those armed and greedy folks do often keep me from being raped/murdered etc for the majority of the time. Sure, THEY may end up doing the raping/murdering. But from what I can tell, that thin veneer we call civilization does lessen such things.
Oh, nevermind. Cudgel put it better and more succinctly than I was able to do.
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
No. They
both do terrible things in their own terrible ways.
Not more or less likely. People = Terrible Things. Other things as well, but it's foolish to discount the terrible things in favor of the nice. Or benign.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 26, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
An anarchist society and a democratic society share one major commonality: they both contain people. And people are horrible, especially in groups.
Reading The Dark Side of Democracy, it is easy to see how the maintanence of that particular order leads to terrible things like ethnic cleansing of all shapes and sizes.
However, letting go of it in favor of anarchy isn't going to remove the problem because with anarchy you're still dealing with the same exact problem: humans. Except with anarchy there's no system in place to seperate the truly awful people.
What about serial killers? Right now, in our fucked up system, it's pretty challening to cut people up and shove the pieces of their bodies into your fridge because things are kept orderly. People are accounted for. In an anarchist system (lol), wouldn't people like that be more free to engage in such behavior?
Whether they call themselves Anarchists or WHATEVER, I fear them because the have those nasty human habits like murder and rape and genocide and egotistical violence.
And while they're not always the best option, those armed and greedy folks do often keep me from being raped/murdered etc for the majority of the time. Sure, THEY may end up doing the raping/murdering. But from what I can tell, that thin veneer we call civilization does lessen such things.
Oh, nevermind. Cudgel put it better and more succinctly than I was able to do.
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
Okay, say that were true.
What about the poor bastards who get a mob at their door looking for evidence? And what if they decide that their evidence is accurate? Who the fuck are those people? What qualifies them to make these decisions? Their "initiative"?
In a stateless society as you deascribed, wouldn't the person meeting the mob have every right to shoot as many of them as possible in the face?
Quote from: Alty on September 26, 2010, 10:08:28 PM
No. They both do terrible things in their own terrible ways.
Not more or less likely. People = Terrible Things. Other things as well, but it's foolish to discount the terrible things in favor of the nice. Or benign.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 26, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
An anarchist society and a democratic society share one major commonality: they both contain people. And people are horrible, especially in groups.
Reading The Dark Side of Democracy, it is easy to see how the maintanence of that particular order leads to terrible things like ethnic cleansing of all shapes and sizes.
However, letting go of it in favor of anarchy isn't going to remove the problem because with anarchy you're still dealing with the same exact problem: humans. Except with anarchy there's no system in place to seperate the truly awful people.
What about serial killers? Right now, in our fucked up system, it's pretty challening to cut people up and shove the pieces of their bodies into your fridge because things are kept orderly. People are accounted for. In an anarchist system (lol), wouldn't people like that be more free to engage in such behavior?
Whether they call themselves Anarchists or WHATEVER, I fear them because the have those nasty human habits like murder and rape and genocide and egotistical violence.
And while they're not always the best option, those armed and greedy folks do often keep me from being raped/murdered etc for the majority of the time. Sure, THEY may end up doing the raping/murdering. But from what I can tell, that thin veneer we call civilization does lessen such things.
Oh, nevermind. Cudgel put it better and more succinctly than I was able to do.
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
Okay, say that were true.
What about the poor bastards who get a mob at their door looking for evidence? And what if they decide that their evidence is accurate? Who the fuck are those people? What qualifies them to make these decisions? Their "initiative"?
In a stateless society as you deascribed, wouldn't the person meeting the mob have every right to shoot as many of them as possible in the face?
Well sure. It's a stateless society, you don't really have legal rights or the lack thereof.
On the other hand escalating to deadly violence against a vastly greater number of people who are probably also armed (even if not as well armed as you and not on their own home turf) is generally an unwise tactical decision.
Certainly there would be some injustice, there'd be some people who would be wrongly accused and wrongly punished, there'd also be some killers and thieves who would get away with their crimes who ought to suffer. This is the case now and has been in every society. People are people and people do bad things and get away with it.
The difference isn't that I think that would magically go away if the state went away, it's that I don't think an Anarchist system of justice would be any less just than our current one and would be more likely to represent local familiarity with the situation, which would lead to more nuanced and useful decisions, punishments, and so forth.
Did anything new come out of this particular anarchy thread, or can I assume its exactly like the other anarchy threads and skip the last ten pages?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 26, 2010, 10:28:42 PM
Did anything new come out of this particular anarchy thread, or can I assume its exactly like the other anarchy threads and skip the last ten pages?
Don't know about any other Anarchy threads, but yes, you are free to assume whatever you want to. However, there may be one or two points in there that will turn the World upside down. Or not.
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/Answers%20Avatars%20AND%20Arseholery/1anok.jpg)
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
I say it depends, more innocent people would die under a self law system. And if the killer was well like and trusted id say he could remove quite a few, more so if he had allies. That's why it really lends itself to dogma then merely some political party
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 26, 2010, 10:28:42 PM
Did anything new come out of this particular anarchy thread, or can I assume its exactly like the other anarchy threads and skip the last ten pages?
Those opposed to Anarchy said about exactly the same stuff they always say. Those in favor was pretty much just me and BadBeast. Usually Rat is the one I see defending Anarchy, so the pro-Anarchy arguements may have been phrased a bit differently than usual.
Think about it, most of them don't vote on principle and attend protests like one would attend church. Skip a few sundays and suddenly your an outsider.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
You're wrong. I normally e-prime most of my statements (look, I'm doing it again) but you're wrong. Currently, the force of law
increases the ways in which a serial killer can be hunted by providing funding for things like fingerprint databases, forensics, surveillance, witness protection programs, and professional police. Without the state, you wouldn't be hunting serial killers, you'd be hunting minorities or fringe members who
everyone knows are all basically criminals, even if they didn't commit that
specific crime.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
Wait, so i should embrace anarchy so instead of dealing with asshole cops that are limited by the law I can deal with asshole vigilanties that have no such restrictions?
Shit we can give up the probable cause and evidence bullshit right now, why wait for anarchy?
We are not alone, Our voices will not fade.
We confront, and question.
Our vision is absolute.
(http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx128/ChuckFukmuk/GIFS/crass_warning.gif)
Quote from: BadBeast on September 26, 2010, 08:40:37 PM
Do you really think a State Sanctioned code of Morality makes people behave well? Look around you, it does no such thing.
Bullshit. For the vast majority of people, it works quite well.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 27, 2010, 02:17:54 AM
We are not alone, Our voices will not fade.
We confront, and question.
Our vision is absolute.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
This thread has made me hate you all. Again.
It's like watching 3 history professors argue with a poster of Oscar De La Rocha. Some people are stupid for believing in what is essentially the political version of the tooth fairy, and everyone else is stupid for wasting time arguing with them.
Fucking assholes. I hope you all get ass cancer.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 26, 2010, 09:52:46 PM
I'd say it is easier for a Serial Killer to get away with it now than it would be in a stateless society. Currently the force of law restricts the way in which a Serial Killer can be hunted.
YES, AND ALL THOSE FORENSICS LABS WOULD FUCKING FUND THEMSELVES, RIGHT?
GODDAMMIT, YOU'VE TURNED INTO WHAT YOU HATE THE MOST. A FUCKING
DUMBASS.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 04:14:27 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on September 25, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 25, 2010, 05:25:51 AM
Anarchy is the ultimate pink unicorn bullshit. Argue it all day and come full circle. Rule by the strongest or best armed or best manned is so fucking silly it may as well be about riding fucking unicorns.
People will always be people and Anarchy seems to overlook this fact as a part of fantasy.
You do not ride a fucking unicorn, man!
Unicorns live free or die! :argh!:
I reject your notion, and I wear spurs when I ride.
Doesn't matter.
The unicorn would just run off a cliff instead of taking you where you wanted to go, shouting catchy slogans, and spraying graffiti on the side of the cliff all the way down.
Ok, here's the thing...until you've lived in anything CLOSE to anarchy, quit your "waving a magic wand to make it look all pretty and sparkly and shit." REAL, honest-to-god, can't rely on anyone BUT your damned self anarchy is bullshit. It's a system built on fear, on prejudice and selfishness. When there's no law and no one to back up that law, you live with your eyes behind your back.
So, go to fucking Afghanistan and Darfur, people, and you tell me if you like that better than what you got here. Go! Flee! Arrive at the feet of those who will have no mercy on you. Visit a place so full of no one fighting on your side but you, and see how you think it works.
You don't know what the FUCK you are talking about if you think that living in such a mess actually works. Not with humans. And the high-falutin' talk of how the state is worse is not going to change my mind. The state can be a horrible, massive obtrusion to life and all its pursuits, but anarchy is NOT a better state of being.
I will not be moved on this.
/shit why do you make me play the Wife of An Afghan Card?
Well, Jenne, those people just aren't pure enough, and are lacking in the essential Revolutionary Dialectic™ as put forth by Ayn Rand and Harold Browne.
:lulz:
Anarchy, communism, the Free Market™, and "pure" democracy are all failed concepts. Dig 'em back up all you like, they'll still fail, because they fail to take human nature into account.
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Tell that to the Ivory Tower crowd.
They won't believe you, though. They've invested too much belief in it to change now.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Tell that to the Ivory Tower crowd.
They won't believe you, though. They've invested too much belief in it to change now.
Well, I've told this forum a few times, and yeah, I don't expect to change any minds. But I feel good stating they won't change mine, either.
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Tell that to the Ivory Tower crowd.
They won't believe you, though. They've invested too much belief in it to change now.
Well, I've told this forum a few times, and yeah, I don't expect to change any minds. But I feel good stating they won't change mine, either.
The arguments have become completely formulaic, and yet we all still engage in them. :lol:
OOOOOOOK!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:37:33 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Tell that to the Ivory Tower crowd.
They won't believe you, though. They've invested too much belief in it to change now.
Well, I've told this forum a few times, and yeah, I don't expect to change any minds. But I feel good stating they won't change mine, either.
The arguments have become completely formulaic, and yet we all still engage in them. :lol:
OOOOOOOK!
I think people are really passionate about what they FEEL to be the case...so that passion dies a hard death in the halls of PD. I think the forum just draws on a certain type of person, and one facet happens to be those throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and those who embrace the ideal of one type of ideology in rejection of another.
Never mind the fact that it's STILL an ideology.
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:40:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:37:33 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
Exactly my point, Rog. This utopian ideal that human nature won't fuck up anarchy is a pipe dream I wish folks would quit hammering and yammering about as if it was a TRULY viable panacea to all society's ills.
IT WON'T EVER WORK! EVAR! As soon as the rug of order and law is pulled out, the worst of the worst will DO their worst. Time and again. They can't help it.
Tell that to the Ivory Tower crowd.
They won't believe you, though. They've invested too much belief in it to change now.
Well, I've told this forum a few times, and yeah, I don't expect to change any minds. But I feel good stating they won't change mine, either.
The arguments have become completely formulaic, and yet we all still engage in them. :lol:
OOOOOOOK!
I think people are really passionate about what they FEEL to be the case...so that passion dies a hard death in the halls of PD. I think the forum just draws on a certain type of person, and one facet happens to be those throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and those who embrace the ideal of one type of ideology in rejection of another.
Never mind the fact that it's STILL an ideology.
Want != Reality.
Children learn this the first time they have a balloon pop on them.
Adults forget it for some reason, which explains credit card debt, ARMs, and weird beliefs.
I think it's just another portion of the human condition. We want the unobtainable or the sustainable, even if it's virtually impossible.
Quote from: Jenne on September 27, 2010, 06:48:56 PM
Ok, here's the thing...until you've lived in anything CLOSE to anarchy, quit your "waving a magic wand to make it look all pretty and sparkly and shit." REAL, honest-to-god, can't rely on anyone BUT your damned self anarchy is bullshit. It's a system built on fear, on prejudice and selfishness. When there's no law and no one to back up that law, you live with your eyes behind your back.
So, go to fucking Afghanistan and Darfur, people, and you tell me if you like that better than what you got here. Go! Flee! Arrive at the feet of those who will have no mercy on you. Visit a place so full of no one fighting on your side but you, and see how you think it works.
You don't know what the FUCK you are talking about if you think that living in such a mess actually works. Not with humans. And the high-falutin' talk of how the state is worse is not going to change my mind. The state can be a horrible, massive obtrusion to life and all its pursuits, but anarchy is NOT a better state of being.
I will not be moved on this.
/shit why do you make me play the Wife of An Afghan Card?
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
I am totally supportive of government, and will continue to remain so. The thing is, for me personally, if I was born and lived in an anarchist society I know for a FACT that I would not have a single problem with robbing people blind if I could. There are times that I'll look through a gas station and MAKE A MAP IN MY HEAD of items I could get away with consuming/stealing without being noticed. And it happens almost instantaneously, before I even realize what I'm thinking. But I've never stolen a thing in my life. Why? BECAUSE THE MORALS OF THE GOVERNMENT DICTATE IT TO BE WRONG! And BECAUSE I have grown up in a society where thievery IS wrong, and will for the majority of the time be punished, I never even consider ACTUALLY stealing anything. And it is for exactly that same reason that MOST people will not rob me blind either. Or kill me, or rape me, if they would normally feel so inclined. Yes these things exist and do happen, and yes some people get away with it, but it is on a MUCH lesser scale than what would happen in an anarchy.
And yes, the government is a great massive entity that encroaches on my personal liberties and threatens me with violence and taxes me a great deal to pay for some things that I support and some things I don't. I understand this, but I also AGREE with it. I accept to give up some of my personal liberties in order to live in a safe and healthy community, and I accept the possibility that I might be threatened with death or imprisonment if I do something of a grave enough nature to harm someone or multiple someones on an equal level, because I know that for the most part anyone who would do the same to me would get the same treatment. Yes, America does not have a perfect justice system and I have issues with it, but IT'S BETTER THAN NO FUCKING JUSTICE SYSTEM AT ALL! And yes the government taxes me of a lot of my personal money, but I agree with that too, because a lot of that money is returning to me, helping me to pay for college, or keeping my town livable, or paying for my education and the education of my future children, or keeping me safe in my homeland, or helping out my state with its financial needs. And yes, there are things that my taxes will go to that I DON'T agree with, but at least in this system I HAVE A VOICE in where that money goes! Even if only a teeny tiny one, I still have one! And at least someone is taking care of all these things, whereas in an anarchy, none of these conveniences exist at all!
Continue to argue anarchy all you like, it's got NOTHING on the peace and safety I live in now.
Sower of discord your works must Cease
I vanquish thee now with these words of Peace
Potion- Mix the juice of one pomegranate,
with two measures of honey, fold in three bay leaves, three laurel leaves, And one clover blossom. Steam, then decant into a glass globe, Wrap the globe in blue velvet.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I thought it was a great scathing post, just to be clear, and I agree.
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I don't agree with it, but I did enjoy reading it. And it served as a nice counterpoint to Outside's post with the random capitalization and insistence that she'd be running around robbing and murdering if the police weren't out there to catch her.
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 28, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I don't agree with it, but I did enjoy reading it. And it served as a nice counterpoint to Outside's post with the random capitalization and insistence that she'd be running around robbing and murdering if the police weren't out there to catch her.
Yeah, and there's plenty of people out there, running around robbing and murdering people even though the Police are ostensibly trying to catch them anyway. Plus, it's in the State's interest to maintain a certain level of crime because it justifies them taking more power for themselves. Which they inevitably abuse. Criminals don't give a rats arse about the Law, (Or they wouldn't be criminals) The State creates criminals with legislation, trains them in Prisons, then uses them to maintain their own grip on power.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 28, 2010, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 28, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I don't agree with it, but I did enjoy reading it. And it served as a nice counterpoint to Outside's post with the random capitalization and insistence that she'd be running around robbing and murdering if the police weren't out there to catch her.
Yeah, and there's plenty of people out there, running around robbing and murdering people even though the Police are ostensibly trying to catch them anyway. Plus, it's in the State's interest to maintain a certain level of crime because it justifies them taking more power for themselves. Which they inevitably abuse. Criminals don't give a rats arse about the Law, (Or they wouldn't be criminals) The State creates criminals with legislation, trains them in Prisons, then uses them to maintain their own grip on power.
So.
Which perfect, failsafe options do you offer instead?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 28, 2010, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 28, 2010, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 28, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I don't agree with it, but I did enjoy reading it. And it served as a nice counterpoint to Outside's post with the random capitalization and insistence that she'd be running around robbing and murdering if the police weren't out there to catch her.
Yeah, and there's plenty of people out there, running around robbing and murdering people even though the Police are ostensibly trying to catch them anyway. Plus, it's in the State's interest to maintain a certain level of crime because it justifies them taking more power for themselves. Which they inevitably abuse. Criminals don't give a rats arse about the Law, (Or they wouldn't be criminals) The State creates criminals with legislation, trains them in Prisons, then uses them to maintain their own grip on power.
So.
Which perfect, failsafe options do you offer instead?
Love. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 28, 2010, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 28, 2010, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: Xochiquetzal on September 28, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 28, 2010, 03:16:28 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on September 28, 2010, 02:20:45 AM
Dude...
\
:hippie:
/
You're harshing my high, dude.
"Every party has a pooper, that's why they invited me..." :D
I didn't mean to go off like that, well, I guess I did in a way, but I've been down this road before about the moaning and groaning on how no government's better than the one we have. Ain't no such thing, in my world. We can always do BETTER, but better =/= throwing baby with bathwater into ditch.
I don't agree with it, but I did enjoy reading it. And it served as a nice counterpoint to Outside's post with the random capitalization and insistence that she'd be running around robbing and murdering if the police weren't out there to catch her.
Yeah, and there's plenty of people out there, running around robbing and murdering people even though the Police are ostensibly trying to catch them anyway. Plus, it's in the State's interest to maintain a certain level of crime because it justifies them taking more power for themselves. Which they inevitably abuse. Criminals don't give a rats arse about the Law, (Or they wouldn't be criminals) The State creates criminals with legislation, trains them in Prisons, then uses them to maintain their own grip on power.
So.
Which perfect, failsafe options do you offer instead?
I'm not offering anything instead. Or even pretending to. Just drawing attention to the fact that the State isn't really offering what it says it's offering. In fact, it perpetrates more havoc and intrusive/oppressive shit than anyone else. I'm not saying that everyone should be "Anarchists", or advocating the setting up of an Anarchist society. (Whatever the fuck that is)
All I want, is the responsibility for my own shit, without having to be told what I can and can't do. If this was miraculously granted to me, I wouldn't suddenly turn into a bomb throwing maniac. But the inference the State provides is that I would. Nobody needs to be protected from me. But the inference the State provides is that they do. Shit, the State thinks we all need to be protected from ourselves. THAT is what I really resent.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 28, 2010, 11:17:19 PM
I'm not offering anything instead. Or even pretending to. Just drawing attention to the fact that the State isn't really offering what it says it's offering. In fact, it perpetrates more havoc and intrusive/oppressive shit than anyone else. I'm not saying that everyone should be "Anarchists", or advocating the setting up of an Anarchist society. (Whatever the fuck that is)
All I want, is the responsibility for my own shit, without having to be told what I can and can't do. If this was miraculously granted to me, I wouldn't suddenly turn into a bomb throwing maniac. But the inference the State provides is that I would. Nobody needs to be protected from me. But the inference the State provides is that they do. Shit, the State thinks we all need to be protected from ourselves. THAT is what I really resent.
Of course the state isn't offering what it says it's offering. Doesn't matter. There is a minimum required level of order that I insist on for very selfish reasons, and the state is (currently) able to maintain that.
In just under 4 years, I will have a different opinion.
Like I said, no government is perfect, and I have SERIOUS issues with some of our legislation and a LOT of our justice system, and I will not deny that.
But I really think it's a matter of reform in the government that we already HAVE, rather than getting rid of government entirely that will help at least begin to solve these problems, if they can be solved at all.
And I will argue that each and every one of us here is allowed to do more, say more, and achieve more with much more convenience through what the government provides and/or allows us to do than what any of us could do in total anarchy.
While to public's thoughts and movements and tendancies can be controlled to an extent by the powers that be, I have a hard time accepting that what we have right now, with all our resources and abilities, is somehow not EXACTLY what we want.
What we have right this second is what we want. We built all this on our own accord.
This is what we asked for. And we keep asking for it every day we don't avoid using public roads or clean, municipal water.
And that's probably a good way to start an anarchist movement, poison all public water supplies.
Don't use The Man™'s sanitation and ruin it for others.
FREEEEEDDDDOOOOMMMM!
And then what? You don't have water to drink, and no one else does either. And everyone dies in three days or less to dehydration.
Great idea there. :kingmeh:
:facepalm:
Was my sarcasm response to your sarcasm? :lol: :lol:
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 02:46:12 AM
Was my sarcasm response to your sarcasm? :lol: :lol:
People who don't know the difference between sarcasm and facetiousness ITT
*points to self* people who have hard time telling tone of voice by text alone sometimes ITT.
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
While to public's thoughts and movements and tendancies can be controlled to an extent by the powers that be, I have a hard time accepting that what we have right now, with all our resources and abilities, is somehow not EXACTLY what we want.
What we have right this second is what we want. We built all this on our own accord.
This is what we asked for. And we keep asking for it every day we don't avoid using public roads or clean, municipal water.
And that's probably a good way to start an anarchist movement, poison all public water supplies.
Don't use The Man™'s sanitation and ruin it for others.
FREEEEEDDDDOOOOMMMM!
That is surprisingly close to how I would deal with LA.
Why bother? It's always on fire anyway.
For the record, LA is a cool town. You're thinking of Hollywood and Burbank.
Badbeast--I see where you're going, and I've deplored the greediness with which government seems to want to capture its citizens and place then in jail with nary a thought to their so-called productivity to society as a free citizen. In fact, many prison/jail administrators and law enforcement personnel suscribe to the notion that such people are "throw-aways" who belong out of society's way before they harm anyone any further.
And society at large EATS THAT UP WITH A MOTHERFUCKING SPOON. And legislator or politician who runs on SAFETY--PUBLIC AND PRIVATE--KILLALLTHEMURDERINGRAPINGCARJACKINGTHUGS gets that much more votes for doing so. People LOVE to "feel safe" and sacrifice on that altar too many of their own personal rights.
So the justification that it's not the people who built the state to act this way doesn't wash, in my mind. I know there's a definite abuse of power when it comes to incarceration, criminalization, etc. (know it firsthand since my father's in prison), but this is what the people demand. Yes, they're told to demand it, but even still, no one likes to feel unsafe.
Guess what they'd want to do if that so-called safety was removed?
Quote from: Jenne on September 29, 2010, 03:08:53 PM
Badbeast--I see where you're going, and I've deplored the greediness with which government seems to want to capture its citizens and place then in jail with nary a thought to their so-called productivity to society as a free citizen. In fact, many prison/jail administrators and law enforcement personnel suscribe to the notion that such people are "throw-aways" who belong out of society's way before they harm anyone any further.
And society at large EATS THAT UP WITH A MOTHERFUCKING SPOON. And legislator or politician who runs on SAFETY--PUBLIC AND PRIVATE--KILLALLTHEMURDERINGRAPINGCARJACKINGTHUGS gets that much more votes for doing so. People LOVE to "feel safe" and sacrifice on that altar too many of their own personal rights.
So the justification that it's not the people who built the state to act this way doesn't wash, in my mind. I know there's a definite abuse of power when it comes to incarceration, criminalization, etc. (know it firsthand since my father's in prison), but this is what the people demand. Yes, they're told to demand it, but even still, no one likes to feel unsafe.
Guess what they'd want to do if that so-called safety was removed?
Rob, rape and murder?
In my mind, there is no doubt
that most humans want to feel,
protected safe, secure and sound
with someone else behind the wheel.
Though some governments in history
have done their level best,
most it seems to me
have done, well, rather less.
So every couple hundred years,
the people stand and say,
"Out with bums and bastards,
let Freedom have its day!"
Then the first thing that they do,
after breaking off the yoke.
Is to pass control to another man
like some twisted sort of joke.
That man will speak of Hope and Change
or Freedom, Rights and Choice,
He says he's not like all the rest
and he'll "listen to your voice".
So the men once roused, fall back asleep
and dream that they are Free.
As though one man could suddenly
calm the entire sea.
But soon it all comes back again,
they're chained, and locked and yoked,
and a century or two will pass
before the flames get stoked.
So they gather up their forces,
and repeat their fathers fight,
and once the blood has soaked the field
they hand power to some Knight.
And he, of course, will behave
just like the ones before
and all the people find themselves
prostrate on the floor.
In my mind, there is no doubt
that most humans want to feel,
protected safe, secure and sound
with someone else behind the wheel.
- Ratatosk
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
Solution
Burn down all the trees?
Quote from: Sir Coyote on September 30, 2010, 06:34:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
Solution
Burn down all the trees?
Solution: Let the Free Market™ solve the tree problem.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on September 30, 2010, 06:34:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
Solution
Burn down all the trees?
Solution: Let the Free Market™ solve the tree problem.
Solution: Trade trees for the rights to walking on the ground. Then burn the trees.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on September 30, 2010, 06:37:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on September 30, 2010, 06:34:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Yeah, you're right. We should all just run back to the jungle and each live in our own trees.
What the hell was I thinking?
Solution
Burn down all the trees?
Solution: Let the Free Market™ solve the tree problem.
Solution: Trade trees for the rights to walking on the ground. Then burn the trees.
Funny thing: Some jackass libertariantard actually invented a "pay park bench". When the time runs out, dull spikes extrude from the seat until you put more quarters in.
Libertarians: They're like robber barons, only retarded. And without the money.
:argh!: That's my bench dammit! Go find your own!
That idea for the spike bench was really dumb. Why not just have a normal bench, and give people the option to pay for a cushion to inflate? That seems more humane and equitable.
You know, if it's really that big a deal to charge for a bench in the first place.
No kidding. It's just a place to sit. :lulz:
If I recall, it was invented by a German artist who made it as a satirical critique. The Chinese then adopted it for reals.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on October 01, 2010, 01:55:23 PM
If I recall, it was invented by a German artist who made it as a satirical critique. The Chinese then adopted it for reals.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on September 29, 2010, 03:08:53 PM
Badbeast--I see where you're going, and I've deplored the greediness with which government seems to want to capture its citizens and place then in jail with nary a thought to their so-called productivity to society as a free citizen. In fact, many prison/jail administrators and law enforcement personnel suscribe to the notion that such people are "throw-aways" who belong out of society's way before they harm anyone any further.
And society at large EATS THAT UP WITH A MOTHERFUCKING SPOON. And legislator or politician who runs on SAFETY--PUBLIC AND PRIVATE--KILLALLTHEMURDERINGRAPINGCARJACKINGTHUGS gets that much more votes for doing so. People LOVE to "feel safe" and sacrifice on that altar too many of their own personal rights.
So the justification that it's not the people who built the state to act this way doesn't wash, in my mind. I know there's a definite abuse of power when it comes to incarceration, criminalization, etc. (know it firsthand since my father's in prison), but this is what the people demand. Yes, they're told to demand it, but even still, no one likes to feel unsafe.
Guess what they'd want to do if that so-called safety was removed?
Yeah, I can see why people let themselves get lulled into a false sense of security by the State. And although your US system seems very similar on the surface to ours, (UK) they really are quite different. I accept that both Prison systems contain people who are very dangerous, and need to be dealt with, but having been in Prison myself a few times, I can honestly say that 90% of the Prisoners in the UK, are no danger to anyone, comprising largely of fine defaulters, drugs offenders, driving offences, and people who haven't paid their Council Tax/TV Licences. It seems that much of the Legislation here is to protect big business from those who don't pay up. We have a two tier legal system, with Magistrates Courts dealing with most offences, (less than 2 years Max) and Crown Courts (More than 2 years) Magistrates Courts seem to maintain the petty criminal system, and small scale offences, and the Crown Courts for high profile stuff. Murder is the only offence with a mandatory life sentence, but Parole is granted after 7 years in most cases. Whereas defrauding a big company of £1,000,000
can get you 18 years, with no early parole. Also, our Prisons are not built along the lines of a Penitentiary system.
Once you are sentenced, there is no enforced work regieme, TV in every cell, and drugs are more readily available inside than they are on the street. So there is a bigger turnover of people here, with reoffenders going in and out all the time for 3, 6 or 9 months sentences making up the biggest portion. Don't quite know where I'm going with this now, but I hope your old fella gets out soon.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:12:25 PM
Yeah, I can see why people let themselves get lulled into a false sense of security by the State.
Yeah, I can see why constant anxiety over whether you'll be killed by roaming gangs of bandits would be an improvement on that.
We haven't had roaming gangs of bandits since the Special Patrol Groups were disbanded in the 1980's.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:37:27 PM
We haven't had roaming gangs of bandits since the Special Patrol Groups were disbanded in the 1980's.
Words don't mean anything. Nothing at all. We can interchange meanings as we see fit, to support The Cause™, which is holy and excuses all deeds.
So, corrupt cops are bandits, and not wanting to chuck the rule of law is being a slave to the state, and human nature will change if we beat it with a hammer.
Well, human nature has always been susceptible to hammer blows. Especially when you use them to strike off the chains of the oppressor. :D
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:49:09 PM
Well, human nature has always been susceptible to hammer blows. Especially when you use them to strike off the chains of the oppressor. :D
Stick it to The Man.
But The Man has a nailgun! Maybe if we all rose up together, . . . . . .
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:51:23 PM
But The Man has a nailgun! Maybe if we all rose up together, . . . . . .
That sounds too groupthink. You rise up.
last time I did that, they all laughed!
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:54:12 PM
last time I did that, they all laughed!
Sounds like your anarchy has, well, organizational problems.
I am an Army of one!
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 07:56:24 PM
I am an Army of one!
You go, dude! I expect to see the fall of the English government by next week.
Glad to see someone has faith in me.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 08:00:33 PM
Glad to see someone has faith in me.
Why aren't you smashing the state and exposing the alienation of the system, already?
Spent most of the 80's doing that. No-one gives a rat's arse.
Why is no one up for reinstituting a good old monarchy?
That would be an improvement. At least with a proper Monarchy, there's only one dude to knock off his perch.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 08:03:40 PM
Spent most of the 80's doing that. No-one gives a rat's arse.
Well, there's your anarchy. :lulz:
UNITE TO SMASH THE OPPRE...Hey, where'd everyone go?
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 08:07:59 PM
That would be an improvement. At least with a proper Monarchy, there's only one dude to knock off his perch.
Actually, there'd be hundreds. It's not like the throne hasn't switched families a time or two.
Feudal systems are actually very hard to get rid of.
I'm fighting a losing battle here, aren't I?
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 08:10:23 PM
I'm fighting a losing battle here, aren't I?
For 30 years, apparently. :lulz:
It all goes back to that day at the Zoo, when I gazed deeply into the eyes of a Wolf!
Quote from: BadBeast on October 01, 2010, 08:13:30 PM
It all goes back to that day at the Zoo, when I gazed deeply into the eyes of a Wolf!
:spittake:
Sometimes I wish Wolfpoet would return for more abuse.
Quote from: Nast on October 01, 2010, 08:06:10 PM
Why is no one up for reinstituting a good old monarchy?
I am.
So long as I am king.
Quote from: BadBeast on September 15, 2010, 06:18:09 PMCrowley understood, and his oft quoted, but much misunderstood ''Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law'' pretty much nails it. It is about taking control of our own lives, on a fundamental level. Finding our ''True Will'', piece by piece, and holding to it. Understanding how it affects everything around us, everything we do. When we start to do this, we see how tenuous a grip those who would oppress us with false Laws really have on us. The comfortable illusion of an ''Ordered Society'' is just that. An illusion. And if you are happy with that, then you are saying, in effect, ''I am happy to live on my knees, I accept that I need to be governed by others". But deep down, you know it is a lie. You just don't want to be the only one to rise up. This is the struggle. You HAVE to be the only one to rise up. You HAVE to do this for yourself, otherwise nothing will ever change.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.
42. Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
43. Do that, and no other shall say nay.
44. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.
57. Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God."
-- The Book of the Law"AnarchY might be imaginary -- meaning that we don't now and may never have a society without coercive rulers -- but anarchISM is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love, or Buddhist empathy. It is not a description of the world, but a standard for judging situations within the world."
-- bkMarcus
Why won't this thread die?
A. Because the Free MarketTM demands it.
B. Humans are fools.
C. Quit asking these questions, citizen, and get back to work!
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 02, 2010, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 15, 2010, 06:18:09 PMCrowley understood, and his oft quoted, but much misunderstood ''Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law'' pretty much nails it. It is about taking control of our own lives, on a fundamental level. Finding our ''True Will'', piece by piece, and holding to it. Understanding how it affects everything around us, everything we do. When we start to do this, we see how tenuous a grip those who would oppress us with false Laws really have on us. The comfortable illusion of an ''Ordered Society'' is just that. An illusion. And if you are happy with that, then you are saying, in effect, ''I am happy to live on my knees, I accept that I need to be governed by others". But deep down, you know it is a lie. You just don't want to be the only one to rise up. This is the struggle. You HAVE to be the only one to rise up. You HAVE to do this for yourself, otherwise nothing will ever change.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.
42. Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
43. Do that, and no other shall say nay.
44. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.
57. Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God."
-- The Book of the Law
"AnarchY might be imaginary -- meaning that we don't now and may never have a society without coercive rulers -- but anarchISM is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love, or Buddhist empathy. It is not a description of the world, but a standard for judging situations within the world."
-- bkMarcus
OMG! It's a Wolf!
Quote from: BadBeast on October 02, 2010, 05:43:23 PMOMG! It's a Wolf!
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:OztUblCuMEYOvM:http://images.memegenerator.net/Insanity-Wolf/ImageMacro/2077369/Boo-You-whore.jpg&t=1)
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 02, 2010, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on September 15, 2010, 06:18:09 PMCrowley understood, and his oft quoted, but much misunderstood ''Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law'' pretty much nails it. It is about taking control of our own lives, on a fundamental level. Finding our ''True Will'', piece by piece, and holding to it. Understanding how it affects everything around us, everything we do. When we start to do this, we see how tenuous a grip those who would oppress us with false Laws really have on us. The comfortable illusion of an ''Ordered Society'' is just that. An illusion. And if you are happy with that, then you are saying, in effect, ''I am happy to live on my knees, I accept that I need to be governed by others". But deep down, you know it is a lie. You just don't want to be the only one to rise up. This is the struggle. You HAVE to be the only one to rise up. You HAVE to do this for yourself, otherwise nothing will ever change.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse.
42. Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
43. Do that, and no other shall say nay.
44. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.
57. Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God."
-- The Book of the Law
"AnarchY might be imaginary -- meaning that we don't now and may never have a society without coercive rulers -- but anarchISM is a value-set, like pacifism or Christian love, or Buddhist empathy. It is not a description of the world, but a standard for judging situations within the world."
-- bkMarcus
Shoot yourself in the face.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What
is your side?
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley
with a straight face.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Wasn't Crowley a real fuckbag douche, anyway? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Yes, you must always quote him with a curved face.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on October 04, 2010, 02:43:23 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Yes, you must always quote him with a curved face.
Why you be so Welsh?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 04, 2010, 02:43:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Wasn't Crowley a real fuckbag douche, anyway? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes, but I kind of admire him anyway, for trolling douchebags 50 years after his death.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 04, 2010, 02:43:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Wasn't Crowley a real fuckbag douche, anyway? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes, but I kind of admire him anyway, for trolling douchebags 50 years after his death.
Remember is mostly because of him that all the pagans use that special k. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 04, 2010, 02:43:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Wasn't Crowley a real fuckbag douche, anyway? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes, but I kind of admire him anyway, for trolling douchebags 50 years after his death.
:lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 04, 2010, 02:43:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Wasn't Crowley a real fuckbag douche, anyway? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yes, but I kind of admire him anyway, for trolling douchebags 50 years after his death.
And he was a peerless prankster.
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 02:48:34 AM
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
He probably kept a deadpan face the whole time.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:52:21 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 02:48:34 AM
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
He probably kept a deadpan face the whole time.
Yeah, no-one did deadpan like Crowley.
TBH, I've always enjoyed "Persistence is the only skill required for success." as a motivator.
But yes he was a douchebag and a racist and a douchebag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDTpDJSqH0&feature=related :lulz:
Not a giggle in the whole piece!
Shit! I just helped to derail my own thread. Again! :evilmad:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:40:23 AM
Quote from: Psychonomaly on October 03, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 03, 2010, 06:49:12 PMShoot yourself in the face.
Okay, you win. I'll be on your side now. What is your side?
Mine. The rest of you fuckers should get off my planet, now.
Especially people who quote Crowley with a straight face.
Your belief regarding the orientation of my face is off target.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:52:21 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 02:48:34 AM
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
He probably kept a deadpan face the whole time.
s'Why I like him... consummate prankster that would climb a tree to lie to your dumb ass when he could stand on the ground and be honest. A guy that focused way too much treasure and energy on poking all of Merry Old England right in the eye. And hell, who can't respect a dude that walks into a restaurant in a full Egyptian priest costume and does rituals while being invisible?
Crowley is far more understandable if you perceive him as a Pranskter than as some kind of seriously serious practitioner of "dark arts".
Besides, for being as ugly as he was, he got a lot of tail. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 03:51:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:52:21 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 02:48:34 AM
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
He probably kept a deadpan face the whole time.
s'Why I like him... consummate prankster that would climb a tree to lie to your dumb ass when he could stand on the ground and be honest. A guy that focused way too much treasure and energy on poking all of Merry Old England right in the eye. And hell, who can't respect a dude that walks into a restaurant in a full Egyptian priest costume and does rituals while being invisible?
Crowley is far more understandable if you perceive him as a Pranskter than as some kind of seriously serious practitioner of "dark arts".
Besides, for being as ugly as he was, he got a lot of tail. :lulz:
Absolutely! It's the only way to take him. You've no idea how refreshing, or indeed, rare (Well, actually, you probably do) it is to find people who really do "get" him, in this spirit. The image driven Celebrities of today can't hold a candle to such a shameless self publicist like Crowley. My favourite quote from him, was in the Daily Mail Libel case, when the Judge asked him if he liked to be known as "The Great Beast, 666". Crowley replied, "Yes, but for the purposes of this Court, you may call me "Little Sunshine". Fucking hilarious! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2010, 03:51:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 04, 2010, 02:52:21 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on October 04, 2010, 02:48:34 AM
He helped Gardner put his "Book of Shadows" together, and therefore gave us "Wicca". Which has been good for a laugh.
He probably kept a deadpan face the whole time.
s'Why I like him... consummate prankster that would climb a tree to lie to your dumb ass when he could stand on the ground and be honest. A guy that focused way too much treasure and energy on poking all of Merry Old England right in the eye. And hell, who can't respect a dude that walks into a restaurant in a full Egyptian priest costume and does rituals while being invisible?
Crowley is far more understandable if you perceive him as a Pranskter than as some kind of seriously serious practitioner of "dark arts".
Besides, for being as ugly as he was, he got a lot of tail. :lulz:
Absolutely! It's the only way to take him. You've no idea how refreshing, or indeed, rare (Well, actually, you probably do) it is to find people who really do "get" him, in this spirit. The image driven Celebrities of today can't hold a candle to such a shameless self publicist like Crowley. My favourite quote from him, was in the Daily Mail Libel case, when the Judge asked him if he liked to be known as "The Great Beast, 666". Crowley replied, "Yes, but for the purposes of this Court, you may call me "Little Sunshine". Fucking hilarious! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
QuoteIt is disgusting to have to spend one's life jetting dirt in the face of the British public
in the hope that in washing it they may wash off the acrid grease of their
commercialism, the saline streaks of their hypocritical tears, the putrid perspiration
of their morality, the dribbling slobber of their sentimentality and their religion. And
they don't wash it!
- Liber CLVIII
This should more than make up for my derailment earlier. Never mind the Ballots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUJNrDjf4p4&feature=related
Bump. for lulz.
I think ECH said something about being a responsible human being back in the thread somewhere. I agree with that.
Also-Everything has flaws.
There has not been a political system that has worked from day one. and there will most likely never be one. My thoughts-Personal responsibly. I use to express my thought as Anarchy for the government- Peace for the People. Yeah-Wont work. I've give up hope on any system working-and even a system of no system is still yet a system.
Some label it differently.
Not trying to be all doom and whatnot-just maybe that we humans are looking at shit from a funny/ blurred angle.
I dunno.
Quote from: maphdet on April 09, 2011, 07:23:02 AM
There has not been a political system that has worked from day one. and there will most likely never be one.
Balls. Plenty of political systems work. None are perfect. Welcome to the planet of the apes.
Quote from: Susan on April 09, 2011, 07:24:32 AM
Quote from: maphdet on April 09, 2011, 07:23:02 AM
There has not been a political system that has worked from day one. and there will most likely never be one.
Balls. Plenty of political systems work. None are perfect. Welcome to the planet of the apes.
Right. They partially work. I should have clarified. They are not perfect. But is the portion that works of these systems enough? (to keep humanity humane?) Hmmm, maybe anything is enough so long as The Machine™ continues to be fed.
Quote from: maphdet on April 09, 2011, 07:39:03 AM
Quote from: Susan on April 09, 2011, 07:24:32 AM
Quote from: maphdet on April 09, 2011, 07:23:02 AM
There has not been a political system that has worked from day one. and there will most likely never be one.
Balls. Plenty of political systems work. None are perfect. Welcome to the planet of the apes.
Right. They partially work. I should have clarified. They are not perfect. But is the portion that works of these systems enough? (to keep humanity humane?) Hmmm, maybe anything is enough so long as The Machine™ continues to be fed.
History says "yes".
They work well enough, for a time. Humanity today is 169% more humane than it was 100 years ago. Or even 50 years ago.
Upon reflection, I can see Anarchy is only really workable, as a personal value system. The idea that a Political system can work on Anarchic principles is a non starter. On a personal level, Anarchy is able to function in a realistic fashion, independently of whatever Political system governs in name. Because what it boils down to, is who has more control over how you live your life? Is it the "System", or is it the individual?
Even when it's expedient to say "Yes Sir", and pay lip service to the system, both they, and you both know the heart is really saying "Fuck you"!
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Upon reflection, I can see Anarchy is only really workable, as a personal value system. The idea that a Political system can work on Anarchic principles is a non starter. On a personal level, Anarchy is able to function in a realistic fashion, independently of whatever Political system governs in name. Because what it boils down to, is who has more control over how you live your life? Is it the "System", or is it the individual?
Even when it's expedient to say "Yes Sir", and pay lip service to the system, both they, and you both know the heart is really saying "Fuck you"!
But at the same time is it not also denying yourself?
Coyote, cannot express himself properly at the moment.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 09, 2011, 07:50:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Upon reflection, I can see Anarchy is only really workable, as a personal value system. The idea that a Political system can work on Anarchic principles is a non starter. On a personal level, Anarchy is able to function in a realistic fashion, independently of whatever Political system governs in name. Because what it boils down to, is who has more control over how you live your life? Is it the "System", or is it the individual?
Even when it's expedient to say "Yes Sir", and pay lip service to the system, both they, and you both know the heart is really saying "Fuck you"!
But at the same time is it not also denying yourself?
Coyote, cannot express himself properly at the moment.
Not really, because anything other than the right words (Yes Sir) would begin a show of strength, that always ends up the same way. By paying the minimum of lip service, in a way that saves you from getting shat upon, they win no victory, and you lose no points. Getting goaded into starting a fight you can't win is one of the ways they subjugate dissenters. Stepping around these clumsy bastards is so very easy if you choose not to take these challenges personally.
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 08:32:08 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 09, 2011, 07:50:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 07:47:08 AM
Upon reflection, I can see Anarchy is only really workable, as a personal value system. The idea that a Political system can work on Anarchic principles is a non starter. On a personal level, Anarchy is able to function in a realistic fashion, independently of whatever Political system governs in name. Because what it boils down to, is who has more control over how you live your life? Is it the "System", or is it the individual?
Even when it's expedient to say "Yes Sir", and pay lip service to the system, both they, and you both know the heart is really saying "Fuck you"!
But at the same time is it not also denying yourself?
Coyote, cannot express himself properly at the moment.
Not really, because anything other than the right words (Yes Sir) would begin a show of strength, that always ends up the same way. By paying the minimum of lip service, in a way that saves you from getting shat upon, they win no victory, and you lose no points. Getting goaded into starting a fight you can't win is one of the ways they subjugate dissenters. Stepping around these clumsy bastards is so very easy if you choose not to take these challenges personally.
makes sense. But at the same time, I dunno. That sounds like how I've been dealing with my last NCOIC, which never really felt satisfying.
In a system of non-coercive social shunning as justice, what happens to the guy who kills his daughter's murderer in an act of private vengeance?
Oh my god, :lulz: Fuck, people are actually arguing for "who runs bartertown" Anarchism with arbitrary physical coersion ad-hocs at any time instead of like Anarcho-Syndicalism or something. "Some more effort if you wish to become Republicans!" eh? I'll get my fucking whip.
Quote from: Slyph on April 09, 2011, 08:43:02 AM
In a system of non-coercive social shunning as justice, what happens to the guy who kills his daughter's murderer in an act of private vengeance?
What happens is his vengeance gets it's way. As to the consequences of his actions, who can say he was not justified in acting like this? The chances are, that he would have taken a shot at vengeance no matter what justice system was in place. It would no more stop him, than it stopped his daughter from being murdered.
Quote from: Slyph on April 09, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
Oh my god, :lulz: Fuck, people are actually arguing for "who runs bartertown" Anarchism with arbitrary physical coersion ad-hocs at any time instead of like Anarcho-Syndicalism or something. "Some more effort if you wish to become Republicans!" eh? I'll get my fucking whip.
To be fair it's the most realistic of the two. One has horribly unrealistic expectations of how people would behave. The others mad max
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 10, 2011, 02:20:10 AM
Quote from: Slyph on April 09, 2011, 08:56:41 AM
"who runs bartertown"
Master Blaster!
Nah, George Clinton! Can. You. Dig. It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW8s5vWcU6c
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 09:20:36 AM
Quote from: Slyph on April 09, 2011, 08:43:02 AM
In a system of non-coercive social shunning as justice, what happens to the guy who kills his daughter's murderer in an act of private vengeance?
What happens is his vengeance gets it's way. As to the consequences of his actions, who can say he was not justified in acting like this? The chances are, that he would have taken a shot at vengeance no matter what justice system was in place. It would no more stop him, than it stopped his daughter from being murdered.
Okay, so we'll add "Vigilanteeism" to Anarchist forms of justice, right after "Peer pressure." :lulz:
What if he just up and kills a dude 'cause he fucked her? Like he's religious or something.
What if he up and kills a dude because he believes falsely, either through circumstantial evidence or delusion, that the man was involved in a
conspiracy to kill his daughter?
"anarchist forms of Justice"?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What if nobody cares what he does because he's a stinky trustafarian anarchist?
Aww, don't get personal, :) The Anarchists are chill, they're just suffering from false consciousness! It's a distortion of revolutionary sentiment Comrade. When I'm in charge they'll go to nice treatment centers, and after they've been re-educated, those that will join us will be greeted as Brothers! And to the rest, the Corked Wall!
Or Kill You.
I assume that by "treatment centers" you mean "a sunny spot on the wall".
ECH,
knows there's only one good kind of anarchist
Quote from: Slyph on April 10, 2011, 10:01:20 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 09, 2011, 09:20:36 AM
Quote from: Slyph on April 09, 2011, 08:43:02 AM
In a system of non-coercive social shunning as justice, what happens to the guy who kills his daughter's murderer in an act of private vengeance?
What happens is his vengeance gets it's way. As to the consequences of his actions, who can say he was not justified in acting like this? The chances are, that he would have taken a shot at vengeance no matter what justice system was in place. It would no more stop him, than it stopped his daughter from being murdered.
Okay, so we'll add "Vigilanteeism" to Anarchist forms of justice, right after "Peer pressure." :lulz:
What if he just up and kills a dude 'cause he fucked her? Like he's religious or something.
What if he up and kills a dude because he believes falsely, either through circumstantial evidence or delusion, that the man was involved in a conspiracy to kill his daughter?
vigilantism, peer pressure, murder, conspiracy, and miscarriages of justice all occur anyway, regardless. Why would "Anarchy" make any difference? And as for "Anarchist forms of Justice"? I wouldn't presume to define what constitutes Justice in the first place. Thinking of Anarchy simply on socio-political terms only leads to misconceptions like the idea that tearing down the State is the objective.
If you think of it as a system of self realignment, with the objective of removing certain culturally imprinted, obsolete, or destructive behavior patterns and ideas, then it becomes workable and flexible.
After all, what's the point of tearing down the State's political and social infrastructure, if you keep the same ingrained cultural values yourself? All you end up doing is replacing one flawed and fucked up form of Government with another.
(What stupid bastard bumped this thread back to life? Oh, . . . Ok, well, I suppose I had my reasons.)
Oh look, this picture belongs here, too.
Quote from: Nigel on March 31, 2011, 01:05:15 AM
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/08/name-this-band
QuoteThe Oregonian's coverage of yesterday's Red & Black anarchist press conference includes this fantastic photo that can really be nothing but a publicity shot for Portland's newest hit indie-rockers.
(http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2010/06/08/thumb-1276018401-namethisband.jpg)
The dude with the mic and the headphones is definitely my favorite. :lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 02:14:37 AM
The dude with the mic and the headphones is definitely my favorite. :lulz:
He thinks he's covering the fall of Saigon or some shit. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 02:22:23 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 11, 2011, 02:14:37 AM
The dude with the mic and the headphones is definitely my favorite. :lulz:
He thinks he's covering the fall of Saigon or some shit. :lulz:
Looks like he's flinching from the barrage of rotting fruit that's about to rain down on them.
Quote from: Nigel on April 11, 2011, 02:11:06 AM
Oh look, this picture belongs here, too.
Quote from: Nigel on March 31, 2011, 01:05:15 AM
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/06/08/name-this-band
QuoteThe Oregonian's coverage of yesterday's Red & Black anarchist press conference includes this fantastic photo that can really be nothing but a publicity shot for Portland's newest hit indie-rockers.
(http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2010/06/08/thumb-1276018401-namethisband.jpg)
Hahaha. I spoke with Johnny Brainwash's girl today, and that's a pic of the staff/owners of the Red & Black Cafe. She saw the womp on FB and thought it was hilarious.
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/daviddees_walmart.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: I poomped!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 02:53:03 AM
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/daviddees_walmart.jpg)
This is...
AMERICA.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 02:53:03 AM
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/daviddees_walmart.jpg)
There is so many things wrong with that picture...it's like a reflection of the US....
Quote from: BadBeast on April 11, 2011, 12:22:14 AM
If you think of it as a system of self realignment, with the objective of removing certain culturally imprinted, obsolete, or destructive behavior patterns and ideas, then it becomes workable and flexible.
After all, what's the point of tearing down the State's political and social infrastructure, if you keep the same ingrained cultural values yourself? All you end up doing is replacing one flawed and fucked up form of Government with another.
(What stupid bastard bumped this thread back to life? Oh, . . . Ok, well, I suppose I had my reasons.)
Lifestylist. :lulz:
(kidding :) )
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2czakja.jpg)
Quote from: Nigel on April 11, 2011, 06:22:33 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 11, 2011, 02:53:03 AM
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/daviddees_walmart.jpg)
This is...
AMERICA.
Only instead of being kicked into a well, someone is shove a big mac extra cheese with prozac down your throat while forcing you watch springer and fox news, with badly autotuned pop music blaring in the background.