Anarchy

[East Coast Hustle]

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.  

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.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.  

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.

[BadBeast]

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.  

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.

[Cain]

Before humans lived there?

[Doktor Howl]

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?   

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?

[BadBeast]

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!  

[BabylonHoruv]

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?   

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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?

[Don Coyote]

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?

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[Cain]

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?

[Don Coyote]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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".

[Requia ☣]

You gotta have a label for your identity ECH, else how will you tell yourself apart from the other monkeys?