Its not, you are under the impression that I support anarchy and libertarianism. Most likely because my first post was unclear.
I don't support either anarchy or libertarianism.
College professors have real power over their students, beyond their possession of knowledge the students lack. This creates a hierarchy of power, which left unchecked can lead to abuse.
oooooh, that's what you were saying: The power structure prevents problems from happening.
The ability to leave does not guarantee freedom any more than the ability to quit guarantees non-exploitation of labour
No, but Loser seems to believe that most democracies do not allow people to leave. That is untrue. People are free to leave America any time they wish.
he also believes that if they did allow people to leave (as they do), then this assures meaningful consent
which is wrong, is what I'm saying
The ability to leave does not in any way assure meaningful consent. In fact, it's entirely unreasonable to assert that you can just "leave." As you can leave, but you can't actually go anywhere.
Either way though, the ability to leave is not a sufficient condition for meaningful consent. However, it's probably necessary.
How are anarchic or anarcho-syndicalist communities proposed to avoid this problem? You could turn the whole world into autonomous villages but this would not resurrect the untamed frontier.
No, but it may result in more freedom of mobility. In fact, I imagine that the anarchist would maintain that it would result in more freedom of movement.
They may maintain that, but in practice getting accepted in another anarchist community would be as hard as getting accepted to live in another country.
After all, why would any anarchist community have to accept that freedom of movement policy.
Is it really meaningful to say you're allowed to leave when you are not allowed to enter any other location?
I'd say not.
This is a fair point, but it's not as it is super hard to move to another country. It mostly involves getting a job there, but millions of people do it. It is far from being an ideal situation, but way more far from the picture the anarchists are trying to paint.
Also, it's not hard to move to other countries. It's hard to move to other countries that aren't shit holes. Pretty sure you could over stay your visa in the Sudan and no ICE agency would check up on you.
I don't want to live somewhere with a strong central government, but all the countries without one (where I could go easily) are shit holes. Ergo we should abolish our strong central government.
Its not, you are under the impression that I support anarchy and libertarianism. Most likely because my first post was unclear.
I don't support either anarchy or libertarianism.
College professors have real power over their students, beyond their possession of knowledge the students lack. This creates a hierarchy of power, which left unchecked can lead to abuse.
College professors may hold real power over their students, but they do not hold authority, not in the way we are discussing authority
Also, it's not hard to move to other countries. It's hard to move to other countries that aren't shit holes. Pretty sure you could over stay your visa in the Sudan and no ICE agency would check up on you.
I don't want to live somewhere with a strong central government, but all the countries without one (where I could go easily) are shit holes. Ergo we should abolish our strong central government.
Actually they could move to developing countries where the value of their money is very high, and they can buy their own bodyguards, servants, large mansions, etc. that they could never afford here. One wonders why they all don't.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Also, it's not hard to move to other countries. It's hard to move to other countries that aren't shit holes. Pretty sure you could over stay your visa in the Sudan and no ICE agency would check up on you.
I don't want to live somewhere with a strong central government, but all the countries without one (where I could go easily) are shit holes. Ergo we should abolish our strong central government.
Actually they could move to developing countries where the value of their money is very high, and they can buy their own bodyguards, servants, large mansions, etc. that they could never afford here. One wonders why they all don't.
And when they explain they don't want to/can't pay for bodyguards and just want to set up a community where violence isn't the only way and people can build a "better life" Star Trek style; my response is, "that's great kiddo, so do these folks, go join 'em, or at least stop pretending you're any different from them."
Which isn't fair of course, at least the hippies didn't actively support a corporate kleptocracy.
Also, it's not hard to move to other countries. It's hard to move to other countries that aren't shit holes. Pretty sure you could over stay your visa in the Sudan and no ICE agency would check up on you.
I don't want to live somewhere with a strong central government, but all the countries without one (where I could go easily) are shit holes. Ergo we should abolish our strong central government.
Actually they could move to developing countries where the value of their money is very high, and they can buy their own bodyguards, servants, large mansions, etc. that they could never afford here. One wonders why they all don't.
And when they explain they don't want to/can't pay for bodyguards and just want to set up a community where violence isn't the only way and people can build a "better life" Star Trek style; my response is, "that's great kiddo, so do these folks, go join 'em, or at least stop pretending you're any different from them."
Which isn't fair of course, at least the hippies didn't actively support a corporate kleptocracy.
Or indeed these guys. Lord knows their attempts to distance themselves from the states they live in never go wrong.
The Amish accept that they are subject to civil authority. They may disagree with it at times, but they don't say "you're not the boss of us!"
Boring7, why don't they want to pay for bodyguards? Presumably in Libertaritutopia, everyone would see the public good of law enforcement and would voluntarily contribute to it.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
The Amish accept that they are subject to civil authority. They may disagree with it at times, but they don't say "you're not the boss of us!"
Boring7, why don't they want to pay for bodyguards? Presumably in Libertaritutopia, everyone would see the public good of law enforcement and would voluntarily contribute to it.
Well, except when they don't want to obey the law. Like when they prevent women in their community from reporting rapes to the police.
Its not, you are under the impression that I support anarchy and libertarianism. Most likely because my first post was unclear.
I don't support either anarchy or libertarianism.
College professors have real power over their students, beyond their possession of knowledge the students lack. This creates a hierarchy of power, which left unchecked can lead to abuse.
College professors may hold real power over their students, but they do not hold authority, not in the way we are discussing authority
Even if one wants to argue that it is authority, it is quite obviously coercive; you have to do what the professor tells you or you are punished. If a power/authority has to apply coersion to get you to do something, that indicates a lack of consent.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Well, except when they don't want to obey the law. Like when they prevent women in their community from reporting rapes to the police.
But the Libertaritutopians could sign a voluntary mutual agreement that rape is not a crime, and all women who join the community must be inforrmed of and consent to that before they entered Libertaritutopia.
I've always been a little fuzzy on the Libertarian "well, okay, government for police and shit" exception.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, except when they don't want to obey the law. Like when they prevent women in their community from reporting rapes to the police.
But the Libertaritutopians could sign a voluntary mutual agreement that rape is not a crime, and all women who join the community must be inforrmed of and consent to that before they entered Libertaritutopia.
I've always been a little fuzzy on the Libertarian "well, okay, government for police and shit" exception.
Our most recent poster was an anarchist promoting no police force, or one that is entirely volunteer and never oversteps it's extremely narrow authority. In a larger sense, the anarcho-libertarian-whatevers want a state that doesn't NEED police because they've "evolved to a higher state of society" or some such. Further, in the context of moving to a current patch of anarchic wilderness (large sections of Africa) they would need MOST of their industry to be devoted to protection from the many, many local warlords and paramilitary bands, which most of them cannot and/or do not wish to afford. This is because it is counter to their "no forcing" ideology, it is extremely expensive, they don't actually want to DO it, and whoever is in charge of the military protection can turn it into military oppression very easily.
It's an interesting paradox though, on the one hand I find value in idiotic idealism because without it the culture stagnates and never improves. On the other hand, libertarians are annoyingly smug, irritatingly stupid, and they keep helping the kleptocratic corporate overlords rot the nation from within while parasitically feeding upon it.
But like all bad addictions, you don't easily quit your Politics habit, so here I am, because:
Egging on =/= talking about and providing materials for.
I'm not even remotely sympathetic, but all the 'materials' were provided by the FBI informant. It's like Fast and Furious except the agency involved competently executed the plan.
Its not, you are under the impression that I support anarchy and libertarianism. Most likely because my first post was unclear.
I don't support either anarchy or libertarianism.
College professors have real power over their students, beyond their possession of knowledge the students lack. This creates a hierarchy of power, which left unchecked can lead to abuse.
College professors may hold real power over their students, but they do not hold authority, not in the way we are discussing authority
Even if one wants to argue that it is authority, it is quite obviously coercive; you have to do what the professor tells you or you are punished. If a power/authority has to apply coersion to get you to do something, that indicates a lack of consent.
You acknowledged consent when you accepted their expertise as an educator. I strongly disagree that the professor/student relationship is coercive. If your view of the professor/student relationship involves the word "punishment", I posit that you don't understand the point of the educational process.
Its not, you are under the impression that I support anarchy and libertarianism. Most likely because my first post was unclear.
I don't support either anarchy or libertarianism.
College professors have real power over their students, beyond their possession of knowledge the students lack. This creates a hierarchy of power, which left unchecked can lead to abuse.
College professors may hold real power over their students, but they do not hold authority, not in the way we are discussing authority
Even if one wants to argue that it is authority, it is quite obviously coercive; you have to do what the professor tells you or you are punished. If a power/authority has to apply coersion to get you to do something, that indicates a lack of consent.
You acknowledged consent when you accepted their expertise as an educator. I strongly disagree that the professor/student relationship is coercive. If your view of the professor/student relationship involves the word "punishment", I posit that you don't understand the point of the educational process.
Or you have a professor who abuses his or her position of power to attempt to coerce a student into doing things they wouldn't normally do. There's a reason that those universities that don't outright forbid faculty from having relationships with students (like my current school) still draw the line at professors fooling around with students in the classes they teach.
I'd posit that any time you have a codified imbalance of power in a relationship, that relationship can become coercive even if it was entered into consensually by both parties. It's not inherently coercive, but there's a very real potential for it to become so.
they're far better at law enforcement via trolling than anything else
This kind of thing doesn't make america any safer, though.
Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.
Stupid kids that can be manipulated into terrorism are easy to come by.
Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.
Wait.
You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?
You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."
they're far better at law enforcement via trolling than anything else
This kind of thing doesn't make america any safer, though.
Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.
Stupid kids that can be manipulated into terrorism are easy to come by.
By definition, anyone who gets trolled by the FBI is an incompetent terrorist. So I guess they should let everyone they catch go.
By making it clear that half the terrorist masterminds out there are the FBI, the FBI throws a big dose of paranoia into the workings of any real terrorist group. Also its very clear that most of the low-level terrorists in suicide vests are not exactly winners in life. Getting them in jail before they can kill anyone is how to prevent terrorist acts in the first place. Disregarding people as possible terrorists because they are idiot losers is to willfully ignore that most terrorists are idiot losers, which does not prevent them from doing a lot of damage. Case in point: Anders Breivik.
You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?
You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."
Really?
I'd prefer it if federal agencies didn't entrap people who are very unlikely to ever get their hands on real explosives / real guns / real minors / etc.
That being said, these gentlemen sound like they were inevitably going to maim themselves and/or someone else by trying to cook-up a bomb in their kitchen, so this particular case seems more reasonable.
EDIT: Oh dear. The comments in that article are unfortunate.
From the story it sounds like the police began to monitor these guys after observing their behavior / hearing them talk at OWS rallies. The guys talk about bombing something, so the FBI gets called. The FBI sends-in an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to entice the guys into buying (fake) explosives.
IANAL and all that stuff, so perhaps that doesn't meet the legal definition of entrapment, but it certainly is baiting them into doing something that they may not have proactively pursued.
Egging on =/= talking about and providing materials for.
I'm not even remotely sympathetic, but all the 'materials' were provided by the FBI informant. It's like Fast and Furious except the agency involved competently executed the plan.
Law enforcement can't be competent in that franchise otherwise there would be no franchise.
You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?
You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."
Really?
I'd prefer it if federal agencies didn't entrap people who are very unlikely to ever get their hands on real explosives / real guns / real minors / etc.
That being said, these gentlemen sound like they were inevitably going to maim themselves and/or someone else by trying to cook-up a bomb in their kitchen, so this particular case seems more reasonable.
This is the US you are talking about. Getting a real gun is so easy, the I don't think it can even be considered a barrier to entry the terrorism lotto.
The real key in this case, and the Seattle(iirc) one, is that these people put what they believed to be real explosives somewhere, and then entered the code to set off those 'explosives'.
Entrapment would be calling the guys up and saying "I'll pay you $500 to bomb this bridge." What the FBI did in this case was say "I heard you're looking to bomb a bridge. I can sell you bomb parts." They are enabling the criminals to act on existing intent (or an attempt at the crime), they aren't procuring criminals to act on an outside intent. Same thing with the cars left around to be stolen. They can use bait, but they couldn't offer a bounty through a chop shop if someone stole that particular type of car.
Sceptre: Penny Arcade, where you get starcraft AND marriage advice.
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?
You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."
Really?
I'd prefer it if federal agencies didn't entrap people who are very unlikely to ever get their hands on real explosives / real guns / real minors / etc.
That being said, these gentlemen sound like they were inevitably going to maim themselves and/or someone else by trying to cook-up a bomb in their kitchen, so this particular case seems more reasonable.
This is the US you are talking about. Getting a real gun is so easy, the I don't think it can even be considered a barrier to entry the terrorism lotto.
The real key in this case, and the Seattle(iirc) one, is that these people put what they believed to be real explosives somewhere, and then entered the code to set off those 'explosives'.
From what I gathered it started out as smoke bombs and toppling over signs, then the informant got more involved then all of a sudden they wanted to blow up the bridge with his C4.
Again, I think these dudes are douches and should have the book thrown at them, but it seems like a hollow victory when the FBI's guy was so involved.
Posts
oooooh, that's what you were saying: The power structure prevents problems from happening.
Ok. Keen.
They may maintain that, but in practice getting accepted in another anarchist community would be as hard as getting accepted to live in another country.
After all, why would any anarchist community have to accept that freedom of movement policy.
This is a fair point, but it's not as it is super hard to move to another country. It mostly involves getting a job there, but millions of people do it. It is far from being an ideal situation, but way more far from the picture the anarchists are trying to paint.
I don't want to live somewhere with a strong central government, but all the countries without one (where I could go easily) are shit holes. Ergo we should abolish our strong central government.
College professors may hold real power over their students, but they do not hold authority, not in the way we are discussing authority
Actually they could move to developing countries where the value of their money is very high, and they can buy their own bodyguards, servants, large mansions, etc. that they could never afford here. One wonders why they all don't.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
And when they explain they don't want to/can't pay for bodyguards and just want to set up a community where violence isn't the only way and people can build a "better life" Star Trek style; my response is, "that's great kiddo, so do these folks, go join 'em, or at least stop pretending you're any different from them."
Which isn't fair of course, at least the hippies didn't actively support a corporate kleptocracy.
Or indeed these guys. Lord knows their attempts to distance themselves from the states they live in never go wrong.
Boring7, why don't they want to pay for bodyguards? Presumably in Libertaritutopia, everyone would see the public good of law enforcement and would voluntarily contribute to it.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, except when they don't want to obey the law. Like when they prevent women in their community from reporting rapes to the police.
Even if one wants to argue that it is authority, it is quite obviously coercive; you have to do what the professor tells you or you are punished. If a power/authority has to apply coersion to get you to do something, that indicates a lack of consent.
- John Stuart Mill
But the Libertaritutopians could sign a voluntary mutual agreement that rape is not a crime, and all women who join the community must be inforrmed of and consent to that before they entered Libertaritutopia.
I've always been a little fuzzy on the Libertarian "well, okay, government for police and shit" exception.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Our most recent poster was an anarchist promoting no police force, or one that is entirely volunteer and never oversteps it's extremely narrow authority. In a larger sense, the anarcho-libertarian-whatevers want a state that doesn't NEED police because they've "evolved to a higher state of society" or some such. Further, in the context of moving to a current patch of anarchic wilderness (large sections of Africa) they would need MOST of their industry to be devoted to protection from the many, many local warlords and paramilitary bands, which most of them cannot and/or do not wish to afford. This is because it is counter to their "no forcing" ideology, it is extremely expensive, they don't actually want to DO it, and whoever is in charge of the military protection can turn it into military oppression very easily.
It's an interesting paradox though, on the one hand I find value in idiotic idealism because without it the culture stagnates and never improves. On the other hand, libertarians are annoyingly smug, irritatingly stupid, and they keep helping the kleptocratic corporate overlords rot the nation from within while parasitically feeding upon it.
But like all bad addictions, you don't easily quit your Politics habit, so here I am, because:
5 anarchists attempt to blow up bridge, for May Day.
Look at those winners
A shame they didn't have the resources and skills to recognize fake explosives.
Perhaps they should organi--- Whooooooops. Almost got me there!
they're far better at law enforcement via trolling than anything else
Egging on =/= talking about and providing materials for.
You know, rayofash and the Chaos Theory haven't been posting in this thread recently.
Did we
inspire their call to action?
I'm not even remotely sympathetic, but all the 'materials' were provided by the FBI informant. It's like Fast and Furious except the agency involved competently executed the plan.
You acknowledged consent when you accepted their expertise as an educator. I strongly disagree that the professor/student relationship is coercive. If your view of the professor/student relationship involves the word "punishment", I posit that you don't understand the point of the educational process.
Or you have a professor who abuses his or her position of power to attempt to coerce a student into doing things they wouldn't normally do. There's a reason that those universities that don't outright forbid faculty from having relationships with students (like my current school) still draw the line at professors fooling around with students in the classes they teach.
I'd posit that any time you have a codified imbalance of power in a relationship, that relationship can become coercive even if it was entered into consensually by both parties. It's not inherently coercive, but there's a very real potential for it to become so.
hehehe. I hope The Man considers himself to have been fought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BHBTRtsGio
Impossible, that would be a collectivist argument (ed - necroresponding like a boss)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This kind of thing doesn't make america any safer, though.
Actual successful terrorist plans have someone competent providing the materials, and these potential providers are the ones the FBI should try to capture.
Stupid kids that can be manipulated into terrorism are easy to come by.
Wait.
You want the FBI to only pursue individuals who they consider to be competent?
You really want someone at the FBI to say, "Yeah, that guy wants to blow up a bridge, but he's obviously not capable of it. We'll let him go."
Really?
One does not exclude the other.
By making it clear that half the terrorist masterminds out there are the FBI, the FBI throws a big dose of paranoia into the workings of any real terrorist group. Also its very clear that most of the low-level terrorists in suicide vests are not exactly winners in life. Getting them in jail before they can kill anyone is how to prevent terrorist acts in the first place. Disregarding people as possible terrorists because they are idiot losers is to willfully ignore that most terrorists are idiot losers, which does not prevent them from doing a lot of damage. Case in point: Anders Breivik.
I'd prefer it if federal agencies didn't entrap people who are very unlikely to ever get their hands on real explosives / real guns / real minors / etc.
That being said, these gentlemen sound like they were inevitably going to maim themselves and/or someone else by trying to cook-up a bomb in their kitchen, so this particular case seems more reasonable.
EDIT: Oh dear. The comments in that article are unfortunate.
IANAL and all that stuff, so perhaps that doesn't meet the legal definition of entrapment, but it certainly is baiting them into doing something that they may not have proactively pursued.
Law enforcement can't be competent in that franchise otherwise there would be no franchise.
This is the US you are talking about. Getting a real gun is so easy, the I don't think it can even be considered a barrier to entry the terrorism lotto.
The real key in this case, and the Seattle(iirc) one, is that these people put what they believed to be real explosives somewhere, and then entered the code to set off those 'explosives'.
You don't have to be a genius to cause damage
3clipse: The key to any successful marriage is a good mid-game transition.
From what I gathered it started out as smoke bombs and toppling over signs, then the informant got more involved then all of a sudden they wanted to blow up the bridge with his C4.
Again, I think these dudes are douches and should have the book thrown at them, but it seems like a hollow victory when the FBI's guy was so involved.