As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

17810121340

Posts

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Community: I believe that we should drive rayofash from our community. He is obviously too stupid and unfit to participate in this community. I suspect a majority of you might agree with me, and we could find an arbitrator to accomplish this.

    Oh shit, the moderation system is essentially a localized form of government, and they will most likely prevent us from driving him off.

    Saved by government. You bastard.

    Edit: Seriously, though. This thread could use a bit of tyranny of the majority. If only I could actually take all your apples.

    Darkewolfe on
    What is this I don't even.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Well that's enough for today. TV time. Laterz yall.

    Ha, really? Nice.

    You should skip TV, and read a book on science.

    Shhhh. Legend of the Seeker is on.

    rayofash, I read through the entire thread. You aren't making any sense. Somebody is going to have coercive power. You get to help everybody in this country decide which it will be: 1) A body of elected officials, aka government or 2) Ghengis Khan. You don't get to pick option 3) everybody all at once because we are totes a community, no government allowed because option 3) results in Ghengis Khan crushing your puny volunteer militia, driving them before him and hearing the lamentations of your women.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I'm with Ender and still haven't heard a good rebuttal. The "Warlords" vid in the OP was utterly unconvincing to me.

    There's also the problem of people being inherently irrational & ignorant on a lot of topics. I mean, without getting into specifics or dragging that particular argument into this thread, look at the Martin vs Zimmerman case:

    I think that Zimmerman is guilty and should be punished. McDermott thinks that I'm making an unfair judgement and that there's not enough evidence.

    Without an objective 3rd-party arbitrator, how are we supposed to settle this matter? It's pretty serious, afterall, and not something to be hand-waved away by saying, "the community will figure it out."

    Well, obviously not. This community certainly hasn't been able to, nor have most others. The only widespread consensus on the issue comes from groups with monogamous ideologies who very violently disagree with each other.

    With Love and Courage
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    To be fair, TV Legend of the Seeker had pretty much none of the crazy that poisons the books.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Also, I fail to see a reason why we should go from having a government to some nebulously-defined community-governed utopia (and I'm being charitable in that description) when you haven't told us what your problem with the current system is. If there's no problem, there shouldn't be any change made. If there are problems (and there are), what you do is you change the way government works. There's even already a framework for that! For instance, a lot of us here really disagree with the War on Drugs. But ending government completely just to accomplish that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    To be fair, TV Legend of the Seeker had pretty much none of the crazy that poisons the books.

    Obviously the screenwriters lacked moral clarity.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So: I think this is probably the most able way to make you realize how goosey you're being ash, i've spoiled the rest. I also replied to McDermott in the spoilers, and have a funny quip for Harry Dresdin

    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
    But it explicitly has coercion because it can kick people out of the community or throw them in jail. Would this entity have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force for non self defensive purposes for instance? Because if so, then it is a government.

    This is a topic of debate among anarchists. First of all no entity would have a monopoly on legitimate force, because that is a government. Second, it cannot kick people out of a community or throw them in jail without a really good reason. A really good reason is usually the person is violent and cannot be reformed. If there is a prison, it would be very nice, and the people would either be worked to pay off their debt (likely in a capitalist society) or receive therapy (in a socialist society).

    If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).

    So, one of the issues about monopoly is that whether something is a monopoly depends on its location and the size of its influence. For instance it is possible to have a monopoly in a small town by virtue of the town being small and everyone having costs associated with leaving. It is similarly possible to have a monopoly over the entirety of an area the size of the United States.

    So when we say "no one has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force" then we have some big problems. The first of which is that we have to understand what the "legitimate use of force" is, and then decide wherin the size of the jurisdiction cuts from being to not being a monopoly.

    But, within a small enough area the legitimate use of force is necessarily monopolized. That is, in order to have the legitimate authority to use force, no one else may have the legitimate authority to use force. At any one point in time and space there can only be one entity which owns the legitimate use of force.[and this is why govts within the U.S have jurisdictional battles all the time, they are deciding which branch of govt has the sole legitimate authority over the matter]. So we must have a monopoly of force given a small enough region that we are discussing.

    From there we will have to ask how those forces will interact if there is no authority above them which can mediate disputes. This should look unsurprisingly like the interactions of states.

    So your libertarianism breaks down to either an absurdity or "I wish states were geographically smaller". And we know what happens when the size of states get smaller and they are in closer geographic proximity. They have disputes over resources and other such issues and get into wars.

    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.

    Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.

    That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.

    >Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?

    There are different ideas. There could be an organization that monitors businesses, the community can do it themselves, all kinds of things.

    1) So you're going to have an army to enforce that slavery is outlawed? You know there was once a nation that had to do something like that. I bet a private corporation could create such an army easy and it would be totes profitable to do so.

    2) So you're going to have government? How does the organization monitor and enforce pollution? Magic?
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    But its not voluntary and without coercion because you cannot write a binding contract without coercion. That is literally the fundamental part of contracts that makes them work. You agree ahead of time, that you can be coerced to take the action if you fail to do so and a government enforces that coercion if you, at the later time, decided you don't want to do it!

    rayofash wrote: »
    The problem isn't who will build the roads or supply water or electricity without government. The problem is that once those services are in place, whoever runs them is the government for all practical purposes, because you are giving them an immense amount power over your society.

    Only if they have the guns to back up their power, and only if society is not willing to fight them should that happen.

    So exactly the situation we have now?
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.
    And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?

    The problem was sexual assault, her brothers wouldn't stop raping her and they were all pacifists so instead of stopping it they drove her out of the community after she took matters into her own hands and contacted the police. The community should have called the police instead of telling her to pray harder the first time she asked for help.

    This is a rare kind of occurrence, but it was taken care of.

    Taken care of by driving the victim out of the community
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.

    Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.

    The bolded is an issue, because you need to find another nation willing to take you. None are required to.

    But yeah, in general this is my opinion on the matter. Taxes are lower in Mexico, let me know how it goes for you. Even lower in Somalia, I'd wager. See ya.

    Not really. I mean no one is required to sell you food either, but you still need food to live. So in the same way we say "well, if you don't like the food don't eat it" we can say "well if you don't like the taxes, go somewhere else". There are many many things that are necessary for humans to live. But we are in no way obligated to provide them if the exact thing that they want to consume for that living is not available. If we say that it is "different" for governments then we must have a reason why it is so different that we demand a fix for the market of governments but not a fix for the market of anything else.

    The answer is that it really isn't any different, and its why we are always striving to fix our government.

    Nova_C wrote: »
    Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.

    International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
    I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
    Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

    To be fair to Peter Theil, if i had that much money i would pay 1.25 million to get libertarians out of this country too.
    rayofash wrote: »
    Alternative to coercion: There's a public database that rates your reputation. In the event you don't agree to follow the arbitration, you're rating goes down and people stop doing business with you.
    This doesn't even make any sense. It makes zero senses.
    rayofash wrote: »
    Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?

    You realize that "government protection from liability" actually means "government NOT ENFORCING liability". When you are liable for something the government forces you to comply when you otherwise would not. If you have "government protection from liability" it is literally the government saying "we aren't going to be the government in this instance"

    This exemplifies your ridiculousness. Libertarians cannot tell the difference between regulation and lack of regulation.
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.

    In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.

    And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.

    Who decides what an extreme situation is?

    These are pretty obvious. Like the previous example of a guy who wont stop breaking into peoples houses and stealing. Or a murderer. Or an incredibly violent person with serious anger issues.

    There would be precedents that arbitrators would look back to for examples.

    So kinda like the current system of common law?
    rayofash wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.

    Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.

    Holy Moley.

    Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.

    Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.

    I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.

    No it isn't.

    You repeat the experiment expecting the exact same thing to happen. If something different happens, then someone fucked up.

    Only if you're looking for the exact same thing. Finding a new filament for the light bulb involved doing the same thing over and over with different materials.

    If you're using different materials then you're not doing the same thing. Its like saying "yesterday i ate poison and got sick and today i did the same thing except instead of rat poison the poison i ate was bread"

    Eating bread and eating poison are not the same thing because they are both eating.
    Roz wrote: »
    Probably because a Rule of Law exists for a large portion of those billions anyway, and by asserting the use of "crime" you are conceding what Governments define as inappropriate behavior. Crime only exists in societies with laws. Police Forces and Courts are government entities and would need to be funded and be held accountable. Otherwise they would be defacto government entities with full power.

    There is a really good book called "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" which pretty accurately describes what happens to the normal "Non aggression principle" people when chaos ensues.

    It is neither pretty nor passive.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    Also, I fail to see a reason why we should go from having a government to some nebulously-defined community-governed utopia (and I'm being charitable in that description) when you haven't told us what your problem with the current system is. If there's no problem, there shouldn't be any change made. If there are problems (and there are), what you do is you change the way government works. There's even already a framework for that! For instance, a lot of us here really disagree with the War on Drugs. But ending government completely just to accomplish that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    This is the Burkean view quite popular with modern conservatives (although Burke was more a Whig). The problem with Burke is you still need some mechanism to differentiate between terrible norms that need to go and awesome norms that you jettison at your peril.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's possible to have a union without union dues.

    Union organizers gotta eat.

    And strikers too. That's part of what Union dues are used for. Paying striking workers while they strike for better pay/working conditions.

    Without it, they are dead in the water. Since corporations don't need to eat while people do.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Also, I fail to see a reason why we should go from having a government to some nebulously-defined community-governed utopia (and I'm being charitable in that description) when you haven't told us what your problem with the current system is. If there's no problem, there shouldn't be any change made. If there are problems (and there are), what you do is you change the way government works. There's even already a framework for that! For instance, a lot of us here really disagree with the War on Drugs. But ending government completely just to accomplish that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    This is the Burkean view quite popular with modern conservatives (although Burke was more a Whig). The problem with Burke is you still need some mechanism to differentiate between terrible norms that need to go and awesome norms that you jettison at your peril.

    Modern conservatives are either fans of decreased government regulation (the traditional Republican party in the US) or identify strongly with the OP and are willing to create a Mad Max world (the Tea Party). When I said change things, I meant very specific things, not cutting entitlements and social safety net spending.

    But to go into that is another thread entirely.

    joshofalltrades on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).

    I'm not sure which example you're referring to, but do you remember Waco? Humans aren't very good at 'staying to themselves', and nobody exists in a bubble. Perhaps someone suspects (right or wrong) that the crazy old kook is abusing his spouse and / or children, or perhaps the old kook sometimes considers his property to include a few more acres than it normally does, or perhaps some people just plain aren't comfortable with a crazy old kook waving a high-powered rifle around and threatening to shoot them if they step foot on his property.

    The fact is that, whether you think he is in the right or not, this man is very likely to create a conflict, and a good way of mitigating this sort of situation is to have an arbitrator who has an effective monopoly on force.

    With Love and Courage
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
    So they would have the exact same incentive to ship shady products that make them money, but would have better workplaces while they do it? So that is an improvement, I guess. I mean when I am being literally poisoned by my medicine it will be nice to know that they guy who made it has adequate emergency exists at his workplace.

    We've discussed this earlier. There would still be regulation.
    But you haven't explained how you could have this regulation in a way that wouldn't be the government.

    This already exists today. Why do you need examples?

    Generally an argument works by arguing your point, usually with facts and examples, and we do the same.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    I used to think of myself as an anarchist. I don't use that word about myself any more, but that's not because my views have changed. I've just realised how the language is wrong.

    I don't want government to go away. Neither does rayofash, although he seems a bit hard of understanding. Most anarchists want there to be rules. And they want there to be government. It's just that their conception of how government should be is so different that they don't even realise they are proposing a radically different kind of government rather than the removal of government.

    So, of course, the language is a problem. Our idea of government has become horribly tainted by the bullshit that the ruling elites of our quasi-democracies promote. So other forms of government don't even sound like government.

    Secondly, any conversation has the same problem that any radical philosophy has: it may work as a whole, but any given part of it will not work within the current system. So it may be possible to have an area with a widely-distributed system of governance and no strong central authority, but obviously not tomorrow, because it wouldn't work. And if it did work, current nation-states would bomb the fuck out of it, shitting themselves copiously all the while. Equally, the disappearance of a professional military is something I hope for, but obviously not tomorrow, or even generations from now, because a state with a professional military would immediately invade the hippy pacifists like me and put us in salt-mines or Nike factories.

    And so lastly, we get to the reason why people don't debate the potential of radically different systems. Paucity of imagination. In the past and across the wide world, there have been radically different cultures, radically different systems of governance. But any discussion of these has to be imaginable to the majority of the audience. At PA, this is largely 20-something Americans, who are themselves, I speculate, often caught in an existential crisis caused by the shock of discovering the best nation in the world is not. So people get all Francis Fukuyama about radical political imaginings.

    That's why I like political SF. You can get away with imagining and discussing possible state-forms without someone going, 'But in the real world...'

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's possible to have a union without union dues.

    Union organizers gotta eat.

    And strikers too. That's part of what Union dues are used for. Paying striking workers while they strike for better pay/working conditions.

    Without it, they are dead in the water. Since corporations don't need to eat while people do.

    Yep. Also helps them when there's no work, or when they retire. My dad has put in a freaking ton of union dues over the years, but he'll get a really great, steady retirement out of it.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Arbitration, 'community oversight', the NPA code of conduct.

    It's like you (Ash) noticed that your wheels got wet when splashed by a bathing baby, and your solution is to dispose of the offending water and child, declare that no child shall ever again be named "Kevin," and the act of bathing babies will no longer be necessary as they will henceforth no longer get dirty. Then, at great expense, you invented a new kind of wheel that won't ever get wet.

    Unless it gets water on it, of course.

    But there won't be any water, because your new baby will stay clean.

    He's no Kevin, after all.

    Unless he doesn't, but that's ok because you've got a perfectly good bathtub over by the wheels.

    You're not worried, though, because it's pretty unlikely that you'll get your wheels all wet again; not after all the changes you've made.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    I don't know about Rayofash, but Friedman & other libertarians have argued that achieving an equivalent to Gilded Age is the goal. Booming economy, incredible GDP, incredible opulence, and all at the petty cost of slavery & child labor.

    With Love and Courage
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I used to think of myself as an anarchist. I don't use that word about myself any more, but that's not because my views have changed. I've just realised how the language is wrong.

    I don't want government to go away. Neither does rayofash, although he seems a bit hard of understanding. Most anarchists want there to be rules. And they want there to be government. It's just that their conception of how government should be is so different that they don't even realise they are proposing a radically different kind of government rather than the removal of government.

    So, of course, the language is a problem. Our idea of government has become horribly tainted by the bullshit that the ruling elites of our quasi-democracies promote. So other forms of government don't even sound like government.

    Secondly, any conversation has the same problem that any radical philosophy has: it may work as a whole, but any given part of it will not work within the current system. So it may be possible to have an area with a widely-distributed system of governance and no strong central authority, but obviously not tomorrow, because it wouldn't work. And if it did work, current nation-states would bomb the fuck out of it, shitting themselves copiously all the while. Equally, the disappearance of a professional military is something I hope for, but obviously not tomorrow, or even generations from now, because a state with a professional military would immediately invade the hippy pacifists like me and put us in salt-mines or Nike factories.

    And so lastly, we get to the reason why people don't debate the potential of radically different systems. Paucity of imagination. In the past and across the wide world, there have been radically different cultures, radically different systems of governance. But any discussion of these has to be imaginable to the majority of the audience. At PA, this is largely 20-something Americans, who are themselves, I speculate, often caught in an existential crisis caused by the shock of discovering the best nation in the world is not. So people get all Francis Fukuyama about radical political imaginings.

    That's why I like political SF. You can get away with imagining and discussing possible state-forms without someone going, 'But in the real world...'

    You've managed to not advance the discussion at all, but sound condescending to everyone in this discussion. Kudos.

    If no one else can sufficiently imagine your utopia, then you just need to work harder at describing it. The criticisms people have brought up are not unreasonable, and are in fact the basic building blocks of human interaction. If you can't describe how your society will deal with them, then you need to think hard about the society you're promoting.

    sig.gif
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    I made a post about how the terminology is flawed - about how I don't call myself an anarchist because the perception of anarchism, both by its proponents and its opponents, is horribly flawed.

    And your answer was, 'Then you're not an anarchist! HAH!'

    I literally put my hands in my forehead at that point.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    Edit: No point in me being even more rude.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    Occurrence.

    I have a very short mental list for people that aren't generally worth debating, and this kind of post is one of the items in it

    override367 on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    Occurrence.

    I have a very short mental list for people that aren't generally worth debating, and this kind of post is one of the items in it

    Ah I'm sorry. I was just angry about being called a pretentious jerk. And irritated about making a long, I hope well-thought-out post, and getting savaged for it in a pretty lazy way.

    I don't actually care about spelling.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • exitexit Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's hard keeping up with an entire forum asking questions. I apologize. I'm going to take a break after this post and get a snack, drink some coffee. I'd like to thank everybody for debating civilly, another forum I was on resorted to insulting me. I was called a racist who wanted all black people to die. This has been much nicer..
    actually, we called you ignorant for claiming that racism was either fine because it was peoples' rights to do business with whoever they wanted, or operating under the assumption that in your shangrila of human perfection, racism wouldn't exist because people would will it away (or something ???)

    i'll also admit we called you ignorant because you felt that miners who died in collapses, or women who were burned to death in factory fires in ye older days deserved what they got because they A) took the jobs in the first place [ignoring that these people NEEDED to take these jobs and it was not optional in the least] or B) didn't unionize hard enough

    we also called you a hypocrite because your entire life, and that of your family, depend on government assistance. which you again, ignorantly, claim would exist in your perfect world where people will pay for you to spend your days buying video games and bitching about the tyranny of government on the internet out of the goodness of their own hearts

    if you need me to dig up the posts where you spouted all this crap, i don't mind doing it. if you need a refresher, you know.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    You mean there are rules to being an anarchist?

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.

    Jesus Christ is that ever not what science does. Science repeats experiments to see if they consistently yield the same results, not in a vain attempt to create new ones.

    Holy Moley.

    Yeah, this is either the dumbest or most trolling post in the thread.

    Either he doesn't understand science, or doesn't want to take the time to make actual responses.

    I understand science just fine. The idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is ridiculous and is in fact a part of the scientific process as AManFromEarth just described.

    You're right man, you clearly understand science better than the man who originally said that quote.

    you know

    Albert Einstein

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I don't want government to go away. Neither does rayofash, although he seems a bit hard of understanding. Most anarchists want there to be rules. And they want there to be government. It's just that their conception of how government should be is so different that they don't even realise they are proposing a radically different kind of government rather than the removal of government.

    You might be projecting your own bias here.

    Most Libertarians & Anarachists do not want governments, period. They feel that taxation is a form of theft and that the world would be much improved if everyone were reliant only on themselves.

    I mean, that's the fundamental tenet in Atlas Shrugged - all of the Goddamn 'moochers' starve to death while Galt and his cult carve-out a luxurious paradise.


    Every single Libertarian I've ever met considers national health care to be a scam, describes the judicial system as 'men with guns' and cites every single example they can find of government malfeasance or tyranny while ignoring all examples of malfeasance or tyranny from the private sector. They don't talk about how government should make adjustments or shrink, they talk about it as if it's the one terrible cancer at the root of all problems.

    Then they go on to talk about Freedom Ships.

    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    If you want there to be rules or a government of any form, you're not an anarchist.

    Then I'm not. No self-describing anarchist is either.

    Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself.

    Hey look, poshniallo is being a pretentious jerk for no reason, what a rare occurance!

    It's almost like I can make whatever point I want, the one I wanted to make was yours in one sentence.

    Occurrence.

    I have a very short mental list for people that aren't generally worth debating, and this kind of post is one of the items in it

    Ah I'm sorry. I was just angry about being called a pretentious jerk. And irritated about making a long, I hope well-thought-out post, and getting savaged for it in a pretty lazy way.

    I don't actually care about spelling.

    A.) I wasn't savaging you.
    B.) "Mate, I can't do your thinking for you. You're gonna have to step up yourself" is pretentious as shit and the reaction of a dick.

    Like, all I was doing was summing up what you said. Nothing about what I wrote was "savaging you" or could possibly be interpreted as such.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    The system of government I proposed has never been properly tried...

    Bull fucking shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

    All of those are examples of societies when not reigned in by a strong central government going to Hell. And not once have you explained how your idea would avoid it all from happening again other than to say people would agree not to do what would be best for them personally at the expense of others.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The system of government I proposed has never been properly tried...

    Bull fucking shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

    All of those are examples of societies when not reigned in by a strong central government going to Hell. And not once have you explained how your idea would avoid it all from happening again other than to say people would agree not to do what would be best for them personally at the expense of others.

    So, what we need is to perfect a drug that causes altruism

    Get on it, Merck.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The system of government I proposed has never been properly tried...

    Bull fucking shit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

    All of those are examples of societies when not reigned in by a strong central government going to Hell. And not once have you explained how your idea would avoid it all from happening again other than to say people would agree not to do what would be best for them personally at the expense of others.

    So, what we need is to perfect a drug that causes altruism

    Get on it, Merck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPUE4Fo4RCc

    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I mean I will be perfectly honest. If it came down to it and tomorrow would be government disappears forever day, I would do almost anything within my abilities to take advantage of other people. Not necessarily cruelly, but I would amass power and solidify it as best I could at the expense of others. Because God knows if I didn't some other, much worse, jack off probably would.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    In a world where everyone would be nice, honest, kind, considerate, would care about everyone else, wouldn't even think about lying, cheating, stealing, killing, or taking advantage of other people, and would be willing to sacrifice some of their own needs and desires to help fulfill those others, then yeah Libertarianism could work.

    In a world called reality, it's nothing but a utopian dream with no viable application, unless you consider countries like Somalia "viable".

    Libertarians have this delusional belief that government and regulation isn't necessary because the market/people will end up making everything all right. Yeah, "the market" can correct harmful behavior, but it can't prevent it. If a corporation decided to make bottled water from dead baby husks I'm sure they'd end up going bankrupt, but it wouldn't bring back all those dead babies to life. Or in a more realistic analogy, dumping harmful chemicals in drinkable water to turn up a bigger profit, while being responsible for numerous deaths/diseases/environmental damage in the following years.

    This belief that people can self-regulate themselves without employing a central authority is flawed. People/the market are reactionary. That alone isn't enough. Governments are needed not so much for their reactionary nature, but for their preemptive abilities.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I mean I will be perfectly honest. If it came down to it and tomorrow would be government disappears forever day, I would do almost anything within my abilities to take advantage of other people. Not necessarily cruelly, but I would amass power and solidify it as best I could at the expense of others. Because God knows if I didn't some other, much worse, jack off probably would.

    I'm not entirely sure that people in general are just a teeming horde of complete pricks that would visit all manner of vile evils on their fellow human beings. I think that for the most part people have some serious drives to be pretty decent, and I think that there's some decent research into human behavior that is starting to support that. Now, I'm not a Libertarian at all, because I don't value the same things that they do. However, I think that there are good reasons to be something like a Libertarian. I have a good friend who is an Anarcho-Capitalist, and we've talked a lot about his reasoning behind it. It's not airtight, but it's not an unreasonable position. For him it basically boils down to the two most fundamental goods are autonomy and private property. He sees that states are necessarily coercive bodies that force their citizens to turn over property. I think that he has a point, but that coercion isn't a bad thing. In fact, coercion is sometimes a very good thing. But for someone who values autonomy as the highest good, coercion is a deal breaker.

    I don't know much more about the position beyond that, because I haven't read up on it myself. Also, again, I'm not a Libertarian. In fact, I probably believe in a far more powerful and restrictive state than most of you, for what I think are good reasons. However, I think that it's disingenuous to treat everyone who believes that the state ought to be eliminated as either naive or evil.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I mean I will be perfectly honest. If it came down to it and tomorrow would be government disappears forever day, I would do almost anything within my abilities to take advantage of other people. Not necessarily cruelly, but I would amass power and solidify it as best I could at the expense of others. Because God knows if I didn't some other, much worse, jack off probably would.

    I'm too whipped by social programming to do that right off, but by day 2 (if still alive) I probably would have joined a vigilante group and be lopping off heads with the rest until I got gunned down by whoever bought up/stole the army's equipment.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    However, I think that it's disingenuous to treat everyone who believes that the state ought to be eliminated as either naive...

    You would be equally naive. The entirety of history demonstrated this false.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    I mean I will be perfectly honest. If it came down to it and tomorrow would be government disappears forever day, I would do almost anything within my abilities to take advantage of other people. Not necessarily cruelly, but I would amass power and solidify it as best I could at the expense of others. Because God knows if I didn't some other, much worse, jack off probably would.

    I'm not entirely sure that people in general are just a teeming horde of complete pricks that would visit all manner of vile evils on their fellow human beings. I think that for the most part people have some serious drives to be pretty decent, and I think that there's some decent research into human behavior that is starting to support that.

    "For the most part" is a not all, and among those that remain outside that sample are those that would seek control over said 'most part.' Those brutal or charismatic enough to achieve that control will turn those decent people into a weapon, and wield them against anyone contesting their world view. It's what we do.

    One bad apple, etc.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Still the most entertaining thread of the day. The best part of it is that I now have a lot more ammunition to use in arguments with self-described Libertarians.

    steam_sig.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    chrisnl wrote: »
    Still the most entertaining thread of the day. The best part of it is that I now have a lot more ammunition to use in arguments with self-described Libertarians.

    97% of libertarian arguments can be taken down with basic Socratic method.

Sign In or Register to comment.