Anarchy (Ethical, Moral, Spiritual Progression)

Tolstoy on government:

During his 1857 visit to Paris, Tolstoy witnessed a public execution in Paris, a traumatic experience that would mark the rest of his life. Writing in a letter to his friend Vasily Botkin: "The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens... Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere."

Tolstoy on Anarchy:

The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power ... There can be only one permanent revolution—a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

The True News:



Thoughts?
Insights?
Information?
Introductions to other thoughts?

I have found the only way to live out some of these questions is to get them out in honest, open-minded, willing collectives. Collectives where the tribe is aware of ubiquitous assimilation and the promotion of double think within the current systems. Collectives where the basis of education is truth, beauty, and goodness. Collectives where we realize we are not immune to corporation and nation sponsored education and press but we are honest and openminded and willing to seek and search out ethical, moral, and spiritual progression. We are all in this together:

Love,

RiKD

relevant re-post from one of loco's blogs:

without regulation, government or whatever u wanna call it we would be still in caves farming,hunting

and if u wanna set anarchy into the currently existing world 90% of the worlds population would just starve to death, big cities would collapse (no transportation, food in supermarkets wouldnt be replenished etc). In small villages i guess they would still live on, farming for themselves.

i mean its no coincidence that every culture around the world shares the basic fundamentals of regulation. It is the most stable option even if it has negative sides

my thoughts

On December 30 2014 14:06 dnagardi wrote: without regulation, government or whatever u wanna call it we would be still in caves farming,hunting

Lol why? how has the state contributed to the development of society dont make claims like this without thinking this shit through.

and if u wanna set anarchy into the currently existing world 90% of the worlds population would just starve to death, big cities would collapse (no transportation, food in supermarkets wouldnt be replenished etc). In small villages i guess they would still live on, farming for themselves.

WTF why would people starve? how does the state help with the nourishment of people? No transportation? transportation would be simlpy privately developed, there are man, transportation is not free, you pay bus and train tickets, you pay tolls on roads, pay for your licence etc.

i mean its no coincidence that every culture around the world shares the basic fundamentals of regulation. It is the most stable option even if it has negative sides

Also every culture around the world is rooted in religion and it doesnt make the concept of a god any less idiotic, governments exist because people have fought and risen to power in history and society trends to maintain the status quo

>anarchy
>an abstract idea that can come to fruition

There's always the go-to idea that with anarchy, people would be killing each other left and right. Or, as another way of stating the same thing: imposing their authority over others.

I have been an anarchist for many years now and its painfully obvious how the state is incredibly harmful for humanity but people are simply unaware of it, unaware that the government can even be questioned in the sense of its existence.

Ive always compared it with religion because its actually very similar for people, most religious people don't ever question the existence of god, a quick an honest look at it would make any man an atheist in matters of a couple of minutes and the same thing happens with the state, people talk about decmocracy as if its somehow it was a synonym for freedom and the word anarchy means chaos and molotov cocktails.


A clear sign of this is the post above this one, those arguments are clearly no rational or remotely well thought, just as a religious person trying to defend its religion for the first time.

Most people first questions about anarchy are "but what about police, what about plumbing" etc, which shows that they have never enterteined the thought of a society with no state for even a second before in their lives.

the government built roads in the US. not to say private roads could not or would not have been built, but they would not all adhere to a standard. just like the FDA.

without government, if someone wronged me, i have no recourse. there is no criminal court. i must then find a way to harm this person to seek justice.

i think government is needed, but it is a beast we have to be careful about how much we feed....as the more we put in, the more powerful it becomes, and it no longer serves its people, but the other way around

On December 30 2014 16:11 Baalim wrote: I have been an anarchist for many years now and its painfully obvious how the state is incredibly harmful for humanity but people are simply unaware of it, unaware that the government can even be questioned in the sense of its existence. Ive always compared it with religion because its actually very similar for people, most religious people don't ever question the existence of god, a quick an honest look at it would make any man an atheist in matters of a couple of minutes and the same thing happens with the state, people talk about decmocracy as if its somehow it was a synonym for freedom and the word anarchy means chaos and molotov cocktails. A clear sign of this is the post above this one, those arguments are clearly no rational or remotely well thought, just as a religious person trying to defend its religion for the first time. Most people first questions about anarchy are "but what about police, what about plumbing" etc, which shows that they have never enterteined the thought of a society with no state for even a second before in their lives.

I think philosophically, we could never even have a discussion on the idea of anarchy due to our seemingly wildly different beliefs. Is your definition of anarchy simply that which there is no government? To me, the idea of governing can be seen in nature. The sun governs the solar system through its gravitational pull and it's intense energy it radiates throughout. We see less of the sun during winter, which means it's either harder or impossible to farm the same things that would be farmed in summer. However, you might not want to personify the sun, so we can go to living things governing other living things. Micro-organisms eat up each other and lions eat up gazelles. When a lion roars, it's likely that he's saying, "This is my territory. Trespass and die." While the lion is not something we would class as a government, he is governing the mammals around him. Those animals will seek to avoid him. This is a nature social order.

Nature social orders end up progressing to the point where having social intelligence is be more effective at having a career in politics than spatial intelligence, therefor giving way to different ways of "roaring". Even families are their own state; usually, there will be a patriarchal figure leading the family. Sure, the other family members can act on their own, but to be able to partake in festivities such as what's going on right now is up to certain people. People will always claim something and impose their authority over others about it.

This is why even when civilization breaks down, if that ever happens, it will quickly rise back up so long as there are humans left alive. People will always strive to achieve their ideas, whether for helping out or for selfish gains, and those strong enough to impose their will on others will, in fact, impose their will on others. The weak will serve the strong while the strong serves the weak.

On December 30 2014 16:16 chris wrote: the government built roads in the US. not to say private roads could not or would not have been built, but they would not all adhere to a standard. just like the FDA. without government, if someone wronged me, i have no recourse. there is no criminal court. i must then find a way to harm this person to seek justice. i think government is needed, but it is a beast we have to be careful about how much we feed....as the more we put in, the more powerful it becomes, and it no longer serves its people, but the other way around

On the contrary unlike government enterprises, privately owned ones adhere to the rules of the free market, thus forcing them to compete through quality, price etc, thats why privately owned bussines will always outperform state ones, every single time.

The FDA kills much more people than it saves all the regulations blocks new medicines and it has been responsible for the deaths of millions of americans blocking medicine for heart disease available in europe for decades, this regulation is a corrupt hoax that serves the purposes of big Pharma, not the consumer.

LOL police... the governments runs the Mafia model... you give up a big % of your earnings in exchange for protection, its bullshit protection because they only protect you from themselves, to avoid getting your face smashed in by the man collecting the money in the same way the government does, if you dont pay these "taxes" who will come knocking in your house to put you in a cage for years?

Have you ever being victim of a crime that the state and a courtroom helped you correct? no? thought so.

There are many models of dealing with that in anarchic tribunals if you want to read more about it I can send you links.


And no.. the government will never serve the people, it will always serve itself, its human nature, the bigger the government the more fucked you are, but its only a matter of size, small cancer or big cancer.

On December 30 2014 16:44 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 16:11 Baalim wrote: I have been an anarchist for many years now and its painfully obvious how the state is incredibly harmful for humanity but people are simply unaware of it, unaware that the government can even be questioned in the sense of its existence. Ive always compared it with religion because its actually very similar for people, most religious people don't ever question the existence of god, a quick an honest look at it would make any man an atheist in matters of a couple of minutes and the same thing happens with the state, people talk about decmocracy as if its somehow it was a synonym for freedom and the word anarchy means chaos and molotov cocktails. A clear sign of this is the post above this one, those arguments are clearly no rational or remotely well thought, just as a religious person trying to defend its religion for the first time. Most people first questions about anarchy are "but what about police, what about plumbing" etc, which shows that they have never enterteined the thought of a society with no state for even a second before in their lives. I think philosophically, we could never even have a discussion on the idea of anarchy due to our seemingly wildly different beliefs. Is your definition of anarchy simply that which there is no government? To me, the idea of governing can be seen in nature. The sun governs the solar system through its gravitational pull and it's intense energy it radiates throughout. We see less of the sun during winter, which means it's either harder or impossible to farm the same things that would be farmed in summer. However, you might not want to personify the sun, so we can go to living things governing other living things. Micro-organisms eat up each other and lions eat up gazelles. When a lion roars, it's likely that he's saying, "This is my territory. Trespass and die." While the lion is not something we would class as a government, he is governing the mammals around him. Those animals will seek to avoid him. This is a nature social order. Nature social orders end up progressing to the point where having social intelligence is be more effective at having a career in politics than spatial intelligence, therefor giving way to different ways of "roaring". Even families are their own state; usually, there will be a patriarchal figure leading the family. Sure, the other family members can act on their own, but to be able to partake in festivities such as what's going on right now is up to certain people. People will always claim something and impose their authority over others about it. This is why even when civilization breaks down, if that ever happens, it will quickly rise back up so long as there are humans left alive. People will always strive to achieve their ideas, whether for helping out or for selfish gains, and those strong enough to impose their will on others will, in fact, impose their will on others. The weak will serve the strong while the strong serves the weak.

Its not my definition of anarchy... the definition of anarchy is simply a society with no state, its right in the obvious etymology.

The sun or lions have absolutely nothing to do with anarchy ffs, you are clearly confusing anarchy with some weird ideology of nobody having any power over others, its simply about not living under a organization that monopolizes violence through army/police with mandatory direct or indirect taxation.

On December 30 2014 17:17 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 16:44 Gnarly wrote:   On December 30 2014 16:11 Baalim wrote: I have been an anarchist for many years now and its painfully obvious how the state is incredibly harmful for humanity but people are simply unaware of it, unaware that the government can even be questioned in the sense of its existence. Ive always compared it with religion because its actually very similar for people, most religious people don't ever question the existence of god, a quick an honest look at it would make any man an atheist in matters of a couple of minutes and the same thing happens with the state, people talk about decmocracy as if its somehow it was a synonym for freedom and the word anarchy means chaos and molotov cocktails. A clear sign of this is the post above this one, those arguments are clearly no rational or remotely well thought, just as a religious person trying to defend its religion for the first time. Most people first questions about anarchy are "but what about police, what about plumbing" etc, which shows that they have never enterteined the thought of a society with no state for even a second before in their lives. I think philosophically, we could never even have a discussion on the idea of anarchy due to our seemingly wildly different beliefs. Is your definition of anarchy simply that which there is no government? To me, the idea of governing can be seen in nature. The sun governs the solar system through its gravitational pull and it's intense energy it radiates throughout. We see less of the sun during winter, which means it's either harder or impossible to farm the same things that would be farmed in summer. However, you might not want to personify the sun, so we can go to living things governing other living things. Micro-organisms eat up each other and lions eat up gazelles. When a lion roars, it's likely that he's saying, "This is my territory. Trespass and die." While the lion is not something we would class as a government, he is governing the mammals around him. Those animals will seek to avoid him. This is a nature social order. Nature social orders end up progressing to the point where having social intelligence is be more effective at having a career in politics than spatial intelligence, therefor giving way to different ways of "roaring". Even families are their own state; usually, there will be a patriarchal figure leading the family. Sure, the other family members can act on their own, but to be able to partake in festivities such as what's going on right now is up to certain people. People will always claim something and impose their authority over others about it. This is why even when civilization breaks down, if that ever happens, it will quickly rise back up so long as there are humans left alive. People will always strive to achieve their ideas, whether for helping out or for selfish gains, and those strong enough to impose their will on others will, in fact, impose their will on others. The weak will serve the strong while the strong serves the weak. Its not my definition of anarchy... the definition of anarchy is simply a society with no state, its right in the obvious etymology. The sun or lions have absolutely nothing to do with anarchy ffs, you are clearly confusing anarchy with some weird ideology of nobody having any power over others, its simply about not living under a organization that monopolizes violence through army/police with mandatory direct or indirect taxation.

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
noun: anarchy

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

What's your definition, again?

Baal, if the government in the US didn't build roads, only the wealthy would have roads because the poor could not afford them and middle class areas could not afford to maintain them, as the costs are enormous - and then there is the matter of contribution. i suppose you know all about social goods and public goods.

The FDA kills people? This statement...I do not know if you are trolling or truly believe that....

Yes, I have been victim of several crimes. The guy did not get sent to prison, so no, the court did not "help" me.

Send me links. I'll be happy to take a look.

Pretty sure there are some governments that do a decent job, to some extent. The issue is "power corrupts" and "power protects power" principles. People who obtain power, in theory, become corrupted, to some degree.

If we were a true anarchist society, I could kill you for disagreeing with me and I face no consequences, outside of maybe having to deal with your family.

I remember reading about the president of Uruguay acting quite well.

I am not saying I trust the government, or that it is always right, I am only arguing that some level of government is needed. How about net neutrality? If you are for it, you are a hypocrite. If you are against it, then I kind of hate you (on that topic).

If net neutrality isn't upheld, companies could could abuse bandwidth however they chose. A pure anarchist society is like communism....in theory, it's a utopia. Freedom, no government to get in the way, and we can do what we want and the free market should dictate things and we all get what we deserve, blah blah blah. Wouldn't work that way if it was actually applied. Would be more of a dystopia.

Did you like the "wild west" in US history? People shooting each other in the street?

I respect you Baal, and trust you actually have some real world example you could present that makes anarchy sound better a governed society.
Cause I am sure you like your internet, with your power, and rent, and money, cause in an anarchist society, there is nothing to enforce your rental agreement or property ownership, there is nothing to govern your power supply from being cut because they no longer feel like honoring your service agreement, etc. And money, cause, ya know...I doubt you want to have to raise livestock to barter for other goods...since money (well, fiat currency) is backed by governing bodies.

also with anarchy, baal, you would not have been able to ban people, as you used to!

you are mad you lost mod status! i knew it!

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7118?redirectedFrom=anarchy&

we can go more

Etymology: < Greek &#7936;&#957;&#945;&#961;&#967;&#943;&#945;, n. of state < &#7940;&#957;&#945;&#961;&#967;-&#959;&#962; without a chief or head, < &#7936;&#957; priv. + &#7936;&#961;&#967;&#972;&#962; leader, chief. The word was also adopted in medieval Latin anarchia, and French anarchie (Cotgrave 1611), from one or other of which the English may have been immediately taken.

to be clear i do not like taxes or being told what to do, but i also recognize a necessary evil

On December 30 2014 17:28 chris wrote: also with anarchy, baal, you would not have been able to ban people, as you used to! you are mad you lost mod status! i knew it!

>baal's face when

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

-Winston Churchill

"The water's blue, swallow the pill."

-Frank Ocean

Wake Up LP:

Anyone in this thread who defines anarchy as anything other than simply the absence of government I will consider stupid and/or a troll.

Please, any further discussion:

The definition of anarchy is simply the absence of government.

Not the absence of community.

Not the absence of hierarchies.

Not the absence of human folly.

The absence of government as we have known it.

RiKD, did you not read the actual etymology of the word?

>without a chief or head

national defence, laws and credible enforcement of human rights, property rights, social welfare, education, provision of public goods, regulation of pollution...

...yeah we're better off without any of that shit (lol)

On December 30 2014 17:27 chris wrote: Baal, if the government in the US didn't build roads, only the wealthy would have roads because the poor could not afford them and middle class areas could not afford to maintain them, as the costs are enormous - and then there is the matter of contribution. i suppose you know all about social goods and public goods.

God this is so retarded, what roads are you talking about? I said that if you wanted to know more about specifics on how roads could be handled by private investors then Id link you to articles about it, are you interested ?
[quote
The FDA kills people? This statement...I do not know if you are trolling or truly believe that....[/quote]

Yes the FDA causes far more deaths than it saves, it has caused hundreds of thousands of death for blocking heart disease medicines available in europe 10 years before the FDA approved them.

Yes, I have been victim of several crimes. The guy did not get sent to prison, so no, the court did not "help" me.

Well there you fucking go, so stop pretending the government solves those things, because its extremely inefficient and unjust when it comes to crime.

Pretty sure there are some governments that do a decent job, to some extent. The issue is "power corrupts" and "power protects power" principles. People who obtain power, in theory, become corrupted, to some degree.

A government is just a dirty reflection of its own society a very advanced civil society will have a better state than a third world country, but the state its still harmful to its society regardless of its advancement.

If we were a true anarchist society, I could kill you for disagreeing with me and I face no consequences, outside of maybe having to deal with your family.

No thats not true, just as an example in Mexico since justice is rarely served in rural areas people lynch criminals, they are far more effective in serving justice, actually more just and a bigger deterrant to crime since they are pretty brutal, and this is the most barbaric form of anarchist justice, a more developed society easily deals with criminals in an organized fashion without the need of a state

Did you like the "wild west" in US history? People shooting each other in the street?

Again you have no idea what anarchy is... im pretty sure the united states had a government in the times of the wild west didnt it? they had an army, sheriff taxation etc etc etc. That is an example of a shitty state, not of anarchy.

Cause I am sure you like your internet, with your power, and rent, and money, cause in an anarchist society, there is nothing to enforce your rental agreement or property ownership, there is nothing to govern your power supply from being cut because they no longer feel like honoring your service agreement, etc. And money, cause, ya know...I doubt you want to have to raise livestock to barter for other goods...since money (well, fiat currency) is backed by governing bodies.

LOL yeah there fucking is something stopping the company from cutting my supply its called free market, my energy company is shit? well then I easily decide to give my money to a company with better service... just the way you do with any other mother fucking service you have, your Cable TV, your Internet, etc.

But guess when you CANT switch to other company... when its a monopoly held by the state, now they are the ones who can actually cut your power and you can do shit about it.

On December 30 2014 17:33 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 17:28 chris wrote: also with anarchy, baal, you would not have been able to ban people, as you used to! you are mad you lost mod status! i knew it! >baal's face when

I would be free to ban all day long TLP is a privately owned company so again you misunderstand anarchy with communism.

On December 30 2014 18:52 Romm3l wrote: national defence, laws and credible enforcement of human rights, property rights, social welfare, education, provision of public goods, regulation of pollution... ...yeah we're better off without any of that shit (lol)

facepalm... this isnt like discussing religion with religious people its even fucking worse.


National Defense... you mean armies? oh yeah right, what would the world do without armies? I mean, what would we do without the incessant slaughter of innocents through history, what would we do without atomic bombs, concentration camps, drones bombing the shit out of the middle east... We better have a fleet of 5,000 F-15 fighters jets paid with the public enemy... what happens if Genghis Khan tries to cross the border zomg! lol

credible enforcement of human rights? Do we live in the same world or something? because in the world I live in human rights are trampled by the hundreds of millions every single day

You dont need a state to have property rights

Welfare is an idiotic inefficient attempt to give back crumbs after the state send those people into poverty in the first place that doesn't exist in most countries.

Public education is garbage and far inferior to private education, I have gone to private schools since kindergarten to University all my life, there is no need for state education.

Pollution regulation yeah... newsflash the USA is the 2nd biggest pollutant in the world, so please tell me more about how the wonderful state protects environment.

I dont know if we live in the same world. I live in western europe and things are pretty damn good here. there aren't any russians or chinese invading. I can walk down the street without fear of being knived for my pocket change because there is a credible deterrent in place. People generally specialise and do their jobs because they expect they will be paid and able to spend their money in a stable system. people innovative and come up with quality of life enhancing things all the time because they have confidence the system will let them profit from their innovations through a patent system. productivity is high and im enjoying a standard of living superior to anyone in past human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-Russell-Brand/dp/1780893051




Anarchy has nothing to do with what 99% of people think it is. It doesn't mean you should not respect people and go out on the street killing anyone on sight and riot and destroy stuff.

I'm glad people like RikD are starting to question things.

Romm3l please the way you are talking about things are a result of a system which was designed to serve us the human population, but instead is turned around and only serves a few hundred thousand ( at most ). You have absolutely no idea how brainwashed we are, you should read about Bernays and then you should read the things he's written. It ll take a bunch of time though cause the way he writes makes me feel like i'm a retard.

To be honest there is way too much on this to just put it up in a topic, and even the 2 books above are just a slim part of the things everyone should read. And if i try to put out the ideas out of them I would just look like a conspiracy theorist, mostly cause my english isn't good enough to transmit their messages


We have alternatives, the main problem is, and i think here is where Brand's major mistake is, that people fear big changes unless it absolutely necessary to do them i.e. WW2 Hitler's regime etc.etc.


And honestly, Baal is probably years ahead of reading materials and way of thinking compared to most of you on this topic ( me too probably ) his ideas are legit. You guys should really start educating yourself and stop listening to mainstream nonsense whose only purpose is to bring more propaganda to the masses more.

On December 30 2014 19:34 Romm3l wrote: I dont know if we live in the same world. I live in western europe and things are pretty damn good here. there aren't any russians or chinese invading. I can walk down the street without fear of being knived for my pocket change because there is a credible deterrent in place. People generally specialise and do their jobs because they expect they will be paid and able to spend their money in a stable system. people innovative and come up with quality of life enhancing things all the time because they have confidence the system will let them profit from their innovations through a patent system. productivity is high and im enjoying a standard of living superior to anyone in past human history.

good job bro, while you do that there are about 1 500 000 000 people that are living in absurd conditions and barely have things to eat, and another 2 000 000 000 that are close to the same path

but you are living in western europe and don't give a fuck so way to go

quality of your life will be as good as corporations want it to be, you re just another slave you just get to be on the brighter part of it

Why did the rich get a 30 trillion bailout @ 2008 but the common man got to get kicked out of his house and lose his job. Do you know that world hunger is estimated at 30 billion / year ( ofc that number will start to fall off with time of something is done about it ) thats absolutely nothing

Why does this kid have to go through all this trouble and struggle to get funding to do something good :




Why do people vote? Do you know that every USA president so far in history is the one that got the most funding ( most likely things will be the same in any "democratic " country ) ? They can just make it a fund raiser and highest one gets to be president.

And most of all why is LOBBYING still legal ? Answer to this last question with a morally legit answer and don't be bothered by it i dare you

And honestly how does this forum still cope with Gnarly ?

He is either the biggest retard to ever exist on earth or just a huge troll


Oh yeah by the way the main problem behind anarchy working as a system is that we, the people, must become better human beings therefore fuck that idea !

These are not conspiracy theories about illuminati and reptiles or 10 people that control the world, we are talking about a mass of corporations which have one single goal - Profit, when you put Profit into the center of your system and not stuff like, welllll lets seee : saving the planet, have all people get a chance to decent existence and overall having basic moral system then its bound to fail. Yes it probably wont fail within our lifetime ( at least i hope so) but when it does we will have been just as guilty

On December 30 2014 19:34 Romm3l wrote: I dont know if we live in the same world. I live in western europe and things are pretty damn good here. there aren't any russians or chinese invading. I can walk down the street without fear of being knived for my pocket change because there is a credible deterrent in place. People generally specialise and do their jobs because they expect they will be paid and able to spend their money in a stable system. people innovative and come up with quality of life enhancing things all the time because they have confidence the system will let them profit from their innovations through a patent system. productivity is high and im enjoying a standard of living superior to anyone in past human history.

First you have to understand that the level of civility in germany its held together by its society not by your government, the reason why you dont get stabed in the streets for your wallet is not because there is police and jails, every freaking country has jails an cops and crime is not related on how fast cops run... its based on its societys poverty and civility, create wealth and provide good education and crime is reduced drastically, the solution is that, not bigger police.

The patent system is an absolute hoax and actually if you study about it you will realize that it actually hampers innovation, if you want a recent example of ridiculous patent laws see Apple vs Samsung that was bullshit to a point where they both agreed to stop this ridiculous war, it wasnt helping mobile technology grow, on the contrary, also read what Elon Musk has to say about patents, and how is going to release ALL the patents for battery technologies, its because he is aware that it only would stop progress in electric car technologies.

The reason you enjoy a higher standard of living is because of societys growth and the government is not responsible for it, it didnt even helped one bit, on the contrary

On December 30 2014 19:00 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 17:33 Gnarly wrote:   On December 30 2014 17:28 chris wrote: also with anarchy, baal, you would not have been able to ban people, as you used to! you are mad you lost mod status! i knew it! >baal's face when I would be free to ban all day long TLP is a privately owned company so again you misunderstand anarchy with communism.

are you drunk or something? tlp? it's lp... nothing more, no .net like tl. get it right.

>privately owned company
>a website
>based in a capitalist nation
>confusing anarchy with communism

I just can't even.

On December 30 2014 19:53 Spitfiree wrote: And honestly how does this forum still cope with Gnarly ? He is either the biggest retard to ever exist on earth or just a huge troll Oh yeah by the way the main problem behind anarchy working as a system is that we, the people, must become better human beings therefore fuck that idea ! These are not conspiracy theories about illuminati and reptiles or 10 people that control the world, we are talking about a mass of corporations which have one single goal - Profit, when you put Profit into the center of your system and not stuff like, welllll lets seee : saving the planet, have all people get a chance to decent existence and overall having basic moral system then its bound to fail. Yes it probably wont fail within our lifetime ( at least i hope so) but when it does we will have been just as guilty

Instead of resorting to name calling like a child, why don't you try to refute my arguments like an adult? Oh, wait...

On December 30 2014 19:53 Spitfiree wrote: These are not conspiracy theories about illuminati and reptiles or 10 people that control the world, we are talking about a mass of corporations which have one single goal - Profit, when you put Profit into the center of your system and not stuff like, welllll lets seee : saving the planet, have all people get a chance to decent existence and overall having basic moral system then its bound to fail. Yes it probably wont fail within our lifetime ( at least i hope so) but when it does we will have been just as guilty

what do corporations have to do with government? in an anarchic society, wouldn't corporations still exist? wouldnt they still be after profit?

Yes they would, but corporations are dictated by the laws of offer and demand, a corporations that offer a shitty product or bloats the price or pisses off its costumers will lose ground to the competition on a free market society.

The state is not subjected to those laws, they will collect any amount of taxes they want regardless of their performance.

On December 30 2014 21:05 fira wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 19:53 Spitfiree wrote: These are not conspiracy theories about illuminati and reptiles or 10 people that control the world, we are talking about a mass of corporations which have one single goal - Profit, when you put Profit into the center of your system and not stuff like, welllll lets seee : saving the planet, have all people get a chance to decent existence and overall having basic moral system then its bound to fail. Yes it probably wont fail within our lifetime ( at least i hope so) but when it does we will have been just as guilty what do corporations have to do with government? in an anarchic society, wouldn't corporations still exist? wouldnt they still be after profit?

More government involvement and regulations create big corporations and get them closer to monopolies.

US Example:
FDA is a PRIME example of government involvement causing corporations to get stronger. The FDA is designed for the intent to make working drugs enter the market and clear out all the non-working drugs. The result is driving the cost of drugs to non affordable prices without insurance.

Anyone who lives in the US knows costs of medication/prescription drugs is extremely high. That's because in order for a drug to enter a market, $$$$ must be spent in order to get drugs into the market.




Companies will still be profit driven. People will be profit driven. The difference is as Baal said "corporations that offer a shitty product or bloats the price or pisses off its costumers will lose ground to the competition on a free market societ"

i'm pretty pro anarchy but think there is a need for minimal government. i think this is one of those issues not really worth discussing. there is a lot of content out there that some people will read with and agree with and some people who will never go out and read these books because these questions or thoughts never occurred.

anyway regardless the government is here to stay and will prob only get bigger.

On December 30 2014 21:20 Baalim wrote: Yes they would, but corporations are dictated by the laws of offer and demand, a corporations that offer a shitty product or bloats the price or pisses off its costumers will lose ground to the competition on a free market society. The state is not subjected to those laws, they will collect any amount of taxes they want regardless of their performance.

>corporations are in anarchistic societies

There you go, thinking your personal definition of anarchy is that without a public enforcer of government. Try using the original etymological use of the word, please.

Also, a "corporation" would be imposing it's own authority, publicly enforcing it's own shitty products, to try to stay alive. This can be done by slander campaigns or through more violent methods. Like, the amount of cognitive dissonance is to the extreme in your post.

as usual your stupidity is unbearable, why you are not banned is beyond me.

The etymological definition of anarchy when used in a general context it refers to the state/government, it can also be used in a specific scenarios to refer to a lack of authority figure. I mentioned its etymology to get rid of the wrong definition that associates with chaos which has nothing to do with anarchy as a political or social structure.

How can a company enforce its authority (authority of what kind and over whom?) and its shitty products? please elaborate on this ridiculous claim.

by monopolizing violence...

On December 30 2014 22:44 mnj wrote: i'm pretty pro anarchy but think there is a need for minimal government. i think this is one of those issues not really worth discussing. there is a lot of content out there that some people will read with and agree with and some people who will never go out and read these books because these questions or thoughts never occurred. anyway regardless the government is here to stay and will prob only get bigger.

In USA the founding fathers were very emphatic in keeping the government as small as possible because the foresaw the potential problems of a big one, what they didnt predict is that no matter the size of your government it will always keep growing, more powerful and hungrier every year and their creation is the perfect proof of it, the smallest of governments turned into this Behemot with a vice grip on the entire world

so essentially the government protects ppl from companies who are willing to use violence for profit. at the same time the government itself is kind of a 'company' willing to use 'violence' for profit if ppl are disobedient. not as bad as like, a total dictatorship though, since it needs to be not super evil or it'd get overthrown?

i guess the current government exists in order to keep something worse from taking over? like in an anarchic society, cant some evil geniuses come together, secure a massive amount of power (money, land, whatever) and start doing really bad things and no one would be able to stop them because they have too much power? in a sense, they'd become the new government?

i think anarchy is not achievable

lets say u set anarchy into the world. Eventually ppl will form groups for securing themselves, these small groups will join together, then those aswell etc etc growing and in the end u will have that we now call authority. Simply because ppl need someone to look after them and make them feel safe. Be it god, government, parents etc. U cannot overwrite the human mindset.

fda is not a good thing wake up people. they regulate the drug markets driving up costs and like baal said overegulate to the point of costing lives (aids and AZT) for $. FDA doesn't stop bs from hitting the market they might just not give it the approval stamp. The food we eat in this country is all garbage unhealthy GMO crud in spite of, or because of, the FDA. maybe in a free unsubsidized, unlobbied, unregulated food industry we would have more good, competitive, healthy, local food.

i think Baal is right in most everything he says

gnarly stop trolling; noone is talking about natural law, we are discussing contemporary government organizations as assembled by man.

'
Well there you fucking go, so stop pretending the government solves those things, because its extremely inefficient and unjust when it comes to crime.'

-baal


Amen

On December 30 2014 22:44 mnj wrote: i'm pretty pro anarchy but think there is a need for minimal government. i think this is one of those issues not really worth discussing. there is a lot of content out there that some people will read with and agree with and some people who will never go out and read these books because these questions or thoughts never occurred. anyway regardless the government is here to stay and will prob only get bigger.

I absolutely agree, however a government should be super decentralized and should actually represent people, unlike nowadays. I m not quite sure how to build such a system though so can't say more than that on this, cause even in countries like Switzerland where people vote online on many different topics @ referendums still show biased results

However this should be the main issue everyone discusses. We re all getting dust splashed in our eyes because a few people managed to get monopoly on most important sectors ( don't get me wrong even in sectors with good competition different corporations would still have the same goals and would just have a diverse monopoly ).

I'd say there isn't much worse that could take over, we have the planet getting chopped, we have a bunch of countries that starve to death, we have a bunch of countries that were destroyed due to wars so countries like the USA/ Russia can profit off them and we have people getting brainwashed by their TVs to believe that such actions are actually quite benefiting for them.... There was some american president that said that every generation should have a revolution ( too lazy to google him) and he was quite right imo, since a revolution would be a " reset " button in a way for the system


Gnarly I cant argue with the likes of you because you are narcissistic, you would dismiss any of my arguments mainly because you are uneducated and egocentric, that would be a time waste for me, i've tried presenting very legitimate arguments on many different topics, trying to explain very basic stuff to you and the result was always the same. Only an idiot would repeat the same mistake so many times.

P.S.
I forgot the most important name "Noam Chomsky" get your hands on anything this guys has published, said on tv or w/e. He s a genius

On December 31 2014 03:07 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 21:20 Baalim wrote: Yes they would, but corporations are dictated by the laws of offer and demand, a corporations that offer a shitty product or bloats the price or pisses off its costumers will lose ground to the competition on a free market society. The state is not subjected to those laws, they will collect any amount of taxes they want regardless of their performance. >corporations are in anarchistic societies There you go, thinking your personal definition of anarchy is that without a public enforcer of government. Try using the original etymological use of the word, please. Also, a "corporation" would be imposing it's own authority, publicly enforcing it's own shitty products, to try to stay alive. This can be done by slander campaigns or through more violent methods. Like, the amount of cognitive dissonance is to the extreme in your post.

Lol how can a company "enforce" products? A company offers products. A customer than has the option of whether or not to buy.

Am i talking to a 3 year old?

In a state of "anarchy" the company would have the option to violently impose its own authority over the consumer. It can be a farm in a community and that farm is run by a family and that family decides, "Fuck it, we're going to be the ONLY farm around here, so let's go fuck shit up for the other guys." Eventually, they own the entire market and their market happens to be food. They won't let anyone grow their own food. The only way to get it is through them. Otherwise, starve to death or die through violent means.

The US govt already wants to say that growing your own food is more dangerous than good along the lines of you don't know what the fuck you are doing and you could sell your faulty product to someone and they could get hurt. This is why selling lemonade in your own yard is illegal unless you have proper licensing and whatnot.

How's about we already live in an anarchic world, with people who have the means to tell other people what to do, do so.

baal all you have done is insult me, but havent offered any counter points, whatsoever, and you didnt send me links, and i know a little bit about how the roads were built in NJ, at least.

also, do you mind minding your manners please? i thought this was a discussion, not for you to hurl insults.

anarchy is by definition a chaotic environment. if you mean an absence of government, please explain, with examples, how society would continue to function in a well adjusted manner without any form of government.

also, when i made the point about vigilante justice, you say i am stupid and then go on to make a point to counter me, USING MY EXACT SAME POINT!

I not wish to insult you, but you seem incapable of communicating anything without insulting me. i think this is perhaps why a good chunk of the community does not like you (i am not among them).

i think it is great we can discuss philosophical ideas about not having a government and the merits of one existing or not existing, but jesus, show your intelligence instead of hurling faeces.

lastly, i will ask again - can you provide A SINGLE EXAMPLE of people functioning well in a society with out any form of government?

If you and I were alone, no government, etc, you would, as you have here, try to have me adhere to your views. The stronger of the two of us would impose his beliefs on the other, and voila, we have a power based structure, winner became the chief. even with animals this is true (and i can point out examples - mating among lions, bucks locking horns for mating rights, etc. and large cats protecting and marking their territory over others, on and on).

On December 31 2014 05:55 traxamillion wrote: ' Well there you fucking go, so stop pretending the government solves those things, because its extremely inefficient and unjust when it comes to crime.' -baal Amen

dude i didnt say it was perfect. but i will say this....trax, you were going to help my friend overdose on heroin and take his money. everything you write, i have to read with a grain of salt.

i did not pretend the government "solved" these things, it can be inefficient and unjust, but it is currently better than nothing. we do not live in a utopia.

again, with anarchy, there is no authority to uphold any type of law. there is no money, we are on a barter system. there is little to no tech development, because there is no incentive - no money or reward, anything can be stolen.

no one has to do shit.

if you say "oh, anarchy is just the absence of government, everything else stays the same" i would love some example or reasoning outside of "haha you are stupid because you do not agree with me! i have a huge internet penis!"

I would love to read something that could sway my opinion.

and to follow up - just because i, personally, have not had 'justice' through the court system, and some innocents have been punished, or there have been unfair sentences, it does not mean that many others haven't had justice served or harmful criminals locked up. i think you should look at the larger picture....


also, if i may ask, why not libertarian vs anarchy? kind of a neat thread so far, if you can remove some trolling and insults

On December 31 2014 10:31 brambolius wrote: How's about we already live in an anarchic world, with people who have the means to tell other people what to do, do so.

pretty cool idea

On December 31 2014 10:53 chris wrote: again, with anarchy, there is no authority to uphold any type of law. there is no money, we are on a barter system. there is little to no tech development, because there is no incentive - no money or reward, anything can be stolen. no one has to do shit.

Read Brand's book he himself is an anarchist and so are the occupy movement leaders he talked to. They present the idea of anarchy in a way which could actually work even in current society. Anarchy does not necessarily mean lawless system where. He also presents the socialism in a workable way ( nothing to do with Russia's socialism, and socialism isn't really a terrible word as we are all taught ). I would explain it myself, but honestly i'm far from capable to do so in English.

There are so many absurd stuff happening even in the most developed countries. Why is anything connected to medical attention so expensive in the USA, we re not talking like 10-20% more expensive than Europe for example, we re talking 10x times ? Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to pay doctors to use their meds?

I just remember how probably the most used powder for cold ( at least in Europe ) - Fervex got pulled out of the market 2 years ago because of insane violations of regulations ( found toxic bacteria in a batch, however they didnt renew the production seems fishy doesnt it ? ) after like what.. 10 years of existance? They sold it to people for at least a decade and people including myself possibly poisoned ourselves. Why isn't something as basic as weed legalized worldwide although it shows significant help in curing cancer ?

Why are automobile companies allowed to sell large batches of vehicles that have defects and they end up getting pulled out of the market after like 10 deaths through a large portion of time, do they really not have the technology to do better? Why do they sell vehicles that are made in a way that they should be repaired after xxxx kms ( don't get me wrong i don't expect 1 car to be able to go through 1mil kms without repairs, but you know what im talking about anyway ) ?

How is it that people like Khadaffi/Hussein are governing countries while the oiil companies have use of him, but the moment they go against them they get destroyed in the blink of an eye ? Were they not the same monsters before that ? Why is the USA allowed to have tens of thousands of drones above the air territory in the Mid East and just bomb any possible target not minding the innocent casulties "cause its the battle against terror" ?

Oh and I'd say most importantly all classified documents should be published. We are taught to believe that those documents are only classified because the masses wouldn't be able to accept the things that are hidden, that its for "our own good", while this might be true its absolutely retarded. Plus most of those documents are only hiding the things that the certain organization has done and are covering their own asses. Fuck them, we should be able to figure out things on ourselves, we dont need a fucking babysitter to decide for us.

Things like those are just on the top of my head of the absurdity and they are all absolutely unacceptable.
I'm not saying we should expect anything to just change by itself while we are shaking our feet on our comfortable chairs. Plus in order for anything to change we must first change ourselves from within otherwise its all predestined to fail before it has even begun. But we must start asking those questions

Btw doesn't it sound absurd to you guys that you think the government is the only body of authority that stops people from going out and looting rioting etc.? Really, Ferguson anyone ? How exactly could they stop that if the masses decide to do so ? Drop bombs on them ? Gas them to death ? What exactly ?

The thing is its not in our nature to be violent, we are only provoked to be so. I've heard ( well Bill Gates recommended it ) that this book explains pretty well on that topic http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1491518243

I still think that we are far from developed as a society to be living governmentless, but there should be a change in current system anyway since we re not progressing in that direction either

On December 31 2014 07:48 Gnarly wrote: In a state of "anarchy" the company would have the option to violently impose its own authority over the consumer. It can be a farm in a community and that farm is run by a family and that family decides, "Fuck it, we're going to be the ONLY farm around here, so let's go fuck shit up for the other guys." Eventually, they own the entire market and their market happens to be food. They won't let anyone grow their own food. The only way to get it is through them. Otherwise, starve to death or die through violent means. The US govt already wants to say that growing your own food is more dangerous than good along the lines of you don't know what the fuck you are doing and you could sell your faulty product to someone and they could get hurt. This is why selling lemonade in your own yard is illegal unless you have proper licensing and whatnot.

You are describing the current systems not anarchy.

The difference is the large farms are protected by the government and corporate interests. Unethically farmed mutant animals, high fructose corn shit, soyshit are protected by government subsidies and corporate lawyers and lobbyists. It is extremely difficult to carve out a living farming ethically. Ethical farmers are not subsidized and constantly being attacked by corporate lawsuits and shenanigans. The big farm shit ends up in the big box grocer. 90% of the food in there is all the same: subsidized corn shit, soy shit, mutant animal shit that is killing people and the environment for profit.

So, how to protect against this in future systems?

Stream of consciousness, off the top of my head thoughts:

#1 - Education based in truth on the current system.

My vision of how it would work is unfortunately based in truthful education, press. Farming on a more local, community level. Farm what makes the most sense based on culture, sustainability, climate, etc etc etc. Anti-shipping of mutant food thousands and thousands of miles. Smart, intelligent 1% charitable subsidies to the farming that makes sense. France and Italy are lucky in climate but they are also ahead of the curve in this regard. In France, baguettes, cheese, wine, mustard, all the foods that have been cherished in their culture for thousands of years are subsidized. People educated to make informed, intelligent, ethical choices when shopping for food. Not constantly being bombarded and seduced by junk food that is subsidized and produced to grab as much money out of the pocket before illness and death with no regard for the only planet in the universe we can currently inhabit.

This is the difficult caveat of anarchy: It requires ethical, moral, and spiritual growth within the individual and the community. Maybe it is coming off a bit hippie dippie but attempting to bring awareness and discussion on a lot of these issues out of love and a willingness to help is something I have found more meaningful than a lot of other occupations.

On December 30 2014 19:43 Spitfiree wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolution-Russell-Brand/dp/1780893051 Anarchy has nothing to do with what 99% of people think it is. It doesn't mean you should not respect people and go out on the street killing anyone on sight and riot and destroy stuff. I'm glad people like RikD are starting to question things. Romm3l please the way you are talking about things are a result of a system which was designed to serve us the human population, but instead is turned around and only serves a few hundred thousand ( at most ). You have absolutely no idea how brainwashed we are, you should read about Bernays and then you should read the things he's written. It ll take a bunch of time though cause the way he writes makes me feel like i'm a retard. To be honest there is way too much on this to just put it up in a topic, and even the 2 books above are just a slim part of the things everyone should read. And if i try to put out the ideas out of them I would just look like a conspiracy theorist, mostly cause my english isn't good enough to transmit their messages We have alternatives, the main problem is, and i think here is where Brand's major mistake is, that people fear big changes unless it absolutely necessary to do them i.e. WW2 Hitler's regime etc.etc. And honestly, Baal is probably years ahead of reading materials and way of thinking compared to most of you on this topic ( me too probably ) his ideas are legit. You guys should really start educating yourself and stop listening to mainstream nonsense whose only purpose is to bring more propaganda to the masses more. Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 19:34 Romm3l wrote: I dont know if we live in the same world. I live in western europe and things are pretty damn good here. there aren't any russians or chinese invading. I can walk down the street without fear of being knived for my pocket change because there is a credible deterrent in place. People generally specialise and do their jobs because they expect they will be paid and able to spend their money in a stable system. people innovative and come up with quality of life enhancing things all the time because they have confidence the system will let them profit from their innovations through a patent system. productivity is high and im enjoying a standard of living superior to anyone in past human history. good job bro, while you do that there are about 1 500 000 000 people that are living in absurd conditions and barely have things to eat, and another 2 000 000 000 that are close to the same path but you are living in western europe and don't give a fuck so way to go quality of your life will be as good as corporations want it to be, you re just another slave you just get to be on the brighter part of it Why did the rich get a 30 trillion bailout @ 2008 but the common man got to get kicked out of his house and lose his job. Do you know that world hunger is estimated at 30 billion / year ( ofc that number will start to fall off with time of something is done about it ) thats absolutely nothing Why does this kid have to go through all this trouble and struggle to get funding to do something good : Why do people vote? Do you know that every USA president so far in history is the one that got the most funding ( most likely things will be the same in any "democratic " country ) ? They can just make it a fund raiser and highest one gets to be president. And most of all why is LOBBYING still legal ? Answer to this last question with a morally legit answer and don't be bothered by it i dare you

if you want to participate in large-scale coordination of activity within a large society then there has to be a well-designed, credible and enforceable system of rules in place for it to be sustainable. if you want to call playing by the rules being a slave then go ahead, but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.

i dont see how bank bailouts, corrupt politicians, illusion of democracy, and propensity of people to be fooled by PR invalidates any of this common sense. no govt is perfect because perfection is impossible. we only need govt to be good enough to enforce stable, reasonably designed rules which people have confidence will be enforced, so peoples' behaviour can be changed/naturally selected over time in such a way that the magic happens: extreme specialisation of labour, efficient trade and finance, incentives for innovation, welfare safety net, etc etc. bam, everyone's better off.

On December 30 2014 19:34 Romm3l wrote: I dont know if we live in the same world. I live in western europe and things are pretty damn good here. there aren't any russians or chinese invading. I can walk down the street without fear of being knived for my pocket change because there is a credible deterrent in place. People generally specialise and do their jobs because they expect they will be paid and able to spend their money in a stable system. people innovative and come up with quality of life enhancing things all the time because they have confidence the system will let them profit from their innovations through a patent system. productivity is high and im enjoying a standard of living superior to anyone in past human history.

"Domesticated paradise, palm trees and pools
The water's blue, swallow the pill
Keepin' it surreal, whatever you like
Whatever feels good, whatever takes you mountain high
Keepin' it surreal, not sugar-free
My TV ain't HD, that's too real
Grapevine, mango, peaches, and limes, the sweet life

So why see the world, when you got the beach
Don't know why see the world, when you got the beach
The sweet life"

It is easy to make that post as someone in the 1% that pays minimum taxes on gambling winnings.

I am not entirely sure what to say. My motive in making this thread was not to be a confrontational asshole but rather to raise some awareness and thought and discussion. You obviously are not the problem. If I am speaking honestly I would urge anyone to get involved in communities and charities they believe in but the most important community is the family structure and neighbors. I find absolutely nothing wrong in someone living a simple life working towards a happy family. From my experiences, that is actually the life that makes the most sense ethically, morally, and spiritually and is the most sustainably rewarding.

For me though, I go through spurts when I just want to yell at the universe about local ethical farming, crypto currencies, government corruption, corporate corruption, et al. The nice thing about LP is I do not really have to censor myself in an open discussion format and there are a handful of other people that share my feelings and values and want similar things. We all kind of want similar things at the end of the day anyway. Cheers. Happy New Year.

On December 31 2014 11:18 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 10:53 chris wrote: again, with anarchy, there is no authority to uphold any type of law. there is no money, we are on a barter system. there is little to no tech development, because there is no incentive - no money or reward, anything can be stolen. no one has to do shit. Read Brand's book he himself is an anarchist and so are the occupy movement leaders he talked to. They present the idea of anarchy in a way which could actually work even in current society. Anarchy does not necessarily mean lawless system where. He also presents the socialism in a workable way ( nothing to do with Russia's socialism, and socialism isn't really a terrible word as we are all taught ). I would explain it myself, but honestly i'm far from capable to do so in English. There are so many absurd stuff happening even in the most developed countries. Why is anything connected to medical attention so expensive in the USA, we re not talking like 10-20% more expensive than Europe for example, we re talking 10x times ? Why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to pay doctors to use their meds? I just remember how probably the most used powder for cold ( at least in Europe ) - Fervex got pulled out of the market 2 years ago because of insane violations of regulations ( found toxic bacteria in a batch, however they didnt renew the production seems fishy doesnt it ? ) after like what.. 10 years of existance? They sold it to people for at least a decade and people including myself possibly poisoned ourselves. Why isn't something as basic as weed legalized worldwide although it shows significant help in curing cancer ? Why are automobile companies allowed to sell large batches of vehicles that have defects and they end up getting pulled out of the market after like 10 deaths through a large portion of time, do they really not have the technology to do better? Why do they sell vehicles that are made in a way that they should be repaired after xxxx kms ( don't get me wrong i don't expect 1 car to be able to go through 1mil kms without repairs, but you know what im talking about anyway ) ? How is it that people like Khadaffi/Hussein are governing countries while the oiil companies have use of him, but the moment they go against them they get destroyed in the blink of an eye ? Were they not the same monsters before that ? Why is the USA allowed to have tens of thousands of drones above the air territory in the Mid East and just bomb any possible target not minding the innocent casulties "cause its the battle against terror" ? Oh and I'd say most importantly all classified documents should be published. We are taught to believe that those documents are only classified because the masses wouldn't be able to accept the things that are hidden, that its for "our own good", while this might be true its absolutely retarded. Plus most of those documents are only hiding the things that the certain organization has done and are covering their own asses. Fuck them, we should be able to figure out things on ourselves, we dont need a fucking babysitter to decide for us. Things like those are just on the top of my head of the absurdity and they are all absolutely unacceptable. I'm not saying we should expect anything to just change by itself while we are shaking our feet on our comfortable chairs. Plus in order for anything to change we must first change ourselves from within otherwise its all predestined to fail before it has even begun. But we must start asking those questions

>occupy movement

Nope.gif. They would give the law to the most oppressed people, then those who are more privileged would be held to a higher standard of laws. This is taken from the way they had their discussions in which the most oppressed people were allowed to speak first, and the more privilege you had, the less likely you were even able to voice an opinion.

On December 31 2014 11:33 Spitfiree wrote: Btw doesn't it sound absurd to you guys that you think the government is the only body of authority that stops people from going out and looting rioting etc.? Really, Ferguson anyone ? How exactly could they stop that if the masses decide to do so ? Drop bombs on them ? Gas them to death ? What exactly ? The thing is its not in our nature to be violent, we are only provoked to be so. I've heard ( well Bill Gates recommended it ) that this book explains pretty well on that topic http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1491518243 I still think that we are far from developed as a society to be living governmentless, but there should be a change in current system anyway since we re not progressing in that direction either

>it's not in our nature to be violent

That's why we are the most violent species in the world, right?

On December 31 2014 11:37 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 07:48 Gnarly wrote: In a state of "anarchy" the company would have the option to violently impose its own authority over the consumer. It can be a farm in a community and that farm is run by a family and that family decides, "Fuck it, we're going to be the ONLY farm around here, so let's go fuck shit up for the other guys." Eventually, they own the entire market and their market happens to be food. They won't let anyone grow their own food. The only way to get it is through them. Otherwise, starve to death or die through violent means. The US govt already wants to say that growing your own food is more dangerous than good along the lines of you don't know what the fuck you are doing and you could sell your faulty product to someone and they could get hurt. This is why selling lemonade in your own yard is illegal unless you have proper licensing and whatnot. You are describing the current systems not anarchy. The difference is the large farms are protected by the government and corporate interests. Unethically farmed mutant animals, high fructose corn shit, soyshit are protected by government subsidies and corporate lawyers and lobbyists. It is extremely difficult to carve out a living farming ethically. Ethical farmers are not subsidized and constantly being attacked by corporate lawsuits and shenanigans. The big farm shit ends up in the big box grocer. 90% of the food in there is all the same: subsidized corn shit, soy shit, mutant animal shit that is killing people and the environment for profit. So, how to protect against this in future systems? Stream of consciousness, off the top of my head thoughts: #1 - Education based in truth on the current system. My vision of how it would work is unfortunately based in truthful education, press. Farming on a more local, community level. Farm what makes the most sense based on culture, sustainability, climate, etc etc etc. Anti-shipping of mutant food thousands and thousands of miles. Smart, intelligent 1% charitable subsidies to the farming that makes sense. France and Italy are lucky in climate but they are also ahead of the curve in this regard. In France, baguettes, cheese, wine, mustard, all the foods that have been cherished in their culture for thousands of years are subsidized. People educated to make informed, intelligent, ethical choices when shopping for food. Not constantly being bombarded and seduced by junk food that is subsidized and produced to grab as much money out of the pocket before illness and death with no regard for the only planet in the universe we can currently inhabit. This is the difficult caveat of anarchy: It requires ethical, moral, and spiritual growth within the individual and the community. Maybe it is coming off a bit hippie dippie but attempting to bring awareness and discussion on a lot of these issues out of love and a willingness to help is something I have found more meaningful than a lot of other occupations.

Farms weren't always protected. There was a very, very, very long time in which they weren't. You say unethically farmed animals, I say give me proof of that as an standard average in the industry that isn't some propaganda by the very industry itself. Where I live, there are plenty of farms that do things "ethically". They raise their animals and tend to their crops like most humans have done so in history. >killing the enviroment I supposed you think that wind power is a viable option? Too bad, cause you need to do your research. If we were really out to destroy the environment for profits, we wouldn't be doing things like they do in the logging industry where they protect the environment to protect their profits. They only log certain areas in strips at a time allowing these strips to grow after they have cut down the trees.

Your vision, or what authority you wish to impose on others, if asinine because honesty isn't always the best policy. The public doesn't have the ability to govern itself because they believe in stupid shit without actually having done any research or lived any first-hand experiences. This is why America is a republic, where we elect people who are knowledgeable in certain areas.

Out of all the restaurants I've worked at and all the people that I know that own and operate their own places are able to buy food locally very easily. I mean, cmon, the food HAS to be bought locally otherwise it wouldn't be fresh. Chipotle will go and personally visit the "smaller" farms and personally inspect the livestock and how the animals are treated and whatnot. I've seen it first hand.

>farm
>sustainability

We could double the world's population and still have easily enough space on this planet to farm for even more.

You need to look up what the etymology of the word anarchy is, instead of using your own personal definition. Communities can't exist without a chief. Each individual has a self-government over themselves. The idea that anarchy is actually attainable is a farce, as we will always seek to replace order once it's gone. And again, you would still like to impose your own authority over others.

I think people desire anarchy or voluntarism because it's a reaction to the failures of the status quo. If the status quo were more in line with the nature of human passions and desires, there would be no need for that.

It's when you see it can be done faster, simpler, better, while being in the moral and ethical high ground yet you're forced into a worse system.

If the system was fixed, we could do greater things as a group than the individual could do in its own. The only way to fix it is to at first start over. Then create better rules with the mindfulness of what went wrong. Corruption and money in politics. And allow individuals to innovate. If the system gets in the way of innovation then it is not a good system.

It is important to Give people like Elon Musk and all the greater Internet innovators room to do what they do.

On December 31 2014 03:59 fira wrote: so essentially the government protects ppl from companies who are willing to use violence for profit. at the same time the government itself is kind of a 'company' willing to use 'violence' for profit if ppl are disobedient. not as bad as like, a total dictatorship though, since it needs to be not super evil or it'd get overthrown? i guess the current government exists in order to keep something worse from taking over? like in an anarchic society, cant some evil geniuses come together, secure a massive amount of power (money, land, whatever) and start doing really bad things and no one would be able to stop them because they have too much power? in a sense, they'd become the new government?

A total dictatorship IS a form of government, dont equate government to a democratic 1st world country state, because that is the less vicious form through out history, but only because it has adapted to more civilized times dont think that its not the root of most of worlds problems.

So the government prevents evil geniues from taking power and do terrible things right?


+ Show Spoiler +

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/ayatollah-khomeini.jpg
http://api.ning.com/files/TuH-vYM0DCy...8mVIy8GZ7T7U1cTOAYPwV9dKR/cheney2.jpg

No my friend, the government does exactly the opposite, the state only puts evil people hungry of power in positions of undeserved enormous power

On December 31 2014 10:46 chris wrote: baal all you have done is insult me, but havent offered any counter points, whatsoever, and you didnt send me links, and i know a little bit about how the roads were built in NJ, at least. also, do you mind minding your manners please? i thought this was a discussion, not for you to hurl insults. anarchy is by definition a chaotic environment. if you mean an absence of government, please explain, with examples, how society would continue to function in a well adjusted manner without any form of government. also, when i made the point about vigilante justice, you say i am stupid and then go on to make a point to counter me, USING MY EXACT SAME POINT! I not wish to insult you, but you seem incapable of communicating anything without insulting me. i think this is perhaps why a good chunk of the community does not like you (i am not among them). i think it is great we can discuss philosophical ideas about not having a government and the merits of one existing or not existing, but jesus, show your intelligence instead of hurling faeces. lastly, i will ask again - can you provide A SINGLE EXAMPLE of people functioning well in a society with out any form of government? If you and I were alone, no government, etc, you would, as you have here, try to have me adhere to your views. The stronger of the two of us would impose his beliefs on the other, and voila, we have a power based structure, winner became the chief. even with animals this is true (and i can point out examples - mating among lions, bucks locking horns for mating rights, etc. and large cats protecting and marking their territory over others, on and on).

Sorry if I insulted you, its a habit hard to get rid of, for that I apologize.

could you try to focus on one or two points or questions in your post because otherwise its really hard to reply without a wall of text.

An example of a working anarchic society? Yes I can show many examples but on very small scale, many people did it in the 60s living outside of the system but usually this ideology is very threatening to the state so they are swift in crushing it.

There are some places like Christiana in Norway, its an anarchic society with no form of government, since it has no drug laws it a haven for all the drug trade so its not the best of examples, but as a anarchy it works fine the problem its the situation on drugs.

The best example of anarchy if actually Somalia, a few years ago Somalias government was overthrown with nobody to take over and they lived in a chaotic and anarchic state, and to the surprise of everyone the country fluorished in almost every single area, and it has the biggest economy growth any african country has seen in history.

And this is the worst for anarchy, sudden and violent and the country went into chaos after the organization collapsed, but after a while people started to build energy plants, ports and everything privately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991%E2%80%932006)

Read that article and see how in most cases the governments and regulations were actually a hindrance to progress.


I dont like linking to books since its kind of condesendent but this book explain the practical questions of Anarchy like how would roads get built, who would handle police and courtrooms etc: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/practicalanarchy.pdf

On December 31 2014 10:53 chris wrote: again, with anarchy, there is no authority to uphold any type of law. there is no money, we are on a barter system. there is little to no tech development, because there is no incentive - no money or reward, anything can be stolen. no one has to do shit. if you say "oh, anarchy is just the absence of government, everything else stays the same" i would love some example or reasoning outside of "haha you are stupid because you do not agree with me! i have a huge internet penis!" I would love to read something that could sway my opinion. and to follow up - just because i, personally, have not had 'justice' through the court system, and some innocents have been punished, or there have been unfair sentences, it does not mean that many others haven't had justice served or harmful criminals locked up. i think you should look at the larger picture.... also, if i may ask, why not libertarian vs anarchy? kind of a neat thread so far, if you can remove some trolling and insults

Money has absolutely nothing to do with government, for example... what government has to do with Bitcoin?

In fact governments are terrible for money since they control its supply through central banks they can do whatever they want... print some bills, give it to your corrupt buddies, devaluating everybody elses money, just like it happened in the USA with the bailouts and that is one tiny example of thousands of times government abuse this power to control the money supply.

On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation.

Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?.

There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP

1 Oman 11.4
2 Qatar 10
3 Saudi Arabia 10
4 Iraq 8.6
5 Jordan 8.6
6 Israel 7.3
7 Yemen 6.6
8 Eritrea 6.3
9 Macedonia 6
10 Syria 5.9

So much prosperity

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

hurrrr but who would build the roads? derp.

On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: if you want to participate in large-scale coordination of activity within a large society then there has to be a well-designed, credible and enforceable system of rules in place for it to be sustainable. if you want to call playing by the rules being a slave then go ahead, but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. i dont see how bank bailouts, corrupt politicians, illusion of democracy, and propensity of people to be fooled by PR invalidates any of this common sense. no govt is perfect because perfection is impossible. we only need govt to be good enough to enforce stable, reasonably designed rules which people have confidence will be enforced, so peoples' behaviour can be changed/naturally selected over time in such a way that the magic happens: extreme specialisation of labour, efficient trade and finance, incentives for innovation, welfare safety net, etc etc. bam, everyone's better off.

Once again please start reading about this by people that have spent a good amount of their lives researching this topic, then you ll see how all those things are connected and how it has nothing to do with hunt/scavenge. Don't expect me a 23yo that has read a few thousand pages about it to shift your perception

Edward Bernays, Russel Brand, Noam Chomsky, David Gruber you can start off with them

or at least think about the things Baal has written, he might be capable to do so

On December 31 2014 17:33 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 03:59 fira wrote: so essentially the government protects ppl from companies who are willing to use violence for profit. at the same time the government itself is kind of a 'company' willing to use 'violence' for profit if ppl are disobedient. not as bad as like, a total dictatorship though, since it needs to be not super evil or it'd get overthrown? i guess the current government exists in order to keep something worse from taking over? like in an anarchic society, cant some evil geniuses come together, secure a massive amount of power (money, land, whatever) and start doing really bad things and no one would be able to stop them because they have too much power? in a sense, they'd become the new government? A total dictatorship IS a form of government, dont equate government to a democratic 1st world country state, because that is the less vicious form through out history, but only because it has adapted to more civilized times dont think that its not the root of most of worlds problems. So the government prevents evil geniues from taking power and do terrible things right? + Show Spoiler + http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/ayatollah-khomeini.jpg http://api.ning.com/files/TuH-vYM0DCy...8mVIy8GZ7T7U1cTOAYPwV9dKR/cheney2.jpg No my friend, the government does exactly the opposite, the state only puts evil people hungry of power in positions of undeserved enormous power

The jews declared "war" on Germany in the 30s, baal. You really, really, desperately need to do your own research. Germany was raped by ww1, they were being forced to pay out money that was killing their own people every single day. You don't think there would be a national hero to rise up during their dark times? Hitler was a reaction to what germany was facing.

On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

>how would anarchy destroy our tech and infrastructure

Well, first off, no one would be paid to maintain things like bridges or tunnels or pipelines or internet infrastructure. Buildings would dilapidate and eventually start collapsing.

The question I ask you is: how would our tech and infrastructure NOT be destroyed by anarchy?

On December 31 2014 19:30 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: if you want to participate in large-scale coordination of activity within a large society then there has to be a well-designed, credible and enforceable system of rules in place for it to be sustainable. if you want to call playing by the rules being a slave then go ahead, but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. i dont see how bank bailouts, corrupt politicians, illusion of democracy, and propensity of people to be fooled by PR invalidates any of this common sense. no govt is perfect because perfection is impossible. we only need govt to be good enough to enforce stable, reasonably designed rules which people have confidence will be enforced, so peoples' behaviour can be changed/naturally selected over time in such a way that the magic happens: extreme specialisation of labour, efficient trade and finance, incentives for innovation, welfare safety net, etc etc. bam, everyone's better off. Once again please start reading about this by people that have spent a good amount of their lives researching this topic, then you ll see how all those things are connected and how it has nothing to do with hunt/scavenge. Don't expect me a 23yo that has read a few thousand pages about it to shift your perception Edward Bernays, Russel Brand, Noam Chomsky, David Gruber you can start off with them or at least think about the things Baal has written, he might be capable to do so

what kind of response is this? "oh, well, you need to read these specific personally authoritative figures cause you don't have the right mindset as baal." Try to actually reason shit out yourself and quit resorting to appeals to authority.

Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity

On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132

doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either.

reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers.

what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives.

tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets.

On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity

in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language.

arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it

On January 01 2015 07:24 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language. arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it

and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view
I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet

Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well

Meanwhile

cute and holds for a lot of stuff but you just need a single counterexample to disprove any "this always holds" statement.

you see someone dying of thirst and take the action of deciding not to give him your bottle of water. no force or fraud is committed.

On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity

>muh appeal to authority

Keep riding that special high horse of yours and keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else here.

On January 01 2015 13:52 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2015 07:24 Romm3l wrote:   On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language. arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well Meanwhile

>russel brand

Keep riding on Baa's dick, dude.

On January 01 2015 13:52 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2015 07:24 Romm3l wrote:   On January 01 2015 06:13 Spitfiree wrote: Gnarly don't bother replying to my posts, as i've already said i wont reason with narcissistic dumbasses that live in their dream world. Its no wonder you would put such reply too, you d rather have something that takes thousand of pages to explain to be shortened to a forum post, at least you amuse me with your stupidity in general the clearest sign that someone doesn't really understand well what they're talking about is if they're unable to distil their thoughts and arguments in simple, concise language. arguments like "too complicated and too many pages for me to explain" or "you have to read these works by other people to get it" is just about the clearest way to auto-lose an argument by not being able to even participate in it and responses like this one is the easiest ways of staying ignorant although someone clearly shows you how to widen your perception of the system we live in, i'm not here to argue at all, i didn't write any of the posts in order to get a bigger internet penis, i'm simply showing you a different point of view I understand that i might come off weak, I don't give a fuck though since i've pointed the way to legitimate sources that are far more capable than me, I'd rather come off weak than try to explain things in a silly way and not in full depth. Point is I've given you a way, its your own decision if you want to follow it or continue to "win" arguments on the internet Edit: Tbh I've explained the core of the problem pretty well Meanwhile

i dont want to resort to ad hominem attacks but your citing russell brand as a legitimate and highly capable source is kind of embarassing and doesn't give me confidence engaging with you any further is going to lead to any kind of productive outcome

Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another.

P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in

On January 02 2015 12:04 Spitfiree wrote: Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another. P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in

Dude, Russell Brand isn't going to take you to bed tonight. Your "argument" which is really riding the dick of another man is weak because you've provided not a single original thought of your own. You need to appeal to authority and you don't even realize how closed your eyes are.

User was temp-banned for this post.

On January 02 2015 12:04 Spitfiree wrote: Stop embarrassing yourself, you obviously don't know anything about the guy. You see this is were I would've been if I tried to do what you are doing. Russel Brand himself is just the face of the whole idea at this point. However he s talking to the brightest minds on the planet which makes him more than highly capable. He s helping promote a very important idea and its working. The fact that he was able to "win" an interview against Paxman, Paxman being able to push every mistake, every spot that wasn't quite clear or came off as weak and having 25 years of experience in that field only shows how capable Brand is. And the fact that you wrote such a hilarious post only shows how little you've read on the subject. In fact you're right this wont lead to anything productive since you're refusing to open your eyes, one can do only so much to help another. P.S. I bet this "argument " seems weak too since you're uneducated on the topic, but try to argue about it, such a lovely situation you've put yourself in

lol at calling others uneducated while citing books you haven't actually read yourself:

On December 31 2014 11:33 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is its not in our nature to be violent, we are only provoked to be so. I've heard ( well Bill Gates recommended it ) that this book explains pretty well on that topic http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1491518243

what's hilarious is that if you had actually read this book as I have then you would know one of the major reasons it finds for why people got less violent over time was the emergence of big all-powerful state ("Leviathan" ) with a monopoly on force, and how that changed the incentives. basically my argument is exactly mirrored in this book and i suggest you actually read it before responding again.

Nope im citing books i've read and i exclusively said i didn't read the one above, but it was recommended by Gates and the quote above is a guess. I've gone through Brand's book, I've gone through several works of Chomsky's best being a speech about the control of the masses through the media, I am going through Bernays although that's probably the hardest read in my life. You're right about the second part, you re way off on first part where lies most of your argument which is a casual guess gone wrong

Well and tbh Brand's book isnt something incredible but its pointing in the right direction and its a good start

i agree brand correctly identifies a lot of problems with our society. corporate influence on the political process sucks. moral hazard in financial risk taking sucked. it's where he starts to propose his own solutions of mystical revolution that things get full retard. chomsky is pointing out things that are wrong too, media influences, manipulates and serves powerful interests. nobodys arguing with any of that.

the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

On January 02 2015 15:37 Spitfiree wrote: Nope im citing books i've read and i exclusively said i didn't read the one above, but it was recommended by Gates and the quote above is a guess. I've gone through Brand's book, I've gone through several works of Chomsky's best being a speech about the control of the masses through the media, I am going through Bernays although that's probably the hardest read in my life. You're right about the second part, you re way off on first part where lies most of your argument which is a casual guess gone wrong Well and tbh Brand's book isnt something incredible but its pointing in the right direction and its a good start

you know that part in the movie "good will hunting" where they are in the bar, and they want to pick up some chicks, so one of the guys tries to impress her, and then some alpha-wanna-be shuts his friend down, and then matt damon comes on over like a bad ass and tells the guy that he has no original thought for the books he's read, he's just simply appealing to authority and can only regurgitate what's been feed to him?

anarchy can't happen. a monopoly on force will always sought to be had.

On January 01 2015 07:23 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote:   On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132 doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either. reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers. what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives. tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets.

It is absolutely ridiculous to refuse acknowledging a defense/GDP and try to say its total defense budget and that holds no weight since big prosperous countries have big budgets for everything.

Also in total military spenditure you will see that its not direclty related to prosperity as many prosperous countries have small armies and some with huge armies like China or Russia are not.

For the third time... why do you equate anarchy with unestability, before making these assumptions you have to explain in which way it would be less stable than in a society with a state.

It makes no sense to say say since human dont act ideally anarchy cannot be and then claim a goverment would, when this government is run by these same faulty humans.

On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

Is that so? please tell us how history suggests otherwise

BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

nice counterpoint
10/10 would debate again
much skill

On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise

I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon.

A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm

Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon. A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

What does anarchy have to do with corporations? unless you are advocating some kind of socio-anarchy which is ridiculous and just as narrow-sighted as regular socialism/communism

I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement?

I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population?

Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

On January 03 2015 02:29 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: [QUOTE]On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise What does anarchy have to do with corporations? unless you are advocating some kind of socio-anarchy which is ridiculous and just as narrow-sighted as regular socialism/communism

My perception of anarchy is full decentralization of power in current system and redistribution of it well (by saying well I'd say that ll be the hardest thing to do ) among people.
That's the core of it, all of follow ups like treating the planet better, investing in self-redeemable energy etc.etc. come as a result, and corporations have everything to do with it since they re the ones that profit the most from current system and abuse it to its full capacity.
Nobody wants socialism, I just want them to carry the consequences. Companies like Monsanto, Philip Morris, GSK are pretty much criminals and they re just on the top of my head. However you cant expect them to change atm considering they re paying governments through lobbying and campaign funding.
Whatever the change goes to you cant have someone abuse it to the fullest cause we ll just end up at the same place. Well Brand even suggested that those companies wealth should just be redistributed among their workers so they run the company, which is not necessarily a great idea, but its not a bad one, sounds like a communistic move( pretty sure thats how cooperations were done in Russia ) , however considering how the current leaderships are just blasting the population with toxic products and lying to them about it, then it doesn't sound so bad
Also as Drone said you cant have giant organizations amassing power

@Drone I don't think there are a lot of people that have figured it out fully. I used to think that revolutions without blood spilled don't lead to any results whatsoever. That's I'm guessing what most people think and its wrong. Historically speaking there aren't many revolutions that really worked, and most in the history books are just meh, they end up becoming what they went against, just named it differently. Gotta say that anarchy looks a lot like socialism, except there isn't the government to push you, which changes whole lotta things.

On January 02 2015 18:48 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 01 2015 07:23 Romm3l wrote:   On December 31 2014 18:14 Baalim wrote:   On December 31 2014 11:50 Romm3l wrote: but in that case to live in a 'free' society is to build your own shelter and hunt/scavenge/barter for stuff you need because larger communities aren't sustainable without a credible and stable system of rules in place. unfortunately for those billions they don't live in places that have had stable institutions with well-designed rules in place over a long period. the proof is out there: look at the correlation between countries with strong legal institutions stable over time and some level of defence spending, and their prosperity. strong correlation. Why do you insist relating anarchy with huts and scavenging, how would anarchy destroy our technology and infrastructure?. There is a strong correlation between defense spending and prosperity? Here is a list of the biggest defense spenders per %GDP 1 Oman 11.4 2 Qatar 10 3 Saudi Arabia 10 4 Iraq 8.6 5 Jordan 8.6 6 Israel 7.3 7 Yemen 6.6 8 Eritrea 6.3 9 Macedonia 6 10 Syria 5.9 So much prosperity http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=132 doesn't make sense to isolate defence spending as you have and in this case % of gdp measures don't make sense either. reason i mention defence spending is that to deter other countries from messing with you is necessary for stable institutions over time. this condition is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. for sake of illustration imagine a country with tiny gdp and 10 inhabitants spending 90% on defence. The big % of gdp measure doesn't change the fact the country is at the mercy of larger powers. what a prosperous country needs is for the right incentives to be in place for good, productive behaviour that creates prosperity over time. these incentives have to be stable over time and people have to have confidence in their stability going forward. you talk about people in western countries being 'morally better' but this is just a consequence of stronger institutions with the right incentives over time. people who behave undesirably are selected out of the population over time in such an environment. none of the countries in your list have had much stability or good incentives. tolstoy seems to have it right that a moral revolution could solve the bad incentives problem and reduce the need for state. but since humans would clearly not act ideally under anarchy, a state remains pretty necessary. even if such a moral revolution miraculously happened and we could do without a lot of what govt is necessary for, we would still need a smaller govt to address market failures like public goods and missing markets. It is absolutely ridiculous to refuse acknowledging a defense/GDP and try to say its total defense budget and that holds no weight since big prosperous countries have big budgets for everything. Also in total military spenditure you will see that its not direclty related to prosperity as many prosperous countries have small armies and some with huge armies like China or Russia are not. For the third time... why do you equate anarchy with unestability, before making these assumptions you have to explain in which way it would be less stable than in a society with a state. It makes no sense to say say since human dont act ideally anarchy cannot be and then claim a goverment would, when this government is run by these same faulty humans.

again, ability to defend yourself is necessary but not sufficient for prosperity. ability to defend yourself is clearly more correlated with total spending than % of gdp spending.

anarchy being less stable than a leviathan state seems almost too obvious to have to explain but here's a quick try-
with no govt people choose between producing and trading ('cooperate' option in prisoners dilemma) and using force or fraud to steal the fruits of others' labour ('defect' option). Everyone cooperating leads to the best group result because total productive capacity is being maximally used and the benefits of specialisation and economies of scale are also fully realised. But in this state the individual payoffs to defect (use force or fraud) are enormous as there are no credible consequences other than breakdown of trust with counterparties, which human agents typically don't care about due to excessive hyperbolic discounting (short-term, instant-gratification mindset). In this environment larger scale organisations of specialised labour and trade become less and less viable because they require too many links of coordination, contracts and trust with no existing entity that can enforce contracts. More and more people switch to 'defect' in a repeated game where agents' strategies approximate tit-for-tat. The results are that overall productive capacity is utilised less and in a less efficient way over time.

History (explained well in Pinker's book: ) middle age europe was a feudal patchwork of baronies and fief principalities without any central power (this thread's definition of anarchy). Knights and feudal lords dominated peasants on their local turf and played zero-sum turf war games with each other for each others' spoils. Over time there was a consolidation of political units as more powerful users of force expanded and swallowed up more turf until one guy has control of the whole country. At that point knights causing violence and plundering becomes a nuisance to the king of the land because it diminishes productive capacity and state revenues, so it became in the soverign's interest to enforce the "king's peace" through superior force supported by superior resources (large tax revenue base funds armies with an expensive trained military force possessing gunpowder firearm technology and artillery). This changed the payoffs of the defect option and things generally got more prosperous and less violent.

Same thing in ancient China being a constantly warring bunch of patchwork states before Genghis Khan conquered and unified it all, and his descendants used their power and monopoly on force to form stable institutions and create prosperity over time. Kublai Khan's capital city was the best place on earth in its time and made big advances in technology and culture.

On January 03 2015 06:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement? I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population? Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

the abolition of borders doesn't really matter because most borders are based off of natural borders such as oceans, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc.. when we used to live in tribes and villages and maybe very simple city-states before the first real civilization came about, we used to tell stories as a way to indirectly guide the behaviors of the tribe. Gilgamesh is a good example of this, as it is simply a person going across the river (ie: border) and slaying his enemies. (the people on the other side of the border)

society will always naturally organize, we are after all only animals. we adhere to our social nature and that is for the weak to serve the strong. those who are able to influence people and get their ways through cunning or sheer force will always be able to have a real vote in how things go. might DOES make right because if you can't fight back, what right do you really have other than to die?

we'd have to be invaded by mind-taking-over aliens for us to ALL believe in baal's personal definition of anarchy and to live by it, which would still not be anarchy as the aliens are the one's with the monopoly on force in that case. fact of the matter is, with billions of people on this planet which is ever increasing, anarchy just can't happen. of course, there is always that temporary time when empires fall or nations have civil unrest, but as always, that's temporary. order will always be restored as it always has been.

On January 03 2015 06:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm mostly just curious as to like, how positive anarchy can be achieved? Because I certainly think it sounds pretty awesome to have a society free of hierarchy and where you can do whatever you want as long as people aren't too pissed off by it, but I'm not sure I want to concentrate my efforts towards something I think is completely impossible to achieve? Does it require like, some sort of grand collective enlightenment followed by a democratic vote to abolish government (where one party would be campaigning on not governing? ) or does it require a violent revolution? Can one country become anarchist by itself (and like, I'm Norwegian, so I'd be concerned about whether or not we can maintain our current standard of living, because there's no way our population goes for something that fails in that regard), or does it have to be a global movement? I mean I get that the abolition of borders (which I totally support, I just don't understand how it can be accomplished) is kinda in conflict with the concept of a country, but like, how is society organized? Will anarchy require us to make everything smaller, like do we need to just live in smaller communities (as anarchy is very dependent on trust to work, there being no external power forcing certain types of behavior) or can you still have global companies and organizations? If companies and organizations can be huge - how can you avoid them exploiting their power when there is no more powerful body that answers to the population? Like, I totally see many of the same societal flaws as anarchists do, but it seems like the leading anarchist intellectuals are more apt at describing how our current society is flawed and how the state is the culprit than at describing how we can progress forward towards our dream society - and how exactly that would look..

Its not society free for hierarchy, its society free from the state, if you have a job, your boss will have hierarchy over you, but thats a choice you make, nothing is imposed over some bullshit implied social contract you have no say in.

It certainly is impossible to achieve in our lifetime, but isnt also end racism, religious fanaticism, war, hunger etc? and that doesnt stop us from trying, in fact its virtuous to fight for something selfless and for the good of mankind.

Anarchy wont be reached through revolution, we have had hundreds of those in our history, it will come from understanding and hopelessness, I once heard a good analogy about a bettered woman:

A battered woman wont leave his abusive husband out of rage, he will come home and take him back over and over believing he can change and it is not only when she realizes that violence is in the nature of his husband and when she no longer believes he can change that she will leave him.

In the same way, only when people truly understand what is the nature of government, and only when they lose hope that it can change that we will be able to simply walk away from it.


And no everything does have to be smaller, there will be big strong companies that could abuse their power... but the question is does the current state society prevents this? and the answer is NO.. if anything corporations are more powerful under the wing of the state, Apple has child labor, companies outsource to poor countries with shitty worker conditions and the worst company of all is the state, that is one that can abuse absolutely everyone with no consecuences.

Anarchy is not an utopia, it will be flawed because we are flawed, but its better than the structure we have today.

the nature of government is that it's made up of people, and people will always strive for order.

honestly, baal, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. you seem to constantly spout this idea that humans will somehow merge together on the same brainwaves and everyone will just magically start being good and moral, even though those are subjective terms which differ when you cross the river.

>hierarchy
>a job
>a choice
>social contract

That whole paragraph is a major what the fuck are you even trying to convey? if a company can be formed in anarchy, so can a government, using your own logic, since you say that governments are also companies.

Honestly, how the fuck do you even play poker with your backfuckingwards logic?

On January 03 2015 21:11 Baalim wrote: Anarchy wont be reached through revolution, we have had hundreds of those in our history, it will come from understanding and hopelessness, I once heard a good analogy about a bettered woman:

I'd prefer to call it a "revolution of consciousness ", anyways thats what i forgot to add. Historically almost every revolution has been violent and has not worked

>revolutions aren't the work of the govts themselves
>not worked

Revolutions can't happen without leaders. Occupy was the best witness to this, as they chose to be leaderless and then do their progressive stacks bullshit. It's way too easy to infiltrate an "anarchistic" society.

edit: oh wait, occupy did have some leaders, but they were also found to be agents and then the others had threats against them from the us govt. (if the released documents are true)

On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same.

Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page.

Beyond that:

I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there.

One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking:

Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms.

Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere.

On January 04 2015 17:21 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same. Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page. Beyond that: I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there. One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking: Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere.

Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames have all done great things to deserve their honorifics. Since humans are motivated in part by wanting recognition and esteem, why not have devices such as titles that incentivise people doing great things? Whatever you have to do to become a Sir is surely better for the world than many other ways people might gain recognition, e.g. making as much money as possible and balling out of control, or beating up/killing other people.

Even the British royal family is +++ev for the world - they cost the british taxpayer nothing compared to what they bring in in tourism revenue, and if people are willing to pay for royal family related tourism, then that reveals they value it. Maybe a family creating an estimated 3/4billion usd/year in indirect tourism revenue deserves their title and lifestyle after all.

This post is mainly to show ideal solutions based on normative principles can end up being net worse in practice. One might accept pragmatism is better than idealism in the same way that one might accept capitalism is better than communism (or that anarchy would be terrible, lol)

I was quite struck by the family name change of the queen of England tbh, since - it was Frau Saxe-Coburgotha - we had a prime minister with the same family, short history -> we were monarchy @ early 20th century, we got a german king - obv same dinasty, however that dinasty also governed Spain too afaik, pretty much England, Spain & Bulgaria were ran by the same family - just an odd fact.

Anyway Romm3l thats exactly a thing we should rethink about our species. If we're motivated just so we can be able to tell to the other guy "Ha! I'm better " then, you might be better at a certain thing, but you definitely fail at being a decent human being. The thing is the titles themselves are not the problem, the problem is in our heads. It's easy to give them non existent value, because they imply certain deeds & struggles one has to go through to obtain them, while they certainly mean that "person X " has specific knowledge of something that does not mean he should have any authority upon anyone else just because of it. I'd say its a mind-trap and again that can be dealt with. On the other hand there are so many titles these days you can just buy its ridiculous, for example "Lord" title in UK is the most pathetic thing ever, there are like 128739128936392847 lords already.

And again i disagree about royal family. First of all I have never heard of anyone going to the UK so they can see the queen or some shit like that. The country has many other things to offer that actually have value. And no one deserves that much just cause the were born luckily, otherwise people like Hilton,Warren Buffet & Bill Gates wouldn't strip away their children of almost all of their inheritance ( Buffet case its absolutely everything I think ).Gates will leave some millions, but thats understandable. After all every parent wants their children to have some sort of a stability, but its nowhere near his billions and such amount of money are enough for them to try and do things they love and even if they fail a couple of times to be able to re-start and actually bring value to the world. Plus a child is the main concern of a parent so going something as extreme as leaving no inheritance at all is hardcore, at least to me, but quite understandable especially in Hilton's case

man what i said about royal family tourist revenue is not my opinion, it's reported by the british tourism agency (pls use google and check facts instead of 'disagreeing' based on your rigorous statistical survey of people you know)

people are born with very different natural talent as well and some really talented people can get ridic rich with combination of their hard work and genetic gifts in a way that average people never could no matter how hard they work. where do you draw the line on what people 'deserve' based on birth advantages, financial or otherwise?

On January 05 2015 07:50 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On January 04 2015 17:21 RiKD wrote:   On January 02 2015 18:55 Baalim wrote: BTW since the mods arent doing their job banning Gnarly im going to ignore and never reply to him again and I encourage everyone else in this thread to do the same. Is there a way to formally click an "ignore" button that essentially makes a poster no longer exist? If not there should be. Either way, beyond asking that question I am def on the same page. Beyond that: I have been reading Russell Brand's "Revolution." I can definitely see how some of his spiritual tangents could turn some people off but I have found a lot of good stuff in there. One small thing we can do which I found pretty awesome and thought provoking: Disregard titles. Be respectful, yet firm. The Queen, who did nothing to become the queen besides pop out of the right vagina, should now be referred to as Mrs. Windsor or taking it a step further: Frau (whatever her family's German name was before they changed it to positively brand and distance themselves from Nazi Germany). Not, your Majesty, your Highness, etc. Everyone is a Mr., Mrs., Ms. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames, etc etc etc are all Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Beyond some of the awesome stuff in this thread so far and other literature and ideas I just thought I would add that as it is something easy that anyone could start doing immediately. I have already started and it can cause some interesting moments but we have to start somewhere. Doctors, presidents, congressmen, judges, royalty appointed sirs and dames have all done great things to deserve their honorifics. Since humans are motivated in part by wanting recognition and esteem, why not have devices such as titles that incentivise people doing great things? Whatever you have to do to become a Sir is surely better for the world than many other ways people might gain recognition, e.g. making as much money as possible and balling out of control, or beating up/killing other people. Even the British royal family is +++ev for the world - they cost the british taxpayer nothing compared to what they bring in in tourism revenue, and if people are willing to pay for royal family related tourism, then that reveals they value it. Maybe a family creating an estimated 3/4billion usd/year in indirect tourism revenue deserves their title and lifestyle after all. This post is mainly to show ideal solutions based on normative principles can end up being net worse in practice. One might accept pragmatism is better than idealism in the same way that one might accept capitalism is better than communism (or that anarchy would be terrible, lol)

Doing great things? who has done a great thing to gain a sir title? Do you think the Beatles wrote songs to be sirs? come on, people who truly work hard for something never do it for some ridiculous meaningless title, they do it because they want to, its the passion, their calling or however you want to call it, not to gain the approval of some delusional ridiculous rich clown with a crown. Also the UK is one of the few countries who give those ridiculous titles, in the rest of the world that is seen as some medieval shit.

Also could you please cite sources of that revenue directly linked to royalty please? that sounds to me very hard to believe, and even if it were its one of the saddest justifications to have a monarchy in the 21st century.

Also I dont know how many times I have to repeat this, in order to keep saying things like its idealistic and not pragmatic you first have to say why stop just statings uninformed opinions as facts without even backing them up.

So why do you think Anarchy is idealistic and not pragmatical?

Anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with equality, I dont know why I have to say this thing so many freaking times, why is hard to comprehend that Anarchy is about a stateless society, not about utopian communism, which is obv awful.


People have different talents and they will perform and therefore earn different in a free market society, people will still be born in privilege and there will be company managers and toilet scrubbers just without the parasitic presence of the state in our society.

I have been an active anarchist for several years in the past and I have to say that I've never met an anarcho capitalist in person. In fact every single anarchist I've met was hostile to the idea, so I haven't seen the idea presented extensively.

The other forms of anarchism I've seen, discussed or read do clash with pragmatism though. Without getting into it extensively for the time being, for me an easy indication of that would be the fact that anarchists rarely bother discussing details of an anarchist society and the obvious problems that arise while trying to establish it, there's no extensive literature or heated debates etc. I'd say that the majority of people (at least here in Greece) who call themselves anarchists are in essence anti authoritarians and have idealistic and psychological motivations behind their actions, something far from what even Chomsky stands for in his books (he also carefully tries not to call himself an anarchist, I presume for the same reason)
Of course anarchists around here usually don't like anarcho syndicalists too, for the same idealistic reasons; in civil war spain CNT got into the government to deal with big threats and generally worked through representation, which is morally repulsive for the anti authoritarians
Which reminds me of the title and OP (I don't even know what spiritual progression means after moral and ethical btw)
The morality of anarchism is generally very similar to christianity, Nietzsche wrote extensively of this in "antichrist"; for people who denounce god this certainly made me (even back then) raise an eyebrow. Of course it doesn't necessarily have to be this way and I'm certain a lot of anarchists are far from that morality and set of mannerisms, what I personally saw happening around me for a while in the movement in Greece confirmed this view though.
Stirner's anarchism that puts the individual above the herd is much more preferable to my own taste but seems to be lacking in pragmatism too and the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions again seems fitting

I could get into more details after Baal personally attacks me for no reason lol

get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue.

Chomsky doesnt quickly label himself an anarchist (he has said it before tho) because its one of the most tainted and hijacked words in our vocabulary and this thread is proof of it, when people hear the word they think of huts, chaos and no-authority when it has nothing to do with that

of course anarchy has something to do with anti-authority. imo that's the by far most positive thing the political theory has got going for it.. In fact just like lebowski, I've hung around quite a bit with anarchists, but never anarcho capitalists, they've all been leftists, and usually the anarchist inside them is not really concerned with the economical side of it, but rather the social one, like a, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as nobody is hurt by it". But I've never heard any of them talk about taxation.

Historically anarchists have been fighting fascists - which clearly makes it an anti-authoritarian movement as being pro-authority is the cornerstone of fascism. Anarchists fighting Franco in the Spanish civil war weren't fighting for their society to be governed by austrian economics, they were fighting against fascism, and they were allied with communists. During Spain's anarchist period they reorganized companies so they would have no bosses, and while Soviet wanted to support them with arms, there were significant problems relating to Stalin's (pro-authoritarian) demands.

Basically my impression of anarchist seems to be completely in line with lebowski's. I'm not equating it with chaos - although I think it'd be a likely outcome - but I have absolutely no support for baal's anarchy and I don't think any self-identifying anarchist I know would, either.

I just copy pasted this from wikipedia - seems like that backs up me and lebowski, and it also seems like anarchy has far too many strands for you to bombastically claim that it is only one thing and not the other.

"Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[21][22] Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology,[23][24] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[25]

The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[26] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[27] and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organisations.[28][29] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[30][31] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed as means to achieve anarchist ends.[32] "

On January 05 2015 17:12 Romm3l wrote: man what i said about royal family tourist revenue is not my opinion, it's reported by the british tourism agency (pls use google and check facts instead of 'disagreeing' based on your rigorous statistical survey of people you know)

You're right 2013 survey :

But some British republicans -- those who want to abolish the monarchy -- say the actual cost is much higher, once you factor in things like security detail and the cost of preparing for royal visits. Their figure is about 200 million pounds, or $307 million.

Then :

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

I wonder if these numbers will drop significantly if there were no royal family, they surely will, but significantly? They have to drop by 40% in order for the royal family to be worth it. Thats basically their only argument, that people visit historical royal places. I wonder why people go to Egypt, there s no pharaoh, no use to go check the pyramids meh... I think you get my point.

Agree with the other part of your post though, but we re both wrong to some extend, its just another topic to be discussed. And I agree with Baal, I should probably widen my perspective more

On January 06 2015 02:40 Baalim wrote: get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue.

The point was that the main body of anarchists today as well as historically doesn't share this vision of a stateless capitalism, so doubts/criticism here in lp no matter how vague are probably directed at multiple and more mainstream versions of anarchism; ones that I assume you reject too. I think that when you support a fraction of an already unpopular political view the most effective way to communicate would be to immediately focus on what makes said fraction different and better from what people will assume you refer to, instead of speaking up for the entire spectrum as if it were cohesive.

By focusing on what separates your version of anarchy from the ones that you too find non pragmatic those who challenge your view would find it easier to get into detail (and be convinced if you're right)

Using statistics for arguments is too easy on both sides because you can always find a stat backing you up if you dig deep enough. You have to argue from principle to get anywhere imo. Is it right for one human to use force against another human? At what point does it become justifiable?

Remember a government isn't a real thing. Know that and it will be easier to dissect if it is necessary. It's just a made up word for people with guns and people without guns. As far as practical solutions to people all following a set of guidelines I have heard of one essay for how it could work but before I present it I'd like to mention that in a competitive free market asking the question "how should we govern ourselves without force?" We will get a much more efficient answer than one person's idea of a possible free society.

The Stateless Society: an examination of alternatives by: Stefan Molyneaux
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/st...ciety-an-examination-of-alternatives/

Brief summary of the Dispute resolution organizations he suggests could work here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Also RE: people will come in and take over. Takeovers of countries are usually for resources and tax livestock. If there isn't already a structured tax system/police in place to enforce your threats then what are you taking over? If guns/etc are randomly distributed throughout the area you are attempting to take over then how impossible is that task? The cost will outweigh the benefits of taking over a free society.

i've been an anarchist for 3 years. Although, i think that if i knew about the political ideal when i was 10 i would have adopted it.


I do not think many anarcho-capitalists realize the consequences of their political ideals. What they are in fact advocating is that private power should rule the world. Now what follows from anarcho capitalism is the privitizing of all assets, getting rid of labour laws, ect. So roads would be privitized, people would soon start renting out their roads for people to use them, no one would get anywhere in a car. Then people would hire mercenaries to protect their roads..ect. And what would happen in a 'free' labour market? The laws which were put in place in the early 1800's that raised the working age to 12 years old would be abolished, (These laws at the time were understood to be an intervention in the free labour market, and industrial capitalists whined about it a lot.) corporations would exploit children from age 5 up until they die at 17, which was the average life expectancy of a worker in manchester in 1820. The fact of the matter is people are not really 'free' when their choices are limited to either starvation or exploitation. But anarcho capitalism would never happen, both the richest capitalists and the worlds population would find it intolerable. In our society as it exists at the moment, both want the state to intervene in some way.

Also, a lot of the political theorists you read about in school who are in the right and proclaim to either be anarcho-capitalists or 'libertarians' say they base their beleifs on the value system of classical liberalism. I spent this summer working my way through all the classical liberal texts and the political theorists you read about misrepresent them. First of all kant, wilhelm von humboldt, and adam smith to pick 3 of the classical liberals, were all developing their theories when capitalism was in its early stages.

kant for example in his political writings pointed out the difference between a passive and an active citizen. He said a passive citizen can be a person who creates something deliberately for someone else to buy. And a passive citizen should have no right to vote because of this, because they are a mere tool or a machine. Kant saw this as a person being used for a means to an end and hated this. On the other hand, he saw an active citizen as someone that was an artisan. Someone who created things out of their own creativity and enjoyment, but then could sell that creation later on.

Willhelm von Humboldt stated in his book 'limits of state action' that someone who creates something is the true owner of that creation than some voluptury who enjoys the fruits of that labour.

Adam Smith was the most anti-capitalist of them all, specifically stating 'division of labour turning people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it possible for them to be.'

Early writings of Karl Marx expressed similar sentiment to Adam Smith in his theories of alienation.

What the anarcho capitalists and libertarians of the modern period like Friedman, Hayek, Nozick..ect, have done is deeply misrepresent the classical liberals. The thing they did represent them correctly on is that states should have limited power.

from my own interpretation classical liberalism was anti-capitalist, and that anarcho syndacalism grows out of this, along with a combination of labour movements in the early 19th century which grew into socialism, which then grew into french syndaclism in the early 1900's. These theories amalgamated into anarcho syndacalism which culminated in a social revolution in 1936 spain which is what liquid drone pointed out.

Although i am an Anarchist, i understand that some people who would want to use social democracy as a stepping stone towards anarchism have a very valid point. And in fact expansion of the state in a 'social-democrat' way could be a path towards anarchism. The anarchist party Syriza in Greece seem to be taking this path. And a society cannot just 'instantly' become anarchist, it needs education, activism, and many years of work before that can happen.

Anarchism these days has a broad spectrum of thought because its been tried in many different ways. For example Gandhi practiced it in ways he learnt from tolstoy, (they wrote letters to each other). Today most anarchists are involved in the global justice movement, opposing the world trade organization, international monetary fund, world bank and the so called 'free trade imperalism'. plus Austerity

On January 02 2015 22:04 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On January 02 2015 15:53 Romm3l wrote: the problem is suggesting anarchy as a viable improvement of the status quo when history suggests otherwise I'd say the problem is we think there is a problem. In order to work anarchy has to come close to utopia and for that to happen we d have to drop nowadays perception of what utopia is, cause it sure as hell isn't bling-blings,bitches & fast cars( well explained shallowly at least ) . The biggest problem however is that the masses are easily controlled by the media and considering corporations control the media, you cant really promote an idea that would fuck corporations. Propaganda is far more deadly than any other weapon. A bit of off-topic, but quite the interesting read considering how we're practically in an extended Cold War situation : http://chomsky.info/articles/20140805.htm Considering I've not read everything Chomsky has published what are you suggesting he s wrong about?

Theres a really good book on anarchism called: anarchism: Theory and Practice, by Rudolf Rocker.

He thinks, and i agree with him, that anarchy is not a fixed, enclosed social system, but a definite trend in human history. That structures of illegitimate power throughout history have been overcome through realizing and whitling away at their illegitimacy.

My own view on utopia is that in many ways we are already living in one. For example womens rights are utopian compared to 150 years ago. And from this view i disagree with Romm3l. It is in fact anarchism that has shown itself not only viable and possible but very desirable when someone looks at history. In fact, part of the propaganda system has been to eliminate hope with the view pointed out by raegan and thatcher that 'there is no alternative'. So Baal when he says things will change when we are hopeless is wrong, and a terrible mistake to make. On the contrary, things will change when people realize how much liberty they have and how much they can do to change the world and make it a better place. Afterall, we face no threat of torture in the rich countries. And we can go around teaching people about anarchism and state violence, ect., just as people went around teaching others about the injustices of women as property 150 years ago. Many don't listen at first, but the numbers of listeners grows over time.

On December 30 2014 15:57 Baalim wrote: Also every culture around the world is rooted in religion and it doesnt make the concept of a god any less idiotic, governments exist because people have fought and risen to power in history and society trends to maintain the status quo

This is so fucking true. Think about the first people in the world to ever be "governed". Do you think they wanted it? Surely not. little groups of people got conquered and assimilated by other groups. i.e. Rome invading Nomadic territories. However over time, once these governments are initially established, people are born into them rather than truly free. It becomes standard and accepted because it is all that everyone has known their whole lives and from a young age taught is the optimal if not only way.

I'm using the court system of the state to work at quashing some grossly mismanaging, investor capital wasting insiders

one advantage for some state power..

Greetings awesome people,

I recently found this amazing non-profit:

https://www.adbusters.org/

https://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

I now have a subscription in print and PDF. If anyone is interested I could send them the PDFs or post them to my blog if that is cool.

What I would like to share and discuss today is this:

Spark

Join Us!

Suddenly a hundred million of us start playing the corpo-killcap game!

Draw the line:

Exxon, BP, Chevron, McDondalds, Monsanto, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Dove, Nestle, Kraft, Kellog, Nike, Pepsico, Starbucks, Kimberley Clark, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Mattel, Bank of America

[yellow caution] Show some self discipline:

Malls, Supermarkets, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Target, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Microsoft, Car Co-ops, Tom's, American Apparel, Nature's Path [/yellow caution]

You know what to do:

Indie Shops, Coffee Houses and Bookstores, Farmer's Markets, Community-Supported Agriculture, Libraries, Co-op Housing, Sole Rebels, Fab Labs, Co-op Banks, Craigslist, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Tor Network, Open-Source, Kickstarter, Powell's Books, Bike Pirates, Intelligentsa Coffee, Trade School, Vegetarianism

Thoughts? Insights? Information?

How many of you are using Tor Network? Co-op banks? Bitcoin? (I currently do not and am looking to trial it out).

Experiences, Strength, and Hope?!

Love,

RiKD

On February 10 2015 19:09 RiKD wrote: Draw the line: Exxon, BP, Chevron, McDondalds, Monsanto, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Dove, Nestle, Kraft, Kellog, Nike, Pepsico, Starbucks, Kimberley Clark, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, General Mills, Mattel, Bank of America Malls, Supermarkets, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Target, Chapters, Barnes and Noble, Microsoft, Car Co-ops, Tom's, American Apparel, Nature's Path Indie Shops, Coffee Houses and Bookstores, Farmer's Markets, Community-Supported Agriculture, Libraries, Co-op Housing, Sole Rebels, Fab Labs, Co-op Banks, Craigslist, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Tor Network, Open-Source, Kickstarter, Powell's Books, Bike Pirates, Intelligentsa Coffee, Trade School, Vegetarianism

On January 06 2015 06:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: of course anarchy has something to do with anti-authority. imo that's the by far most positive thing the political theory has got going for it.. In fact just like lebowski, I've hung around quite a bit with anarchists, but never anarcho capitalists, they've all been leftists, and usually the anarchist inside them is not really concerned with the economical side of it, but rather the social one, like a, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want as long as nobody is hurt by it". But I've never heard any of them talk about taxation. Basically my impression of anarchist seems to be completely in line with lebowski's. I'm not equating it with chaos - although I think it'd be a likely outcome - but I have absolutely no support for baal's anarchy and I don't think any self-identifying anarchist I know would, either.

Anarcho capitalism and anarcho-socialism are actually more similar to what you seem to grasp, we both recognize the State as the initiator of violence we just have different opinions on how to handle private property.

If you havent heard about taxation then you probably didnt have long talks with your anarchist friends or they have no idea what they are talking about, taxation is the first initiation of violence towards the individual and exactly how the government survives, no taxation, no government.

I know way more Rothbardians (anarcho capitalists) than socialist ones, usually the socialist ones simply watched the second Zeitgeist movie too many times.