Anarchist Stuff

[lukep]

You'll never get everyone to adopt the same belief set though.

You act like we have to convince them.

These truths are self evident. They'll learn them by themselves in time, just like we did. Just like Americans and Brits did about slavery. Just like humanity did about the earth revolving around the sun... It's inescapable, given time.

This is where we come from, and this is who we are.... We're not just going to all get along, rejoice in anarchy, and sing kumbaya together.

My answer for this is #4 in the video I just posted last. Please watch it over and over and over and over until it finally sinks in.

That's why having a government is a good idea. Protect minority rights from the whims of the majority, which is why there's no longer slavery, and why women can vote, etc.

The very things you are arguing against happened under government, not anarchy. You're just led to believe they'd happen more often under anarchy but you're wrong.

Oh look, obvious statist propaganda at it's most obvious! Thanks for the share... On this thread it is exactly like if you were to post a picture of a Lawn Jockey on a NAACP human rights thread. It's an awesome example of the persecution our cause has suffered through history. Can you tell us more about this artifact?

 

[SkyFire]

Let me ask you, if all laws were stripped from the books, and government was abolished, do you believe slavery would resurface in various parts of the US? Or do you believe everyone's moral compass has intrinsically changed over the past 100 years to the point where nobody would entertain the idea?

I personally believe we'd see slavery pop up again. Maybe not widespread, but it'd be around. Reason it isn't right now is because anyone who tries it gets their ass thrown into prison for 20 years. Same argument can be made against women's rights. And regarding this type of thing, here's Paul Martin's speech just before parliament voted on gay marriage:

Well without a government to enforce the "rights" of the slave owners, any slave could simply revolt, leave, kill his owner. In slave owning america, there was no reason to revolt against ones owner because the state would simply track the revolting slaves down, and hang or re-enslave them.

Without a government to oppress women, their rights would be their own, and just as universal as a mans because there was no looming governmental body to oppress them.

Gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted, marry, whatever, because again, no one controlling the paperwork required to marry.

Rights of the people have always been defined by those in power, and thus the oppression of any group. All the problems faced by minorities and their lack of rights stem directly from someone in power taking away that right. Get rid of the usurpers of freedom, and the problem goes away.

 

[BluAffiliate]

 

[lukep]

^Haha, more propaganda meant to insult us, with extreme lack of knowledge of the subject matter you're addressing. Kinda funny, in fact.

 

[guerilla]

^Haha, more propaganda meant to insult us, with extreme lack of knowledge of the subject matter you're addressing. Kinda funny, in fact.

Stop replying to him. You're shitting up the thread.

Just put him on ignore and move on.

 

[guerilla]

So you're saying there's no longer slavery in the world? Actually, that's being pedantic, so let's not do that.

You know exactly what I am saying. That slavery is no longer systemic.

Don't be an asshole Matt. If you want to be an asshole, go find somewhere else to do so.

Let me ask you, if all laws were stripped from the books, and government was abolished, do you believe slavery would resurface in various parts of the US? Or do you believe everyone's moral compass has intrinsically changed over the past 100 years to the point where nobody would entertain the idea?

I don't speculate, but I'll offer this in return.

Do you believe the only reason blacks are no longer slaves is because someone made a law about it?

If that is the case, then how come laws haven't stopped drug usage?

That's why having a government is a good idea. Protect minority rights from the whims of the majority, which is why there's no longer slavery, and why women can vote, etc.

But it was the government which prevented women from voting, and in the US, institutionalized slavery through the Fugitive Slave Act.

Crediting government for social advancement is like someone cutting you, then being a hero for bandaging you up.

Also, there is no such thing as minority rights. Everyone has equal rights, regardless of who or what they are. You don't get special rights because you're gay or black.

Intellectually yeah, a little bit. Spiritually and morally? No. For the spiritually, you only need to open your eyes to modern day organized religion, which is stronger than ever.

Organized religion is a lot weaker than it has ever been in history. I am curious about what you're smoking. 100 years ago, people wouldn't admit they were atheists publicly for fear of ostracism. Men and women didn't openly cohabitate before marriage. Abortions were done in secret, rarely by doctors due to religious stigma.
If you're trolling, this isn't a good troll, and if you really believe this stuff, then ...

For morally, I think it's simply a case of appearing that way due to technological advancements. We no longer need to crack someone's head open with a rock to get their food. We have corporations, legal contracts, extortion, and business offices for that now.

This reads like one big nonsequitur. How did technology free the slaves in the US? How did technology get women the vote?

As far as more sophisticated stealing, you do realize that the poorest American or Canadian enjoys a higher standard of living than Kings did 250 years ago? It's a very sad and myopic view of reality if you can't see progress being made.

Christ, there was no concept of an anti-war movement prior to 150 years ago. If that isn't moral advancement, I don't know what is.

It's a pretty damn silly argument for you to claim that we have the same basic morality we did pre-language and pre-technology as cavemen. The facts certainly don't support your position.

The raw moral compass hasn't changed much though, and definitely nowhere near enough to think we're capable of world peace without structure. I mean, just look at the riots in the Middle East that popped up in the past month.

Kiopa False Dichotomy Warning!

Who said no structure? We're simply talking about a non-violent structure, or are you saying that all structure has to be violent, and there can be no cooperative organization?

I cannot understand why you always promote a false dichotomy of anarchy = absence of everything. Everything government does, individuals can do cooperatively in a private property society. Law originated in the private sector, not the government sector.

As far as the riots, I don't see how people rioting substantiates anything. Why not point at some small cannibal tribe somewhere in the world to make your point then. Ignore the billions of humans trying to get through each day peacefully.

I'll say it again, and not to be insulting, although your posts are terrible, and generally a waste of time to reply to.

If these are genuine posts, please please please, spend some time researching the stuff you claim, so that even if you won't think through what you're saying, what you'll say will have some basis in fact.

I have you on ignore but have been reading your posts lately (much to my disappointment). If you can't articulate better arguments, do us all a favor and stop posting until you're caught up.

 

[emp]

Sooo.....

A question to our "anarchists" (yeah, I don't really think you are what you claim to be)

How did anarchism help with anything in recent history?
And looking at the sorry aftermath of the Spanish revolution, I guess we'll count that out.

::emp::

 

[guerilla]

A question to our "anarchists" (yeah, I don't really think you are what you claim to be)

You mean, you don't believe we're people who prefer peace to violence? Cooperation to bullying and coercion?

How did anarchism help with anything in recent history?

You engage in anarchistic relationships every day. You tell me how humanity benefits from working cooperatively without violence hierarchies and constant threats of harm.

And looking at the sorry aftermath of the Spanish revolution, I guess we'll count that out.

Way to not read the thread.

Aren't you embarrassed by making shitty posts like this? I would be.

I keep hoping against hope, that someone here will articulate a really good counter-argument. I actually have thought of one, and emailed Jake about it. But the level of argument from people here is depressing. Considering the folks on Wickedfire should be self-selected as marginally smarter than regular folks, these responses are subpar (admittedly from the same people, who repeat the same refuted positions, over and over again ad infinitum).

And the irony of it all, is that you guys claim anarchists are the problem, unable to recognize your own lack of reason or principles.

 

[emp]

hahaha...

So..

a) being non-violent does not make you an anarchist. A pacifist, maybe.

And

b) I think you are deluded. You are pampered products of the society you are criticizing, making money of and in the context of laws and rules that you want to abolish and delude yourself into thinking that all will be well in an anarchist utopia.

So I'll propose a more down to earth, everyday problem to solve.

Situation:
A new area has been added to the town, and 5 people have built their houses. Now there needs to be a road, as these people all want to drive to work and generally not get mud on their shoes.
A nice, non-violent jury has been called in and arbitrate that the cost for the road should be divided by all homeowners equally.

All agree, but M, who has the house right in the middle.

The road to the other houses will automatically go by his house and he simply refuses to share in the costs, as those people at the end should pay for their own damn connectivity. If the road goes by his house, fine with him, he'll use it.

Your solution?

::emp::

 

[guerilla]

a) being non-violent does not make you an anarchist. A pacifist, maybe.

Pacifists can be anarchists, but anarchists don't have to be pacifists. Anarchism is not a suicide pact. Self-defense is always acceptable.

b) I think you are deluded. You are pampered products of the society you are criticizing, making money of and in the context of laws and rules that you want to abolish and delude yourself into thinking that all will be well in an anarchist utopia.

I think I just showed in my last post you hadn't even read anything in this thread.

Now you're compounding that error by being an asshole, claiming to know us individually and attacking us personally, instead of addressing the idea.

It's cowardly and weak. It makes you look foolish. Like an ignorant baby.

A new area has been added to the town, and 5 people have built their houses. Now there needs to be a road, as these people all want to drive to work and generally not get mud on their shoes.
A nice, non-violent jury has been called in and arbitrate that the cost for the road should be divided by all homeowners equally.

All agree, but M, who has the house right in the middle.

The road to the other houses will automatically go by his house and he simply refuses to share in the costs, as those people at the end should pay for their own damn connectivity. If the road goes by his house, fine with him, he'll use it.

Your solution?

He doesn't use it because he didn't pay to use it. If he uses it, people will remove his vehicle from it. It's not his property.

It's irrelevant to the discussion, because under the modern system, people who don't even use the road are forced to pay for it, and people who use it do not pay for it at all.

I certainly hope this point wasn't in support of government. Prior to the last couple hundred years, almost every road was a privately built and maintained, for centuries.

What you consider to be civilization, the modern western welfare state, has only been around for 100 years. Indeed, next year will be the 100th anniversary of income tax in the US. Prior to that, the government was too poor to build roads all over the country.

 

[SkyFire]

Situation:
A new area has been added to the town, and 5 people have built their houses. Now there needs to be a road, as these people all want to drive to work and generally not get mud on their shoes.
A nice, non-violent jury has been called in and arbitrate that the cost for the road should be divided by all homeowners equally.

All agree, but M, who has the house right in the middle.

The road to the other houses will automatically go by his house and he simply refuses to share in the costs, as those people at the end should pay for their own damn connectivity. If the road goes by his house, fine with him, he'll use it.

My parents were in EXACTLY that situation 5 years ago. They live in the mountains, way the fuck out there - for perspective it takes 35 minutes when the roads are clear to reach a gas station.

Anyway, 6 of the land owners upped to pay for the cost of having a new road put in, one dude didn't (a new road wasn't optional, the forestry department demanded it). So the 6 not assholes carried the cost amoungst themselves, put in a gate at the entrance to the community, and didn't give the douchebag a key.

In addition when it snowed (something like 6 feet a year), my dad (as he is in charge of the snow plowing) didn't plow the guys section.

It took 6 weeks of winter before the douchebag apologized and ponied up his share.

Community cooperation at it's finest.

It's also worth noting that the members who can provide services pay less for things than those who don't. My parents paid less for the road because my dad plows the snow, another guy shared his well with another home owner who couldn't hit water for almost two years (finally went with a dry well).

This is what it's all about.

 

[guerilla]

HOLD ON A SECOND SKYFIRE

Are you saying that people were able to fix a private road, without government, and no one had to use violence to get it done?

PEOPLE WORKING TOGETHER. TRULY MIND BOGGLING.

 

[SkyFire]

I'll also point out that last winter the douchebag from above left too much snow on his roof, and it collapsed - whilst my dad, both my younger brothers, and my brother in law were on top of it trying to help him clear it after a sudden dump of ~18 inches (there was around 3 feet of snow total on the roof).

My brother nearly died when a few thousand pound sheet of ice missed his head by mere inches.

What did the neighborhood do? One family took them in, everyone else banded together to clear the collapsed roof of snow, a few guys climbed in, raised jacks, and lifted the roof. My dad took spare metal roofing off the top of his wood shed, they patched up the roof, and the family was able to move back in and stay for the winter, and had the damage repaid once winter was over.

All this for a dick who didn't want to pay his share. This summer when I went up to put a new room on my parents house, guess who showed up to help? The douchebag.

 

[guerilla]

I live in a rural community too. I think 99% of statists come from cities.

When you live in a small community, government is almost completely irrelevant, where working with neighbors and friends is how things get done.

 

[lukep]

^But that's not possible... Matt told me that people are inherently evil and can only work together when a ruler bosses them around!

 

[emp]

OK, so the two solutions you propose are:

a) remove his vehicle from he road if he uses the road
b) Don't maintain his section of the road or making it / leaving it unusable in the winter

how is either of these non-violent?

Well, maybe not violent as in "I'll punch your face in" but still using passive aggressive tactics, ransom, denying access to, etc..

So who is going to remove his vehicle? By which means? What if he does not agree to this?

How is not removing the snow / denying access non-violent?

Do you people really believe business is not going to work without contracts? And you do know that each contract has the implicit threat of force / legal action behind it, right?

::emp::

Also: Thanks for insulting me. Always makes me feel great. I called you deluded, you called me an asshole. Nice.

 

[pfgannon]

OK, so the two solutions you propose are:

a) remove his vehicle from he road if he uses the road
b) Don't maintain his section of the road or making it / leaving it unusable in the winter

how is either of these non-violent?

Well, maybe not violent as in "I'll punch your face in" but still using passive aggressive tactics, ransom, denying access to, etc..

So who is going to remove his vehicle? By which means? What if he does not agree to this?

How is not removing the snow / denying access non-violent?

Do you people really believe business is not going to work without contracts? And you do know that each contract has the implicit threat of force / legal action behind it, right?

::emp::

Also: Thanks for insulting me. Always makes me feel great. I called you deluded, you called me an asshole. Nice.

I knew that was a trick question. Well played, sir.

 

[kingofsp]

OK, so the two solutions you propose are:

a) remove his vehicle from he road if he uses the road
b) Don't maintain his section of the road or making it / leaving it unusable in the winter

how is either of these non-violent?

Well, maybe not violent as in "I'll punch your face in" but still using passive aggressive tactics, ransom, denying access to, etc..

So who is going to remove his vehicle? By which means? What if he does not agree to this?

How is not removing the snow / denying access non-violent?

I'm just a novice in these matters, but I'll take a crack at it since everyone else is probably sleeping.

If I live in a peaceful, non-aggressive, anarchy society and I happen to own a bar where some drunk crazy idiot won't GTFO, I will just throw his ass out, since it's my property. Same goes for the road.

 

[emp]

Did you miss the part about non-violence?

::emp::

 

[SkyFire]

OK, so the two solutions you propose are:

a) remove his vehicle from he road if he uses the road
b) Don't maintain his section of the road or making it / leaving it unusable in the winter

how is either of these non-violent?

Well, maybe not violent as in "I'll punch your face in" but still using passive aggressive tactics, ransom, denying access to, etc..

So who is going to remove his vehicle? By which means? What if he does not agree to this?

How is not removing the snow / denying access non-violent?

Do you people really believe business is not going to work without contracts? And you do know that each contract has the implicit threat of force / legal action behind it, right?

Seriously? I don't let strangers park in my driveway. Why would someone expect to park on someone else's road?

I don't remove snow from my neighbors driveway, is it violent of me not do do it for him? Of course not, that's his responsibility. I move snow for the old lady up the street though, because she can't. Community.

In my parents case, snow removal is provided free of charge to members of the community. By not pitching in with the community, the douchebag opted out of free snow removal - it's not like he was some how magically prevented from doing it himself.

He didn't get to use the road because -it wasn't his road-. How is that not clear?

If you don't want to be a member of a community and participate, then don't - but don't expect to use the services others create FOR members of the community. Everyone should contribute in whatever way they can, in fairness.

Take again my parents community. Every year the road needs maintenance because of the snow and run off. Everyone chips in, except my parents - because instead they do the snow removal and assume all those costs (a big ass tractor for plowing, the time involved, etc).

They have found a balance. It doesn't mean their aren't disputes, but as reasonable adults they come to agreements and work together for the benefit of all.