This forum or the internet would not be here without our desire to form packs and pick leaders.
Anarchy is Dumb
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
This forum or the internet would not be here without our desire to form packs and pick leaders.
I try to say what I mean, clearly.
As an abstraction. Sure, we all do that. It's sloppy language, useful for conveying abstract concepts.
But what we're not talking about abstractions. We're talking very precisely about the supposed nature of men.
I think a good case can be made for methodological individualism, and if so, then any blanket statements about the nature of men are ... useless.
Because each man is unique.
Historical materialism is handy if you're into Marx, but I am not. I think it's a pretty flawed methodology for analyzing issues.
Example, until 200 or so years ago, women were chattel property. Your argument would have been 201 years ago, that because women were always property, they would always be property.
See how this is false?
op renounce Canada/USA and move to Mexico or something where crime has infiltrated with police and we'll see you Betty Sue will be doing
Stop right there. Btw, I actually did a retreat with Hari Das when I was 6. He hasn't spoken since the 50s. Amazing man.
Anyone who knows me personally knows that there are no sacred cows in my belief system. I challenge premises constantly. If I didn't, I'd still be a moderate conservative democrat.
Because without values, man can't act.
Prove to me that you and your mind are two different things.
How can you be intelligent if you're illogical and irrational?
I'd need a belief in being free in order to drop all beliefs to be free.
Now, I respect that you believe what you believe (although, by your own admission, you should have zero beliefs), but I am not in the market for crazy right now.
Anarchy means an absence of leaders right? What is Jon? Terrible example.
There is violence, the threat of being banned is like the threat of being thrown in jail. That's as violent as it gets in a digital realm. It's the only way to keep troublemakers in check. Moderators delete things, alter things... it's not free at all. I accept that and know I'm free to leave if I want, just as you're free to leave your country if you desire. Except instead of leaving, you want to stay and change it to suit yourself.
We all know where this is going, I pay taxes with a gun to my head. As for how much I pay, my taxes aren't your business.
No no, you obviously do think you're better. You called me a parasite before you edited your post, implying that you're not.
"Must have touched the parasite nerve."
So you're not a parasite, right? You don't use your government's services? Do you make sure not to drive on the roads or walk on the footpaths? Just because you think differently to me doesn't change your actions. Unless you have moved out of your country, your actions are no different to anyone else's and to use your words, you're a parasite too.
Please show me where I attacked you personally. So far you've called me a parasite.
Ahh fuck it I'll try.
Your mind. You are aware of it, no?
You can notice my memory is not as good as it used to be. My thinking is now sharper. Etc.
So something in you has an ability to perceive thoughts. Yet in rare moments when you have no thoughts you are still present.
Are you permanent or transient? Are you what appears and disappears or what sees that?
Your mind. You are aware of it, no?
You can notice my memory is not as good as it used to be. My thinking is now sharper. Etc.
So something in you has an ability to perceive thoughts. Yet in rare moments when you have no thoughts you are still present.
Are you permanent or transient? Are you what appears and disappears or what sees that?
Absence of rulers.
But hey, you tried. You should be proud of that.
LOL. It's good to be on the receiving end.
I am not a parasite. I don't endorse violence against peaceful people. I don't try to live at the expense of other people. You explicitly argue for violence and living at the expense of peaceful individuals.
I don't even have to make the argument, you are making the argument for me!
Actually, I am a net tax contributor.
And by your reasoning, slaves endorsed slavery because their masters fed them.
We're both stuck in a system of violence, but our attitudes and behaviors towards it couldn't be more different. You think violence is good. I think it is bad.
Even if I was getting from the state, I want it to end. You want to keep it going. That's the difference between us.
What would you call someone who lives at the expense of others, and endorses violence against innocent people?
Believe me, you got off easy with parasite.
It is easy for you to talk about equality when you're willfully and happily living off of other people.
Johnny, why can't you reject violence? That's all it takes to be an anarchist.
Reject the initiation of force (aggression) against peaceful people.
Why can you not hold that value, and match up your other values with it?
What is stopping you?
I don't understand why you guys get so worked up, and go to such great lengths, to defend being sociopaths. I really don't. Anarchism is a no brainer. Unless you're worried about who will build roads. In that case, you need to learn some economics.
But really, you guys say we need the state due to some higher moral values, or that salvation can come through the state (vote turd party derp derp derp) but when it comes down to it, how good are your moral values if you have to hurt people in order to help people?
Reject the initiation of force (aggression) against peaceful people.
Why can you not hold that value, and match up your other values with it?
What is stopping you?
I don't understand why you guys get so worked up, and go to such great lengths, to defend being sociopaths. I really don't. Anarchism is a no brainer. Unless you're worried about who will build roads. In that case, you need to learn some economics.
But really, you guys say we need the state due to some higher moral values, or that salvation can come through the state (vote turd party derp derp derp) but when it comes down to it, how good are your moral values if you have to hurt people in order to help people?
Ppl have been conditioned to believe in their animal nature and they think violence is natural... but see awareness in johnny or whoever is no diff from you or me. Just more BS believes.
Sure. And they will kill someone before they question their conditioning.
That's how Nazi soldiers were able to kill Jews.
Or Russians were able to starve the Ukrainians.
Or the Maoists were able to conduct a pogrom against their own people.
Or Yankees could kill Confederates and likewise.
Or post-revolutionary Americans could slaughter Native Indians.
The refusal to examine and square beliefs (at the very least with other held beliefs) can be incredibly dangerous.
Jamming an ideology down someone’s throat never works. That’s why the KGB relied on a slow process of subverting the impressional youth in the US in the days of communism.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g"]Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete) - YouTube[/ame]
Anarchism has been demonized and misrepresented by propagandists for obvious reasons: it’s a threat to ALL those in power and endowed with the resources to spread propaganda. People need to do some serious self-deprogramming to even read up on anarchism let alone consider its validity. Additionally it requires imagination to consider it because it is so different than what we’re accustomed to.
So while I agree with those that recognize anarchism has everything stacked against it, I don’t believe this automatically makes it a bad idea.
OP is indeed a gigantic faggot. However, I sort of agree with him. It wouldn't work unless you had small groups of people who all know each other and were probably of the same race living together. You fucking turn anarchy loose on someplace like NYC and you're going to have a real, REAL, bad time.
Actually, that wouldn't be my argument at all.. my argument would be that women do not have testosterone. Another fact...but through the progression of society enabled by our desire to form packs and pick leaders they've been able to move up in the food chain, so to speak.
To clarify, I'm not really speaking for one side or the other, just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I'm fairly open to most anything, and trust me, I'm certainly not a statist. I just can't help but note the natural instincts of man, proven by thousands of years of behavior.
Guerilla your form of arguing is really weak. Whenever anybody speaks against anarchy you every time make the case "You have no morals and love violence against innocent people."
Of course I don't want violence against innocent people and I'm sure most people here feel the same way. The entire point of a government is to work as a collective to weed out unnecessary violence (via police and military). Just because a government doesn't function perfectly does not mean the entire concept of government is immoral (OPT OUT...because that is repeatedly ignored from my arguments).
It just so happens that governments are better for managing massive groups of people. In anarchy you say free trade reigns king and helps the collective society prosper. What do you think taxes are? You are trading your work (dollars) for services to make your life easier. And I'll mention it again: a better government would exist if you were allowed to choose what programs you paid taxes into. This way, popular programs would survive and be profitable from the government and unpopular ones would lose revenue and eventually die into the private marketplace.
It was said before, and I said it in my first post...anarchy is how we ran societies until we learned how to run societies. When dealing with huge groups of people, centralization isn't a bad thing. Like anything else, there are good and poor ways to do it. Also mentioned here, anarchist pockets exist all over the world and you are free to go join them and trade sticks for stones. The rest of us will use a much more efficient way of trading...money. Centralized money from governments.
inb4 "But broooo, look at governments around the world, they're fucking bad mannnnn! They want violence against you mannn!" Ok bro, can you at least point me to some large anarchist societies that function better?
Oh and btw guerilla using WF as an example of functional anarchy is fucking awful. For one, it's an internet marketing forum (with a ruler) and not a society of hundreds of millions of people. Actually, yeah that about covers it. Horrible example.
Of course I don't want violence against innocent people and I'm sure most people here feel the same way. The entire point of a government is to work as a collective to weed out unnecessary violence (via police and military). Just because a government doesn't function perfectly does not mean the entire concept of government is immoral (OPT OUT...because that is repeatedly ignored from my arguments).
It just so happens that governments are better for managing massive groups of people. In anarchy you say free trade reigns king and helps the collective society prosper. What do you think taxes are? You are trading your work (dollars) for services to make your life easier. And I'll mention it again: a better government would exist if you were allowed to choose what programs you paid taxes into. This way, popular programs would survive and be profitable from the government and unpopular ones would lose revenue and eventually die into the private marketplace.
It was said before, and I said it in my first post...anarchy is how we ran societies until we learned how to run societies. When dealing with huge groups of people, centralization isn't a bad thing. Like anything else, there are good and poor ways to do it. Also mentioned here, anarchist pockets exist all over the world and you are free to go join them and trade sticks for stones. The rest of us will use a much more efficient way of trading...money. Centralized money from governments.
inb4 "But broooo, look at governments around the world, they're fucking bad mannnnn! They want violence against you mannn!" Ok bro, can you at least point me to some large anarchist societies that function better?
Oh and btw guerilla using WF as an example of functional anarchy is fucking awful. For one, it's an internet marketing forum (with a ruler) and not a society of hundreds of millions of people. Actually, yeah that about covers it. Horrible example.
Not going to lie, it looks like you're from the UK so you're a gaylord by default. Nice teeth fag.