If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[ktttn]

^ Cherry-picked quotes from favoured figures of authority = 

I'd point out that Dr. Paul agrees with my understanding of freedom. Mayor Giuliani seems to be more in your camp.

Nope. "Freedom or slavery, Democrat or Republican -- pick one or the other." That's what you keep saying.

Find an actual quote where I say anything of the sort.

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

Your ultimately correct but greviously miscommunicated clutching onto invalid, absolutist, inapplicable sociopolitical definitions is showing.

[1714108362]

1714108362

[myrkul]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

[wdmw]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

The term capitalism, in its modern sense, comes from the writings of Karl Marx. In the 20th century defenders of the capitalist system often replaced the terms capitalism with phrases such as free enterprise and private enterprise and capitalist with investor or rentier in reaction to the negative connotations sometimes associated with capitalism.

I have no problem with using the word Free-Enterprise if you have 'trigger alert' issues with the word Capitalism.

[ktttn]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

The politics of holyshit I just cut my hand on a bottle - Johnny hobo and the freight trains

He talks revolution for an hour without using any verbs. She acts the rage which is most of her problem. In love with everyone until she wakes up tomorrow. Another Saturday night. Another fucking shitty Saturday night. I'm spinning in the next room. Slurring along to my isolation At the top of my lungs. I'm sitting here next to you. Sore throat from jokes about all the dumbest things I've done. I don't want to be anywhere at all. Here or at my house kicking at the wall. If home is where the heart is Then I live in my upper chest. I'm gonna drink until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer. I'm gonna drink tonight until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer. The bottles are stacked like they show how we're different. And that maybe if we were sober we could explain what this all meant. But pints of Vodka don't write poetry. You can't rearrange crushed pills into melodies. But I swear to fuck; That a brick through a broken Starbucks window means more. And I swear to fuck; That we fight more systems when we're passed out on the floor. Than the words of Kurt Vonnegut ever could. And all the works of Karl Marx ever fucking could. I'm puking in the next room. Sorry about the carpet, Clean it up or your mom'll be mad. I'm pretending that I'm too good for you. So you can't see the worthless pathetic person I am. Better to seem like an asshole, Than what you are. The billionth teenage boy with social problems To plays the guitar. I'm not sure what I want you to say to me. But I know the look on your face that I want to see. If home is where the heart is Then mine is a cigarette. I'm gonna drink until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer. I'm gonna drink tonight until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer. I'm not you and that's good enough for me. The only word that I use is fuck, So you can forget the dictionar[. I can't tell what question you're asking. I don't care 'cause no is my answer.
Another Saturday night. I kissed everything on a Saturday night. I'm bleeding in the next room. happen 'cause maybe the blood-loss will add to my high I'm here beating up on you. e I'm just drunk enough to be sure that I'm ready to die I don't care that you don't care that I don't care. The only card game I know is strip solitaire. If home is where the heart is Then I got evicted this week. I'm gonna drink until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer. I'm gonna drink tonight until these tears Start to taste like the cheap beer.
2angsty4u?
Umadbro?
Inb4 tl;dr.

[myrkul]

I'm assuming the bold part was the actual answer?
"So you can forget the [dictionary]. I can't tell what question you're asking. I don't care 'cause no is my answer. "?

I'm afraid "no" isn't a valid answer to that question. If you need me to repeat it, I can. Or you can admit that you would like me to use the standard English definitions for the words I use in my sentences, so we can communicate. I suppose there is a third option. You can continue to troll this thread and waste everyone's time.

[Biomech]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

Nah. Glock ain't got enough recoil to hurt your elbow unless you're really small, and watermelons don't go well with macaroni. At least in my experience.


Sorry, dude, I had to. 

[myrkul]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

Nah. Glock ain't got enough recoil to hurt your elbow unless you're really small, and watermelons don't go well with macaroni. At least in my experience.

Why can't anyone understand what I'm saying? That answer makes no sense, using the definitions of the words I have decided on!

I guess I will just have to explain them to you, since nobody gets the meanings I chose.
"Glock" is an interrogatory, indicating that the speaker desires to know the reason for the specified actions.
"elbow" is a verb, meaning take the trouble to do something.
"watermelon" is a preposition, used in conjunction with "elbow" to indicate the subject of the sentence.
"Chinese" is a noun, and the first part of the subject of my question, denoting the language we are currently using.
"macaroni" is a plural noun, and the second part of the subject of my question, indicating the single distinct meaningful elements of speech or writing.
"chicken" is an adverb, used in this case to mean "since that is so." It modifies "elbow."
So, I ask again, if you're going to pick out of thin air the meaning of the words you use, glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

[Biomech]

Glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Roughly translated,
"Imtrolololllinandnobodycanstopme.exe"

No, I'm asking you a legitimate question. Respond to it, if you would please. Or, admit you can't understand the question because I've made up definitions of the words I used to suit my own desires, and thus ruined any possibility of communicating.

Nah. Glock ain't got enough recoil to hurt your elbow unless you're really small, and watermelons don't go well with macaroni. At least in my experience.

Why can't anyone understand what I'm saying? That answer makes no sense, using the definitions of the words I have decided on!

I guess I will just have to explain them to you, since nobody gets the meanings I chose.
"Glock" is an interrogatory, indicating that the speaker desires to know the reason for the specified actions.
"elbow" is a verb, meaning take the trouble to do something.
"watermelon" is a preposition, used in conjunction with "elbow" to indicate the subject of the sentence.
"Chinese" is a noun, and the first part of the subject of my question, denoting the language we are currently using.
"macaroni" is a plural noun, and the second part of the subject of my question, indicating the single distinct meaningful elements of speech or writing.
"chicken" is an adverb, used in this case to mean "since that is so." It modifies "elbow."
So, I ask again, if you're going to pick out of thin air the meaning of the words you use, glock elbow watermelon Chinese macaroni chicken?

Actually, my reply was intended to make your point more than anything else. Since it was arbitrary, I cherry picked. Mostly for lolz.

[myrkul]

Actually, my reply was intended to make your point more than anything else. Since it was arbitrary, I cherry picked. Mostly for lolz.

I know, and I chose to use that as a springboard for a rant, and to further make my point.  It's nothing against you personally.

[ktttn]

I'm assuming the bold part was the actual answer?
"So you can forget the [dictionary]. I can't tell what question you're asking. I don't care 'cause no is my answer. "?

I'm afraid "no" isn't a valid answer to that question. If you need me to repeat it, I can. Or you can admit that you would like me to use the standard English definitions for the words I use in my sentences, so we can communicate. I suppose there is a third option. You can continue to troll this thread and waste everyone's time.

I guess Ron and Rudy get to define Freedom in Standard English, then.
I pick 3.
No is to reject your sentence's purpose, which was to bring language's subjective fluidity into a mode of uselessness, parodying the concept that any meaning beyond the meaning you need is wrong.
You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Capitalism is collectivism. Anarchy is the self-sufficiency of a blood-community and therefore the absence of economic interaction with outsiders.

You seem to have some definitional issues. Let me fix that:

an·ar·chy 
/ˈanərkē/
Noun
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

cap·i·tal·ism 
/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.
I like metadiscussions. Its like zooming into something.

[myrkul]

You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:

free·dom 
/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

This can be "distilled" down to a very simple phrase: "absence of coercion."

an·ar·chy 
/ˈanərkē/
Noun
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

cap·i·tal·ism 
/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual.

[Biomech]

You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works.

Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years:

free·dom 
/ˈfrēdəm/
Noun

• The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
• Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

This can be "distilled" down to a very simple phrase: "absence of coercion."

an·ar·chy 
/ˈanərkē/
Noun
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

cap·i·tal·ism 
/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.

Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism."

"Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual..

I agree with this. For a while on YouTube I used the term market anarchist, but it doesn't convey the meaning nearly as well. Besides, I got tired of trying to please people rather than making my point.

But back to the title question, there have been several anarchic or nearly such societies in history. Three I can think of off the top of my head. Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and surprisingly, given my experience living here, Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth.

However, lack of full historical precedent is a pretty weak argument as to whether or not it should be tried. I am on a mobile device @ the moment, but when I have a proper keyboard I am going to start a thread on that very subject.

[myrkul]

But back to the title question, there have been several anarchic or nearly such societies in history. Three I can think of off the top of my head. Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and surprisingly, given my experience living here, Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania was full anarchy. The only difference (and what allowed it to be taken over) is that the Quakers were full-on pacifists, rather than the "porcupine pacifist" of a N.A.P. respecting anarchy.

[MoonShadow]

But back to the title question, there have been several anarchic or nearly such societies in history. Three I can think of off the top of my head. Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and surprisingly, given my experience living here, Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania was full anarchy. The only difference (and what allowed it to be taken over) is that the Quakers were full-on pacifists, rather than the "porcupine pacifist" of a N.A.P. respecting anarchy.

That's not the only thing that led to the downfall, there was a lot of religious bigotry that resulted in civil strife.  An irony, considering the main reason why most of the early settlers were escaping religious bigotry in Europe.

[Biomech]

But back to the title question, there have been several anarchic or nearly such societies in history. Three I can think of off the top of my head. Medieval Iceland and Ireland, and surprisingly, given my experience living here, Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania was full anarchy. The only difference (and what allowed it to be taken over) is that the Quakers were full-on pacifists, rather than the "porcupine pacifist" of a N.A.P. respecting anarchy.

Yeah. Now its a nearly perfect example of the end result of a collectivist society. Like the Borg, without the intellect. I am so glad to be LEAVING!!!

[MarximusMG]

This is awesome! Thanks for posting this!

[myrkul]

^ Cherry-picked quotes from favoured figures of authority = 

I'd point out that Dr. Paul agrees with my understanding of freedom. Mayor Giuliani seems to be more in your camp.

Nope. "Freedom or slavery, Democrat or Republican -- pick one or the other." That's what you keep saying.

Find an actual quote where I say anything of the sort.

OK.

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You have a very limited world-view.

Right back to where I started.
While you don't literally ask people to choose between freedom and slavery, your various posts such as that one, convey the message that you're stuck with an insatiable freedom-lust. The blue team keeps winning, but you want the red team! You never seem to ask yourself: "why do I want this 'freedom' so badly anyway? It's not a tangible item, it's just a made-up concept that all my favourite authors/politicians seem to use in order to convince me that I'm a 'slave' and manipulate me into supporting some philanthropic cause of theirs." You're not thinking outside the square.

Do try and keep in mind that that quoe was in response to this:

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

It was his claim that only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression, not mine.

[Biomech]

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

Only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression.

Do those two statements look the same to you?


Don't forget, what you actually said was:

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You're doing interpretive acrobatics, and then go round telling others about using dictionary definitions.


And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

There isn't. That doesn't make it an unworthy goal.

[myrkul]

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

Only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression.

Do those two statements look the same to you?

They're not word for word, if that's what you mean. But they convey the same meaning.

Don't forget, what you actually said was:

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You're doing interpretive acrobatics, and then go round telling others about using dictionary definitions.


And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

So, there is no way for anyone to be completely free from coercion, so I should stop fighting it, huh?

Well, no matter what you do, people are still going to rob, rape and murder. Should we, therefore, accept these actions? Just shrug and say, "Well, it happens," when a crime is committed?

[ktttn]

Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.

Only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression.

Do those two statements look the same to you?

They're not word for word, if that's what you mean. But they convey the same meaning.

Don't forget, what you actually said was:

So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?

You're doing interpretive acrobatics, and then go round telling others about using dictionary definitions.


And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"?
Hahahaha!

So, there is no way for anyone to be completely free from coercion, so I should stop fighting it, huh?

Well, no matter what you do, people are still going to rob, rape and murder. Should we, therefore, accept these actions? Just shrug and say, "Well, it happens," when a crime is committed?

Fightting it? Why dont you go plant a garden, Batman?