Kill the Politics forum

[tehcodez]

Awww did I hurt your fewwwings? I'm sorry, dear.

I am patron...of the "it's the 21st century I'm sorry I'm not the most PC." Can't help if I use the superlatives with those who seem like they need them.

Call me a dick, or a prick, or a mofo (with or without uplift party plan). Rolls of my non-virtual shoulders....because I try not to get insulted by darkened pixels.

Who's offended? Or insulted? It was hilarious. Still didn't top Whorish Oriental Despot though

Lemonginger. Not you...cheerio from lectern.

I'd agree...my once-over just gives levity to (all politics or nothing). At least you have a sense of humor...like a cat who's caught a mouse, after eating a nice medium ribeye.

[passerby]

What I am mildly amused by is this peculiar territorial response in a virtual medium.

This is our fatherland subforum, historically we lived here like we like and we shall not move to a different plot of land new medium, even if it is greener richer, better connected and has blackjack and hookers has more forgiving moderation, more welcoming to our viewpoints, etc.

We shall stand our ground! Close the ranks! 

It's remarkably common, and yet it is a human response that utterly baffles me...

[NghtRppr]

What kind of crazy business owner is going to link their business to a site and brand that advocates tax evasion and the overthrow of the government?

First of all, I would never advocate the breaking the law. I advocate abolishing it. Second of all, overthrowing governments is what the United States of America was founded on. It's pretty amazing to me how one can be considered a "radical" or "extremist" just by advocating values that this country is based on. Have you really never heard of the American Revolution or read the Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We overthrew the colonial English government and created a new government based on our own ideals. Somehow people should be freaked out when we suggest that it might be time to do that again? It's depressing that we've grown so far apart from our roots. The words in bold mean that we grant authority to the government, not the other way around, and if we don't like what they do with the authority we give them, it's our right to revoke it.

[Jack of Diamonds]

Anarchists are mostly of average intelligence, have achieved nothing of significance, but have compulsions about every other living being in the world being 'cattle' or 'masses'.

If you liked anarchy or anarcho-capitalism so much as to make it a reality, then you would already be in Somalia or Afghanistan where no government has any real influence in anything, including taxation.


Then you'd have to realize that all power instantly falls in the hands of the clan or warlord with the most firearms and ammunition so it doesn't really fit your utopia & you get nervous when you realize you need protection in numbers or you will be exploited or killed.

There. You *need* other people and organization to survive, unless you're planning to be a self-sustaining hermit on the North Pole.
Even then, you're fucked if you need medical care/run out of food/get stuck in 20ft of snow.

[NghtRppr]

Anarchists are mostly of average intelligence, have achieved nothing of significance, but have compulsions about every other living being in the world being 'cattle' or 'masses'.

Citation needed.

If you liked anarchy or anarcho-capitalism so much as to make it a reality, then you would already be in Somalia or Afghanistan where no government has any real influence in anything, including taxation.

A failed state is not the same as no state.

You *need* other people and organization to survive.

I'm not against organization. I'm against aggression. If you think that you need to use aggression against others to protect them from aggression, you need to reevaluate your logic.

If you have sex with 1,001 people and 1,000 consent but 1 does not, you're a rapist. If you take money from 1,001 people and 1,000 consent but 1 does not, you're a thief.

You accuse anarchists of being Utopians but it's you that is being unrealistic if you really think that people can't govern themselves but somehow will be able to govern others.

[passerby]

Anarchists are mostly of average intelligence, have achieved nothing of significance, but have compulsions about every other living being in the world being 'cattle' or 'masses'.

If you liked anarchy or anarcho-capitalism so much as to make it a reality, then you would already be in Somalia or Afghanistan where no government has any real influence in anything, including taxation.


Then you'd have to realize that all power instantly falls in the hands of the clan or warlord with the most firearms and ammunition so it doesn't really fit your utopia & you get nervous when you realize you need protection in numbers or you will be exploited or killed.

There. You *need* other people and organization to survive, unless you're planning to be a self-sustaining hermit on the North Pole.
Even then, you're fucked if you need medical care/run out of food/get stuck in 20ft of snow.

*dons MOPP gear*

*backs out of thread, slowly*

[wumpus]

Oh the irony, this thread is now being hijacked with exactly the kind of troll-inviting discussion that it was complaining about

[Babylon]

Anarchists are mostly of average intelligence, have achieved nothing of significance, but have compulsions about every other living being in the world being 'cattle' or 'masses'.

If you liked anarchy or anarcho-capitalism so much as to make it a reality, then you would already be in Somalia or Afghanistan where no government has any real influence in anything, including taxation.


Then you'd have to realize that all power instantly falls in the hands of the clan or warlord with the most firearms and ammunition so it doesn't really fit your utopia & you get nervous when you realize you need protection in numbers or you will be exploited or killed.

There. You *need* other people and organization to survive, unless you're planning to be a self-sustaining hermit on the North Pole.
Even then, you're fucked if you need medical care/run out of food/get stuck in 20ft of snow.

If I had tribal connections I'd be in Afghanistan.  This is a society that has sucessfully defeated every world power everywhere.  Without any real central government.  They are the evidence that anarchy can be militarially superior.

[tehcodez]

Oh the irony, this thread is now being hijacked with exactly the kind of troll-inviting discussion that it was complaining about

So, you're the troll doing the 'jacking. Nice...

Must be a pro from all that 'jacking you do elsewhere.

[Jack of Diamonds]

If I had tribal connections I'd be in Afghanistan.  This is a society that has sucessfully defeated every world power everywhere.  Without any real central government.  They are the evidence that anarchy can be militarially superior.

But it's not a real anarchy like idealists see it.

They use very harsh sharia discipline based on the Quran. The women have practically no rights. They don't even allow ordinary Afghans to listen to music.
http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm

What kind of anarchy is it when the group with the most guns tells you what you can do & what you can't do under threat of violence?

As you see, all power ultimately comes from violence and coercion.

[passerby]

What kind of anarchy is it when the group with the most guns tells you what you can do & what you can't do under threat of violence?

Boring one?

Also, whether Afghanis have "defeated" every military power throughout history depends on your definition of "defeat".

Edit
And yes, this thread lends indisputable evidence to the hypothesis that political discussions have to be airgapped from the rest of the project

[NghtRppr]

What kind of anarchy is it when the group with the most guns tells you what you can do & what you can't do under threat of violence?

As you see, all power ultimately comes from violence and coercion.

Most people don't want violence in their daily lives, just want to be left alone and are basically decent human beings when they know other people are watching. That being the case, the majority of people can easily defend themselves against a violent minority that don't care who knows they're murdering thieves.

You're right that authority grows from the barrel of a gun which is why we need to make sure that most of us decent folks that don't want constant violence, don't want to harass others and don't want to kill and steal, are well enough armed and organized to keep the minority at bay. That kind of power is simply self-defense and if you think that self-defense is morally wrong then you might as well just lay down and wait to die.

this thread lends indisputable evidence to the hypothesis that political discussions have to be airgapped from the rest of the project

I think it's evidence that the kind of crowd that's interested in Bitcoin has strong opinions about politics and therefore political debate is inevitable. Therefore, it makes more sense to give it a place to happen rather than having it sprinkled all over the forum. A moderator can now come along and split the thread, moving the political debate posts to the proper section. That's pretty much why the politics section got started in the first place.

[passerby]

I think it's evidence that the kind of crowd that's interested in Bitcoin has strong opinions about politics and therefore political debate is inevitable. Therefore, it makes more sense to give it a place to happen rather than having it sprinkled all over the forum. A moderator can now come along and split the thread, moving the political debate posts to the proper section. That's pretty much why the politics section got started in the first place.

Perhaps the crowd could be kindly informed that there is a different location outside the bonds of bitcoin.org domain that is more suited to this kind of discussion?

Like, a HUGE HONKING BANNER saying that these forums are for project technical discussion and tech support (incl merchant support), accompanied by HUGE HONKING LINK to a site which is not directly affiliated with bitcoin per se and is willing to support exactly this kind of discourse due to having a strong incentive to maintain niche appeal of a certain "anarchist-ish" type?

[tehcodez]

Over 9000

[JA37]

A failed state is not the same as no state.

Please explain the difference to me. I'd love to hear it.
A state that doesn't intervene because it can't or because it doesn't exist is the same I'd say. The end result is no intervention. So you should really go there, it does sound like the utopia you want.
Or don't. I have a feeling it wouldn't be beneficial to your health and longevity.

[NghtRppr]

I think it's evidence that the kind of crowd that's interested in Bitcoin has strong opinions about politics and therefore political debate is inevitable. Therefore, it makes more sense to give it a place to happen rather than having it sprinkled all over the forum. A moderator can now come along and split the thread, moving the political debate posts to the proper section. That's pretty much why the politics section got started in the first place.

Perhaps the crowd could be kindly informed that there is a different location outside the bonds of bitcoin.org domain that is more suited to this kind of discussion?

Like, a HUGE HONKING BANNER saying that these forums are for project technical discussion and tech support (incl merchant support), accompanied by HUGE HONKING LINK to a site which is not directly affiliated with bitcoin per se and is willing to support exactly this kind of discourse due to having a strong incentive to maintain niche appeal of a certain "anarchist-ish" type?

Good luck with that.

A failed state is not the same as no state.

Please explain the difference to me. I'd love to hear it.

There's no precise definition but basically, a failed state is characterized by political and economic failure. A non-state isn't necessarily characterized by those things. What Libertarians desire is a society not based on statism but with a thriving political and economic system that is entirely voluntary.

Getting back on topic...

I got some fellow small business owners interested enough to check out, first they could not post or ask any questions (awesome move that), then once they dug around the tax evasion and "lets overthrow the government" derp scared them off.

They don't sound like very smart business owners. If they were then they'd follow the money and ignore the rest. Doesn't sound like a huge loss here.

[JohnDoe]

Elimination of Econ subforum is totally uncalled for.

You may be right. I skimmed through some pages of the econ forum and it does have some useful stuff that wouldn't fit in any other subforum. Though it should be purged from anarchist thought that would scare businesses away.

[Babylon]

What kind of anarchy is it when the group with the most guns tells you what you can do & what you can't do under threat of violence?

Boring one?

Also, whether Afghanis have "defeated" every military power throughout history depends on your definition of "defeat".

Edit
And yes, this thread lends indisputable evidence to the hypothesis that political discussions have to be airgapped from the rest of the project

well, what is happening in this thread would happen a lot more without a political ghetto to stick the debates in.

Afghans drove out every major world power.  The Romans, The Greeks, the Russians,  they are still working on us, but my money is on them.

As far as their fairly oppressive social contract that is what they choose, it is not being forced on them by anyone.  It may have been forced on them by the Taliban for a while, but that is no longer the case.  They have a choice in judges and they tend to choose Taliban because that is line with their social values.

[TradersEdgeDice]

This thread is over.

Let me sum it up:

Free speech is important.

Simple Machines Forum sucks rhinoceros balls.

There is a technical solution to stated objections.

A political ghetto is an important part of keeping the insanity contained. Search engine robots should be denied access to the ghetto.

User levels and forum access need to be more granular.

Merchants need a subforum.

The code needs cleanup.

We have seen the enemy and it is us.

Anything else?

[Chris Acheson]

Anything else?

Move lively forum full of colorful characters to its own domain.  Stress that it is unofficial and not affiliated with the developers of the Bitcoin client.  Set up dedicated user support forum (at weusecoins?), restrict discussion to just that.  Colorful characters get to do their own thing on unofficial/political/seedy forum without scaring the squares away from using bitcoins.