lefties righties

[Lethn]

Feudalism is not Anarchism, as I thought, people who complain about Anarchism don't even seem to know what it actually is, Feudalism is something else entirely and is based on an Aristocracy ruling over a region which completely goes against what Anarchism is.

[MineForeman.com]

Feudalism is something else entirely and is based on an Aristocracy ruling over a region

No it's not.  READ the link, it is in the first paragraph.

[Lethn]

Feudalism is a grouping of legal and military customs, prevalent in medieval Europe, which flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, or any similar grouping of legal and military customs. Simply defined, it was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.

In Feudalism lords would give land over to people who would swear loyalty to them, that is not Anarchism, stop trying to pretend it is, nevermind the fact that the system you're describing has a completely different word associated with it which you chose to ignore as well.

[MineForeman.com]

that is not Anarchism, stop trying to pretend it is

Where did I say it was?  Anarchism has only come in with your last two posts, I never mentioned it.

You asked for a historical example of what I was saying.

Stop attributing things you think to what I say.

[MineForeman.com]

I assume, and I'm sure you agree ( ) that society only existed at the time thanks to the government. After all, your entire argument is that society doesn't exist without government. (Certainly we need society to build roads...?)

Sort of, I think it is backwards of what you're saying.  I think society makes government, sometimes they are not happy with the results though.

It does not mean that all government has to be bad though, it just means we need to try again.  Even Anarchism is a form of governance, just one that I don't believe will work.  (Just my opinion though, the limited historical evidence we have turned out nasty).

[Lethn]

It has been tried, it does not work.  Those times froze human progress for close to 600 years.

You claimed Anarchism does not work and has been tried, then you posted Feudalism as an example, or are you saying that's not what you meant at all?

[MineForeman.com]

It has been tried, it does not work.  Those times froze human progress for close to 600 years.

You claimed Anarchism does not work and has been tried, then you posted Feudalism as an example, or are you saying that's not what you meant at all?

Where did I say Anarchism?  I said what your talking about sounds like feudalism.

READ MY WORDS!

[Lethn]

Well maybe you need to be more clearer then and no it's not like Feudalism at all, I never said anything about Lordships lol.

[MineForeman.com]

Well maybe you need to be more clearer then and no it's not like Feudalism at all, I never said anything about Lordships lol.

Feudalism isn't about lords either, it is the state where the power of a populous goes to the landholders by default because they hold all the cards.  I think Anarchism will probably evolve along the same lines after too long.

[Lethn]

Yeah, that's just your opinion, that doesn't mean it's actually happened, I had originally asked for examples so all you're doing is making a statement about it and then expecting people to accept that.

[MineForeman.com]

Hmm... we aren't as different as I would have believed from earlier in this thread.

Probably not, but for some reason people around here think that people with more moderate views are deluded, stupid and just generally wrong.

Yet, I am under the impression that government is inherently bad. It's very nature attracts those who strive to rule over others. I did hear of a form of government where the leaders are chosen at random (and for a short time). I'm interested in seeing how that would work out.

It is indeed going to be interesting times.  What we are doing now is obviously not working and it seems to be about to crash down around our ears.

Stuff like this has happened before though so we have plenty of "case studies" to learn from.

I wouldn't say that anarchy is a form of government. After all, it literally means "no ruler". As I just stated in another thread, that doesn't necessarily mean "no rules". Bitcoin, for example, has no ruler, but it most certainly has rules. The word govern seems to convey some kind of authority over another which is incompatible with anarchy.

It's a form of governance, it may not actually have people up the top but it fits the bill.  It usually ends up in the strongest bully taking over, but like I say, it could be different this time compared to the umpteen other times it has happened.  I just don't think so.

[MineForeman.com]

Yeah, that's just your opinion, that doesn't mean it's actually happened, I had originally asked for examples so all you're doing is making a statement about it and then expecting people to accept that.

Giving up on you, you're dumb.

[romerun]

I'd like to jerk off with my left hand

[daoneway]

hayek put it this way:


people who want a planned economie become the biggest threat to the planned economie of others.


so why instead not have a more or less free economie, you just enforce property rights you have the complete authority to have socialism inside of your own system it just have to operate within the framework (constitution) thats the body within congress and president have to operate in.

so that for example exxon, general motors, schools are privatly run (without ANY government interference expect the written framework)
they couldnt have "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" which make google dropbox microsoft spying on us but instead make the illegal thing legal and deal with the new business models that develop and not have the government make corrps monopolized by enforcing rules who centralize everything by federal interference.

same with drug laws why not let the free market develop ways to deal with rap poison in drugs.

for example having something like silkroad where you know if your seller is an asshole or not and have reviews, could be the same with a store that is regulated by some company that everyone agrees that controls then nicely and they put they certificate on it so it protects the consumer.

and they run a in a competetive market so when they make shit, there will b another company runnning 1000 ads blaming them for what they have done and everyone will question them and they have to facethe consequence because there will be no goverment monopoly that will keep them im place


+

the roads thing you were talking about:

why does it contradict to have privatly run roads?   if we all pay for them, and all want them, it would be just the same.


i think like some said here: its not all black and white. you think a mix of both is the best. but i argue:

private corrps + government combined = total control (federal reserve)

[Rayban34]

Let me help you out with that OP. Here is a 4-way political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test



I score at the far bottom left, as an anarcho-socialist. I believe firmly that human beings are neuro-biologically wired for empathy, and that selfishness and competition are culturally imbued values.

If you want to see evidence for that assertion, you need only tune your TV to any American (un)"reality" show. Contrast that culture against the emotional openness of very young children or indigenous tribes.

Yikes,

I'm far bottom left too!

Guess I'm with you in this one. To be honest, if I had a zillion dollars like these other world controllers - I would donate most of it to progressive thinking charities that do good in their communities. In fact I would probably only keep a small amount to myself so that I could live peacefully.

[daoneway]

pretty even

[DhaniBoy]

I prefer the free market, because there is still no justice lies in the trade, who's trying diligently then he will get the result. while the socialist system put forward for the average, between really tried with less trying his same position, so there is no principle of justice which is applied here, hopefully there is another system that is better than both of these systems ... 

[Balthazar]

Both?

Free market is good in some sectors, socialism in others. Mix of those is best for most, extreme of either to a few (those who have power).

It's actually always a hybrid. Many of liberal states have lists of socially important goods with State controlled prices. There are also such things as antimonopoly committee etc.

"Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity".

- Deng Xiaoping in 1984

[QuestionAuthority]

I'd like to jerk off with my left hand

TMI dude. ROFL

[nsimmons]

But who will start the wars?

http://www.autofixinfo.com/kcIzAHoWWljDaD/Questions-for-Statists.html