Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread

[Erdogan]

It's one thing to say "I believe in smaller government, or more localized government." It's quite another to say "fuck government and who needs roads!"

Indeed.

I think if most anarchists ever got the government they dreamed of they'd be penniless, starving or dead after the local band of marauders came through.

How do we want a society with no rulers to be? Unfair question, we don't know, and we don't want to know in advance, because that would be exactly what we do not want: a society planned by some rulers.

It is not to be done by a revolution. Just try with user payment, freedom, when a balance is found, sell it off. No school system can exist totally without user payment and with total regulation. The same goes for health care, roads and whatever. Just relax on the use of force, man, see what happens.

[findftp]

Fair enough, saying I'm an adult should be enough.

You're ducking his real point and you know you're doing it.

It makes no difference if you're 16 or 60,

thank you

the question is have you ever seen human brutality from anywhere outside of a computer screen? Have you ever witnessed it, experienced what it's like to be there, to be a victim of it? Because if you can't, then you really have no earthly idea how you would actually respond in that situation.

I've had some experiences with human brutality:
Witness of murder.
Witness of rape.
train suicide by brother.

It could always be worse, but I think my share is above average.

What are your experiences?

[Erdogan]

Do any of you statists even know what anarchy is? You all seem to be using the late 20th century propagandised definition for some reason.

Anarchy: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

You forgot the human rights, which would reduce the absolute freedom of others, the right to self defense, the right to association, and the fact that people like to interact and have a productive society with rules.

[Erdogan]

It is quite sad this whole discussion about which human should rule us, while the underlying question is ignored.

The underlying question, a question asked over 6000 years ago by the devil himself, should man govern themselves, instead go having god rule over us?

God then allowed humankind to govern themselves under satan, to prove a point, that point has been proven time and time again, a human leading over other humans will only cause pain, injustice and suffering.

The only one fit to rule is god, choosing anyone else to rule you results in joining the government of the devil, and it off course will lead to suffering.

Don't be stupid and choose for the kingdom of god, there's no other viable option.

Anarchists are somewhat right in the way they are saying a human government is unneccesary/evil but they forget that a form of government is eventually needed to prevent total chaos, thus, even anarchy is wrong. Become a citizen of gods kingdom and reap the benefits of a truly benevolent king who only wants what's best for you, one with both the power, wisdom and will to improve this world, who actually prevents dead and disease, and does not wage war. This kingdom will come, make sure you're part of it.

The answer to the question asked millennia ago will be closed soon, and all human government will be wiped from the earth and replaced with the kingdom of god. This is the essence of the bibles prophecies. This is what Jesus was all about.

But the problem arises when you entrust someone to speak gods word, interprete his laws and let him enforce that law with violence. Make sure you speak directly to god himself, and you are good to go. It is a possible definition of anarchy.

[Elwar]

[octaft]

How do we want a society with no rulers to be? Unfair question, we don't know, and we don't want to know in advance, because that would be exactly what we do not want: a society planned by some rulers.

It is not to be done by a revolution. Just try with user payment, freedom, when a balance is found, sell it off. No school system can exist totally without user payment and with total regulation. The same goes for health care, roads and whatever. Just relax on the use of force, man, see what happens.

As I said before, we have evidence of what happens when government suddenly collapses. The results are not good, and are indicative of what you can expect from your fellow man, which is little to none unless you were friends previously (and even then you worry they'll turn traitor). Just because it happens in a more peaceful way does not mean that you are really putting a lot of faith in humanity to simply trust everyone to do right.

[Ibian]

More weakness. Sophistry instead of sound arguments. Your "faith in humanity" is just another variant of "but my feels!".

The world is a harsh place, and it won't get any easier with an outlook like that. Work on constructive solutions.

Uhh, you do realize I said I lack faith in humanity. It is my belief that many do not commit crimes out of fear for the law, not out of any moral obligation. Furthermore, it is my belief that if shit hits the fan, a great amount of people that didn't need to commit crimes in our current society will be willing to do anything up to and including murder to ensure their own are fed.

Is a world where you could wind up with the business end of a hammer in the back of your skull without warning a world you want to live in? Is a world where leaders are decided by how bloodthirsty they are, and power vacuums are created constantly a world you want to live in? If so, then I'd ask you the same question: how much human brutality have you experienced?

And if you truly think you're "hard" enough to survive in that environment, just remember that unless you're the hardest guy in the world, there's always someone harder.

It's not a matter of preference in my case. What I would personally prefer does not fit either extreme in these latest pages. What I am saying is this: We are dying. Socialist countries have sub-replacement fertility rates (meaning not enough kids are being born to sustain the population). Other countries, what we commonly think of as backwards, do not. Iraq for example has a fertility rate of 4. All western countries are at or below 2, sometimes well below. We are being outbred, and will eventually be so badly outnumbered that we will lose our place as major players on the world stage.

The reasons socialist countries don't do well in the baby making department are complicated and well beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice to say that we either dial the welfare state way down or we lose most of our political and economic clout within a span of 50 years, and likely a lot less than that. From there it's a short jump to being invaded, and failing to fend whoever attacks us off.

My preference, if I were to put it in such words, is that my grandkids have a safe country to grow up in. That western countries remain strong enough to fight off anyone who doesn't like us. At this current rate, they will not.

[Elwar]

Explaining what good anarchy brings instead of talking about what bad government does is like asking to explain what good comes from someone not getting whipped without bringing up what is bad about being whipped.

[Elwar]

Explaining what good anarchy brings instead of talking about what bad government does is like asking to explain what good comes from someone not getting whipped without bringing up the bad about being whipped.

are you still 16 and in your rebellious phase? lol

It says more about you than me to believe that only teenagers like freedom.

[octaft]

Explaining what good anarchy brings instead of talking about what bad government does is like asking to explain what good comes from someone not getting whipped without bringing up the bad about being whipped.

So you can't be bothered to explain what good your ideal will do, but we're supposed to entertain the argument "government = no flying cars?"

By the way, your analogy doesn't work out, because as your own people admit, you have no idea what will happen, and it could turn out that anarchy is nothing more than getting whipped twice as hard.

[NotLambchop]

ITT:
Anarchists claim the ability to unite, when needed, to combat roving gangs of marauders.
They think governments are nothing but thieves, looters and extortionists--armed gangs of marauders.

Why are you yakking it up, anarchists, instead of ably putting down the these statist thugs?

[Elwar]

you have no idea what will happen

I doubt you would listen.

Smart roads, self charging roads, no need for fuel, more lanes, more competition...


The government telephone monopoly was broken in 1984. You would have been on the side of people who felt that anarchy in the phone industry would leave us all without any phone service or as was argued at the time "you will need 5 phones in your house connected to 5 different companies".

Someone saying "we could advance phone technology to have phones in your pocket calling unlimited long distance calls at one flat rate" would immediately be shot down as a crazy optimist with no clue about what would happen.

Better to play it safe and stick with one long distance and one local phone system.

[mmitech]

Most libertarians who wish to live without a government have no idea of how things would work or of how they would manage their communities, once you succeed getting rid of your government, what will happen is a state in complete CHAOS followed by people trying to build an organized community to fix things then people chose people or people fight people to make things works and then you get to a point where you make another government, you would think that you achieved something by doing so, but this comes from your lack of understanding/trust to your previous government.

[btcney]

Explaining what good anarchy brings instead of talking about what bad government does is like asking to explain what good comes from someone not getting whipped without bringing up the bad about being whipped.

are you still 16 and in your rebellious phase? lol

It says more about you than me to believe that only teenagers like freedom.

sure thing kid.

[octaft]

More weakness. Sophistry instead of sound arguments. Your "faith in humanity" is just another variant of "but my feels!".

The world is a harsh place, and it won't get any easier with an outlook like that. Work on constructive solutions.

Uhh, you do realize I said I lack faith in humanity. It is my belief that many do not commit crimes out of fear for the law, not out of any moral obligation. Furthermore, it is my belief that if shit hits the fan, a great amount of people that didn't need to commit crimes in our current society will be willing to do anything up to and including murder to ensure their own are fed.

Is a world where you could wind up with the business end of a hammer in the back of your skull without warning a world you want to live in? Is a world where leaders are decided by how bloodthirsty they are, and power vacuums are created constantly a world you want to live in? If so, then I'd ask you the same question: how much human brutality have you experienced?

And if you truly think you're "hard" enough to survive in that environment, just remember that unless you're the hardest guy in the world, there's always someone harder.

It's not a matter of preference in my case. What I would personally prefer does not fit either extreme in these latest pages. What I am saying is this: We are dying. Socialist countries have sub-replacement fertility rates (meaning not enough kids are being born to sustain the population). Other countries, what we commonly think of as backwards, do not. Iraq for example has a fertility rate of 4. All western countries are at or below 2, sometimes well below. We are being outbred, and will eventually be so badly outnumbered that we will lose our place as major players on the world stage.

The reasons socialist countries don't do well in the baby making department are complicated and well beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice to say that we either dial the welfare state way down or we lose most of our political and economic clout within a span of 50 years, and likely a lot less than that. From there it's a short jump to being invaded, and failing to fend whoever attacks us off.

My preference, if I were to put it in such words, is that my grandkids have a safe country to grow up in. That western countries remain strong enough to fight off anyone who doesn't like us. At this current rate, they will not.

Your entire ideal is based upon paranoid xenophobia?

[Elwar]

You can check out http://www.bitpools.com to see an example of how people can come together for major projects and vote with their money without being forced.

A bunch of anarchists...using the Bitcoin blockchain to vote on how their money is spent...who woulda thunk it.

[NotLambchop]

Statist pigs:  Controlling all of the inhabitable surface of the Earth.
Anarchist:  Controlling exactly nothing.

Weak.

[NotLambchop]

You can check out http://www.bitpools.com to see an example of how people can come together for major projects and vote with their money without being forced.

A bunch of anarchists...using the Bitcoin blockchain to vote on how their money is spent...who woulda thunk it.

Yah, so why don't you anarchists get together and overthrow evol statist pigs?
You know you wanna.
Weakling

@octaft:  Like you, I once tried reasoning with these nutters.  Until it became clear that I would have better luck reasoning with a rusty shovel.

[octaft]

you have no idea what will happen

I doubt you would listen.

Smart roads, self charging roads, no need for fuel, more lanes, more competition...


The government telephone monopoly was broken in 1984. You would have been on the side of people who felt that anarchy in the phone industry would leave us all without any phone service or as was argued at the time "you will need 5 phones in your house connected to 5 different companies".

Someone saying "we could advance phone technology to have phones in your pocket calling unlimited long distance calls at one flat rate" would immediately be shot down as a crazy optimist with no clue about what would happen.

Better to play it safe and stick with one long distance and one local phone system.

Just because I think no government would be worse, doesn't mean I think everything the government does is great, nor does it mean I agree with everything they say. I'm just picking what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils.

I would love to see how your way would work out, if only for curiosity. I just don't want the experiment to happen where I live.

[Elwar]

You can check out http://www.bitpools.com to see an example of how people can come together for major projects and vote with their money without being forced.

A bunch of anarchists...using the Bitcoin blockchain to vote on how their money is spent...who woulda thunk it.

Yah, so why don't you anarchists get together and overthrow evol statist pigs?
You know you wanna.
Weakling

@octaft:  Like you, I once tried reasoning with these nutters.  Until it became clear that I would have better luck reasoning with a rusty shovel.

Or just bypass them. Like creating an alternative currency and not using their system.

Perhaps one that is decentralized and cannot be shut down.