GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Nick,

What I am talking about is how you keep arguing against anarchy based on your unconscious and preconditioned tendency to view it as chaotic, dangerous, and violent. If one values liberty and non-coercion, then anarchy is a useful ideal to be strived for, and it just so happens that ALL forms of government and other coercive entitites can not exist under anarchy.

Actually, I agree that as a Utopian ideal, anarchy works as long as most of humanity is conscious. However, from my understanding, I was under the impression that we were debating whether or not anarchy was practical as far as its present implementation is concerned.

From your understanding? You were under the impression? You are an ass.

Go reread my opening, as it's obvious you have given it very little thought.

Is being a sage, a genius, or a wise-man practical to implement? Anarchy is no different. It's difficult, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't turn your back on it.

Don't be coercive in your relationship to others, and don't smugly defend a coercive system.

Defend and support consciousness - not ignorance.

Maestro,

An action will be performed by a person if the (perceived) rewards outweigh the (percieved) costs.

Laws and enforcement agencies make the costs of many actions such as stealing, rape murder prohibitive.

Wrong. Laws and cops make the cost of PRIVATE crimes such as stealing, rape and murder prohibitive.

Laws and cops make the cost of PUBLIC crimes of stealing, rape and murder allowed with very few or no penalties.

Monopolies do not tolerate competition.

The argument is simply boils down to this. The enforcement agency makes the cost of breaking the rule very high so that they are broken in rare circumstances. This is also done (less effectively) through religion and indoctrination in childhood, where the cost for breaking the rule is affective and social (condemnation). If this negative cost were eliminated many forbidden actions would become rather common. Theft rape and murder would be the order of the day.

Once again, you are confusing Anarchy with something else. Anarchies have rules and enforcement, so your point is moot. Your problem is that you have read absolutely nothing about historical Anarchies and how Anarchist justice works, so you're talking out of your ass. Go inform yourself: http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Theft rape and murder are common in the animal realm, our horror of these things only arises from our cultural and religious indoctrination. The animal would not have the same feelings towards any of these, such are simply facts of nature.

Wrong once again. Morality is innate and is mostly evolution-driven, not religion-driven. Religion does not teach you morality. If you believe cultural or religious indoctrination teaches anyone morality, look at the statistics for crime in religious countries.

DHodges wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, it is funny, since the essence of anarchism, and the foundation of its law and order therefore, is shared ownership and voluntary agreement rather than a taxed, class society held together by a lard-nourished bureaucratic legal system.

Good summary. While it may be theoretically possible to have a government created by consent of the governed, in practice government is enforced by one group to control another. Generally the group in control is wealthy. In the modern world, government controls education, and thus manufactures consent.

Indeed, which is exactly why I think the idea of free-market* anarchism is doomed to fail. We might as well say we’ve already got it and it just needs continual tweaking; relatively small and local scale revolutions induced toward competition by a free-market. Let’s see, how do resources and national borders factor into this question?

*defn. free-market A market in which supply and demand are unregulated except by the country's competition policy, and rights in physical and intellectual property are upheld.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb"...B. Franklin

I like that one, very much. :)

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington

Certainly, by definition, government is not reason. However, if the ideal is, for example, shared ownership and voluntary agreement, some people are going to be confused by this!

I don't think, for example, that Jared Diamond is such a person. Until the basic needs of a local people and globally connected world are sufficiently and efficiently met, how do you know with certainty that man is inherently evil---or “animal”?

Sounds a bit Biblical, to me.

Ye gods! Loki, I am having a heartattack, I swear it. Breathless.

After a cursory, yet sufficient enough, glance at Ken Knudson's A Critique (!) of Anarcho Communism, I tell you the argument against Marxist communism is exactly nothing BUT a straw man argument. It seems Stalin was right about at least one thing!

Once I recover, I believe I might just address the matter. One such example is this: he has the balls to mention "natural economic laws" and accuse Marxism of perpetrating an "even greater injustice" by way of the allegation that it assumes private property is intrinsically invasive (wow, this is a long sentence...breathless) without even addressing a single aspect of of Marxian historical materalism???

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-uk's sake!

-Brokenhead-
If anarchy prevailed and those fat, arrogant, pompous, self-important petty-tyrant thug cops were not riding around in their gaudy, state-provided pimp mobiles, even white guys like me would not be able to maintain the illusion in our minds.


-DHodges-
You think those guys are going to protect you? Not too likely. They have no legal obligation to protect you or to stop an attack on you, even if they are watching it from up the block. (This is well established in case law.) They carry guns to protect themselves.

....................................................

Obama wants NRA ads banned in Pennsylvania

-snip-
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/Obama_W ... 35118.html


.

............................

Tomas wrote:Obama wants NRA ads banned in Pennsylvania

Also Ohio. I just read about this elsewhere. Obama is probably the most anti-gun candidate ever to run, and Biden is just as rabidly anti-gun as Obama.

Obama's Gun Record, which he has been lying about.

Makes me want to go out an buy a bunch more guns and a few thousand rounds, just in case he wins - which is pretty likely.


edit: fixed link. Thanks, Elizabeth.

Hodges - both of your links go to the same place.

Good thing there are checks and balances in the system. I still think we have a much better chance of surviving with Obama in charge rather than McCain and Miss Alaska.

Loki wrote: we DON'T support privatization. We DON'T want health care to be privatized.

Oh, I get it. If you can't take care of yourself, you just don't get taken care of. Let the plague begin!

Loki wrote:

How do you decide who should pay to pave a main street in a major city when everyone uses it, but in different frequencies and proportions?

How does a shopping mall decide who should pay for the paving inside?

The mall owns the entire mall, and rents out space to stores. The mall administration makes up rules about how much each store has to pay, what time they can open, what time they can close, etc. and charges stiff fines if anyone breaks the rules. The mall administration then takes part of the money to pay for such things as maintenance of the mall.

Loki wrote:We DON'T want anything to be privatized.

So what's with the question about the mall? That's privatized.

Loki wrote:Just to calm your worries, off the top of my head, some kind of official registration sticker and/or card could be used maybe for specific roads or even groups of roads (South Australia highway megapass!?).

So, this official registration would come from your anarchist government? Certainly not a privatized official registration...

DHodges wrote:

Loki wrote:dhodges,

Who is the legitimate owner of I-87?

The whole thing does not have only one owner. It would have to be broken up.

I would like to have part, up around exit 30. Thanks!

I'm not familiar with that area. Is that north or south of the environmental group that would mulch their portion of I-87?

Nick Treklis wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:So if you take away all these government institutions, and revert to anarchy, the animal brain will rein supreme in the world, and humanity will digress even further back into the animal realms. To honestly want to implement anarchy is pure insanity for all these reasons and many more.

This has nothing to do with "reverting" to anarchy, as I've already explained to you many times over Ryan. Anarchy, by definition, means complete lack of coercion by one's fellow man, i.e. liberty must be respected. The situation you are describing above is essentially a bunch of people operating as miniature governments.

You are describing something that sounds more like a socialist fantasy rather than anarchy. Humanity would have to do a whole lot of evolving and totally eliminate any chance of mental illness or brain injury to achieve what you are talking about. Nevertheless, anarchy is chaos, not cooperation.

Loki, I read parts of your anarchy link. Some of it I agree with, like without government, there would likely be less war as we know it today - but I think that would be replaced with more widespread skirmishes. That thought of mine is based on the frequency that murder, domestic violence, and gang violence occurs. Perhaps it would work better in sparsely populated areas, or perhaps not considering the violence that occurred between the American Indians and the colonists in the early days of America, and experiences between the Aboriginals and Australians in early days, and the Huns did not have government but they did have lots of war as it was back then (which is closer to what we might call a skirmish today).

The better people can govern themselves, the less need there is for a centralized government. Unfortunately government is like a living creature that once it grows, it can be difficult to impossible to make it smaller without killing it. The American founding fathers knew and recognized this and tried to make a government like what your anarchist site is basically talking about - rules and regulation of the people, by the people, for the people. Like the term or not Loki, that is a government.

All governments may have to collapse in order for us people of planet Earth to try again until we get it right - but that will again be government. For a group of more than about 250 people, the only way to possibly even figure out what rules that everyone agrees on would require some kind of governing body.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Good thing there are checks and balances in the system. I still think we have a much better chance of surviving with Obama in charge rather than McCain and Miss Alaska.

I agree with that, although no matter who is in charge, the next few years are going to be rough, economically.

DHodges wrote:

Tomas wrote:Obama wants NRA ads banned in Pennsylvania

Also Ohio. I just read about this elsewhere. Obama is probably the most anti-gun candidate ever to run, and Biden is just as rabidly anti-gun as Obama.

Obama's Gun Record, which he has been lying about.

Makes me want to go out an buy a bunch more guns and a few thousand rounds, just in case he wins - which is pretty likely.


edit: fixed link. Thanks, Elizabeth.

Hodges-
As I have said before, I am not against private gun ownership. I am against myself owning one, because then there would be one near me more often than there is today. Even if I train myself in the use and care of a firearm, I believe it still increases the chance that I will be killed by one, most likely the one I legally own, or accidentally kill someone who deosn't deserve to get killed, or someone else getting a hold of it and involving me in their acts of violence.

Part of this view is based on the fact that I have reached 50 without needing a gun or regretting not having one.

But the way the country's economic outlook is in the shitter makes me want to take a second look at this. It's a no-brainer that when many more people have much less, anything that stands in the way of their obtaining what they no longer have is suddenly of less intrinsic value. Including individual life.

I hate to say it, but owning a gun makes more sense to me than ever. The government has not demonstrated its ability to enforce the laws on the books. If I thought it could pass stricter gun regulation and enforce it, I'd be more in Mayor Nutter's camp here in Philly.

I hope Obama wins. But neither he nor anyone else really inspires me that my future will be physically secure no matter how faithfully I walk the line or how strictly I am forced to toe it.

brokenhead wrote:Hodges-
As I have said before, I am not against private gun ownership. I am against myself owning one, because then there would be one near me more often than there is today. Even if I train myself in the use and care of a firearm, I believe it still increases the chance that I will be killed by one, most likely the one I legally own, or accidentally kill someone who deosn't deserve to get killed, or someone else getting a hold of it and involving me in their acts of violence.

The statistics don't actually bear that out. (Don't get your statistics from the Brady Bunch.)

My guns are kept in a safe. I'm pretty sure that they will not escape and shoot me on their own.

I understand being uncomfortable around guns. I definitely was, until I decided that I should overcome that.

Part of this view is based on the fact that I have reached 50 without needing a gun or regretting not having one.

I did not have one until last year. I'm 46. I've also never been in a situation that required a gun (and hope to never be in a situation like that!)

I would highly recommend taking the NRA basic gun safety course. Even if you decide that guns are something you really don't want to have around you, it makes sense to be able to, for instance, properly and safely make sure that a gun is unloaded. You may never need to, but if the situation were to arise, it's something you'd be much better off knowing how to do, rather than teaching yourself with live ammo in possibly a high-stress situation. The NRA class is very good, very focused on safety, with a minimum of propaganda.

In the end, a gun is a pretty simple machine and is safe when used properly. I'm more likely to get injured using my table router.

I hate to say it, but owning a gun makes more sense to me than ever. The government has not demonstrated its ability to enforce the laws on the books. If I thought it could pass stricter gun regulation and enforce it, I'd be more in Mayor Nutter's camp here in Philly.

What they have been attempting to do in Philly goes directly against the Pennsylvania constitution, and they are well aware of that. I think it is political grandstanding, since they know it will be shot down. They don't really have a good solution.

I hope Obama wins. But neither he nor anyone else really inspires me that my future will be physically secure no matter how faithfully I walk the line or how strictly I am forced to toe it.

It's really something you are responsible for, yourself. No law can protect you from the possibility of coming into contact with a madman or criminal that means you harm. That's just the reality of life.

Of course there are things you can do to reduce that chance - particularly, increasing your level of situational awareness and avoiding certain kinds of situations that are high-risk. A gun is most definitely a last resort.

I too am voting for Obama, and contributing to his campaign, mostly because he is inspiring many people---openly encouraging people---to get involved in the political system. I think he will be tremendously inspiring to the various cultures of 'people-of-color' in American culture. (I don't give a flying fuck about the latte-slurping liberal fakes and fluff-bunnies who are all starry-eyed about him, personally). Soon, America is no longer going to be a White culture, so in that Obama represents the wave of the future. If people feel they can participate, and they do participate, then they begin to have 'ownership interest', and that is a step or two closer to something resembling democracy. I cannot believe how destructive this last Republican presidency has been, it is unreal, in fact. Obama represents a chance for participatory democracy, and putting a stop to the unreal corruption of republican administration.

I sincerely doubt, though, that he will be able to significantly 'change' much and it seems a dangerous and naive illusion that people think he can...(And they can't really define what this 'change' is supposed to be). Things might only change if he succeeds in inspirting people to get involved in politics, and they do so.

Horribly, to get elected, Obama will have to travel that strange 'liberal' highway, to appease certain factions within his constituency.

DHodges wrote:a gun is a pretty simple machine and is safe when used properly. I'm more likely to get injured using my table router.

I've had a gun for over 10 years, and have never gotten hurt by one, nor hurt anyone else with it. I have, however, stubbed my right toe on my left heel and made quite a bloody mess.

Good statistics link. Let's outlaw football - because it is more deadly than guns, and far more useless.

.

-brokenhead-
I hope Obama wins.

Training A Socialist Army Of World Servers - Part 1

Obama's plan is radically different. Aimed at socialist change, it would raise "religious" boundaries, limit free speech, and ban divisive truths. It must be tolerant of today's amoral values and militantly intolerant toward traditional values. And -- like the tactics outlined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" -- it would use deception and "agitation" to create conflict, and the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic process to manipulate minds and establish the planned solidarity.

http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos94.htm


.

"Berit Kjos is a widely respected researcher, writer and conference speaker. A frequent guest on national radio and television programs, Kjos has been interviewed on Point of View (Marlin Maddoux), The 700 Club, Bible Answer Man, Beverly LaHaye Live, Crosstalk and Family Radio Network. She has also been a guest on "Talk Back Live" (CNN) and other secular radio and TV networks. Her last two books are A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Kjos Ministries".

My fear is that someone who is eager to take a dump on the 2nd Amendment won't show a whole lot of respect for the rest of the Bill of Rights, either. Not to mention the rest of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, there is no major candidate that I can vote for in good conscience. I will vote for a 3rd party (TBD).

DHodges wrote:Unfortunately, there is no major candidate that I can vote for in good conscience. I will vote for a 3rd party (TBD).

Do you know for sure that there will be a 3rd party you can vote for in good conscience? Have you ever not voted? Is that a possible option for you?

.


-DHodges-
My fear is that someone who is eager to take a dump on the 2nd Amendment won't show a whole lot of respect for the rest of the Bill of Rights, either.

-tomas-
The United States will live and fall with the 1st Amendment. It's like presidents have often said, "It's just a damn piece of paper."

-DHodges-
Not to mention the rest of the Constitution.

-tomas-
Now, lemme see, what did we (Congress) do with the contents of that paper shredder?

-DHodges-
Unfortunately, there is no major candidate that I can vote for in good conscience.

-tomas-
The "major" candidates are pimps, whores, prostitutes of the working class.

-DHodges-
I will vote for a 3rd party (TBD).

Barr
Nader
Buchanan

Sarah Palin would be presidential material though she is being brainwashed as I write this.. why her marijuana smoking is being kept under wraps, dunno why. (when marijuana was legal to grow, sell, etc in Alaska, she smoked it a lot..) The times, they are a changing.




.

Jason wrote:Do you know for sure that there will be a 3rd party you can vote for in good conscience? Have you ever not voted? Is that a possible option for you?

I might vote Libertarian, although I don't like Bob Barr in particular.

Not voting is a possibility - but I think voting third party sends a message that I would like some real options, rather than just being apathetic. Maybe write in "none of the above" ?

Despite his anti-gun track record, I'm still voting for Obama. He isn't going to just scrap the second amendment - he can't.

The race is too close between McCain and Obama to make statement votes. I have seen an awful lot of support for McCain out there, despite that none of them who I asked why they are voting for McCain had anything positive to say about him. All they can come up with is prejudice, innuendo, and some rather childish behavior.

I'm voting for Obama because I believe that he is the best person for the job who has a legitimate chance of getting into office. Nevertheless all he has is a chance.

You do not understand the value of experience before you had that experience. To be able to learn the experience of others, including now dead people, you need a safe and secure environment in which you can do so. Without a free but also stable structure to protect you, you wont be able to learn the experience, neither you will be able to learn why you need to learn it. The wish to attack the unknown is natural. We are born with this instinct. Thing is, if you attack the unknown you never learn what it really was that you destroyed.

Freedom is also an interesting emotion. Sometimes the wish to do anything you like is a chain that pulls you into a direction that you might not want to go to. Complete freedom might actually lead you to be a slave to yourself. If you are driven completely by own instincts, emotions and needs instead of your own control, then you are not free.

DHodges wrote:Not voting is a possibility - but I think voting third party sends a message that I would like some real options, rather than just being apathetic. Maybe write in "none of the above" ?

To me voting is like picking who you want to get fucked in the ass by. One is accepting and empowering the system.

Non-participation is the only way to successfully eliminate a coercive entity.

Why do you think all politicians encourage us to vote even if they aren't sure we are going to vote for them? It gives the system legitimacy. It's religious indoctrination, and it starts at a very young age in the public schools. Imagine if nobody voted in a presidential election. That would send a message.

Nick Treklis wrote:To me voting is like picking who you want to get fucked in the ass by. One is accepting and empowering the system.

Non-participation is the only way to successfully eliminate a coercive entity.

Well.... that's a good point. Voting implies that you consent to being governed.

DHodges wrote:

Jason wrote:Do you know for sure that there will be a 3rd party you can vote for in good conscience? Have you ever not voted? Is that a possible option for you?

I might vote Libertarian, although I don't like Bob Barr in particular.

Not knowing much about US politics, I initially thought of him. Then, hearing of your dislike, my mind had flashes of this.

Not voting is a possibility - but I think voting third party sends a message that I would like some real options, rather than just being apathetic. Maybe write in "none of the above" ?

You're not serious about "none of the above" are you? Surely that would just be counted as a mere spoilt vote or similar wouldn't it?

Nick Treklis wrote:To me voting is like picking who you want to get fucked in the ass by.

Don't forget: it's also picking someone who you want to do the same to everyone else. (I don't like the association of anal sex with inherent negativity.)

Non-participation is the only way to successfully eliminate a coercive entity.

Well that seems a very idealistic view.

Why do you think all politicians encourage us to vote even if they aren't sure we are going to vote for them? It gives the system legitimacy. It's religious indoctrination, and it starts at a very young age in the public schools. Imagine if nobody voted in a presidential election. That would send a message.

So you don't vote Nick? Voting is compulsory in Australia, you can be fined and even do jail time for not voting. I've been fined for it, but decided to pay up and avoid further potential trouble. The irony is that paying the fines might arguably do more to support the government than actually voting!

Voting is compulsory in Australia, you can be fined and even do jail time for not voting.

Jason-
Never knew that. Is voting compulsory in every election, whatever level? At what age does it become mandatory? How long has it been compulsory?

It's strange that voting is not mandatory in any one of the fifty US states. The states differ on death penalty, state lotteries, state income tax and sales taxes, drinking age, driving age, and on just about everything else, but nowhere, to my knowledge, is voting compulsory. It might not be a bad idea.