An Anarchist, and bonehead F.B.I. Agents

PrayingForWar said:

What should be telling, at least to the moonbats with the "Eat the Rich" bumperstickers, is that these socilaist ideas are being pushed by some billioniares. Who I suppose envision themselves at the top of a food chain they have full political control of. Thank God there are still some rich people who understand how they got rich, and that they get richer in a society allowed to generate more wealth.

Click to expand...

I've found that a liberal's objection to individual wealth almost always stops when one of two conditions occur:

1. They themselves attain wealth.
2. Those individuals with wealth agree with and support their causes.

What disgusts me is when those that have attained wealth support the ideals that destroy the opportunity for others to attain the same measure of wealth.

But, it's no great leap of the imagination to understand why many those who have attained massive amounts of wealth desire to retain the ability to inhibit others from gaining the same measure of power. The less at the top means the less of the power being shared. From as far back as we can search, someone's always had a couple more coconuts than the other guy, giving him the ability to shape the will of those around him.

PrayingForWar said:

I exist in a world of absolutes when it comes to the meaning of words. An "anarchist" who understands that he can live his life without following insipid laws, and behave in a way that creates no harm or danger to other people has to understand that not everyone shares that ability. His rational conclusion should be that society does in fact have to be governed to some degree. Hence he is no longer an "anarchist".

You see how that works?

Click to expand...

I am glad that we both agree that Government is necessary, because the alternative is individual responsibility, and individuals, generally, have to be controlled.

There is no absolute Anarchist unless an individual is absent their individual self-Governance. By your reasoning, your Absolutist reasoning, an Anarchist believes in no Government of any kind.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I am glad that we both agree that Government is necessary, because the alternative is individual responsibility, and individuals, generally, have to be controlled.

There is no absolute Anarchist unless an individual is absent their individual self-Governance. By your reasoning, your Absolutist reasoning, an Anarchist believes in no Government of any kind.

Click to expand...

Exactly. No government, no borders, none of it. Complete individual self-rule is the general idea.

It's rather hard to achieve complete anarchy in practice, though. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened to any significant degree. I'll say it's pretty much impossible in today's world. I think the opportunity has long since passed.

rotorhead said:

Exactly. No government, no borders, none of it. Complete individual self-rule is the general idea.

It's rather hard to achieve complete anarchy in practice, though. In fact, I don't think it's ever happened to any significant degree. I'll say it's pretty much impossible in today's world. I think the opportunity has long since passed.

Click to expand...

Humans are incapable of not being controlled. Self-interest will always be a driving force in humans, and when the self-interest runs into say, the self-interest of another individual, well...

Beretta92FSLady said:

Humans are incapable of not being controlled. Self-interest will always be a driving force in humans, and when the self-interest runs into say, the self-interest of another individual, well...

Click to expand...

well.... most of the time in the US we do not violate the rights of our fellow citizens. Also, we're so dang generous every time there is a disaster the US gives more than the rest of the world to help; private citizens not the feds. And when individuals go too far and cross the line into violating another's rights we have the justice system to handle it. Needing some sort of government to enforce laws is not the same as people being incapable of self regulation. If self regulation was such a detrimental thing why are the countries with the most individual self regulation the wealthiest and most prosperous and those with the most state control the poorest and least prosperous?

Daylen said:

well.... most of the time in the US we do not violate the rights of our fellow citizens. Also, we're so dang generous every time there is a disaster the US gives more than the rest of the world to help; private citizens not the feds. And when individuals go too far and cross the line into violating another's rights we have the justice system to handle it. Needing some sort of government to enforce laws is not the same as people being incapable of self regulation. If self regulation was such a detrimental thing why are the countries with the most individual self regulation the wealthiest and most prosperous and those with the most state control the poorest and least prosperous?

Click to expand...

Laws, and laws are there to keep most people in line, but not all take to the Koolaid so well; that's why we have the prison system. Laws, and laws are necessary -they are there, over the head of each, and every individual, to keep them in line.

When there is a disaster Americans will band together for a period of time. But, there are limits -Hurricane Katrina for example, and the hell that broke loose there after a week-or-so.

We will see soon though. I am of the opinion that we are going to have a Great Depression 2 (the so-called recession is just a warm-up). Greece, and a few other countries had major rioting. It will be worse here in the U.S. Why? Because there are 80+ million armed citizens, and I don't know about any of you, but things go to sh*t, lines will be drawn, and everyone will be out to protecting their own.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I am glad that we both agree that Government is necessary, because the alternative is individual responsibility, and individuals, generally, have to be controlled.

There is no absolute Anarchist unless an individual is absent their individual self-Governance. By your reasoning, your Absolutist reasoning, an Anarchist believes in no Government of any kind.

Click to expand...

I disagree vehemently that people "need to be controlled". You might be comfortable if you're the one in control, but I would hate to have to make decisions for anyone else since my own decisions for my own life haven't always been winners.

I'm a Robert Heinlein fan. In a book called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", a character laid out the principles of a "rational anarchist". I can cotton to these principles. I live my life without concern for laws most of the time. This is because I behave in a manner that causes as little grief as possible to my fellow citizens. I try and maintain an awareness of how my actions might negatively affect the lives of other people. I have however found the increasing regulations on ordinary behavior increasingly annoying.

Whether it is the environazi BS that prevents me from altering my landscape because of the concerns for some obscure species of bird or reptile, or having to worry about being arrested if my kid throws a fit in the toy store because they can't have a $200 electric car, and I slap them. Just like abortion, I DON'T LIKE IT, but I don't care if anyone else has one. You can have your ovaries sucked out for all I care. Many people probably should, but it takes someone who thinks people "need to be controlled" to try and make that government policy, like so many in the "progressive" movement openly advocated as long ago as the 1920's.

There is no "Absolute Anarchist", unless that preson is an absolute idiot. That doesn't mean I think we need strict laws to regulate every behavior. We should merely have certain standards, like safe speeds on our roads, and stopping at red lights. Try and victimize people, and you run the risk on them turning the tables by being a better shot. We would be a much better behaved population if the givernment never got involved with regulating our behavior. If the ancestors of many of the 3 million people we have incarcerated had been shot in the commision of their crimes we might have much more polite society.

PrayingForWar said:

I disagree vehemently that people "need to be controlled". You might be comfortable if you're the one in control, but I would hate to have to make decisions for anyone else since my own decisions for my own life haven't always been winners.

Click to expand...

This is why, when I had a business, I hated having employees. Individuals who work for employers are dependent individuals, and I am not the nurturing type. Feeling like other lives are dependent on you is something I am not interested in. Well, other than my children being dependent on me.

I'm a Robert Heinlein fan. In a book called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", a character laid out the principles of a "rational anarchist". I can cotton to these principles. I live my life without concern for laws most of the time. This is because I behave in a manner that causes as little grief as possible to my fellow citizens. I try and maintain an awareness of how my actions might negatively affect the lives of other people. I have however found the increasing regulations on ordinary behavior increasingly annoying.

Click to expand...

Regulation on ordinary behavior is extremely annoying to me also.

It reminds me of an essay I had read(e) a number of years ago:

"
http://journalismprofessor.com/2011/02/02/how-the-lawyers-stole-winter/

Whether it is the environazi BS that prevents me from altering my landscape because of the concerns for some obscure species of bird or reptile, or having to worry about being arrested if my kid throws a fit in the toy store because they can't have a $200 electric car, and I slap them. Just like abortion, I DON'T LIKE IT, but I don't care if anyone else has one. You can have your ovaries sucked out for all I care. Many people probably should, but it takes someone who thinks people "need to be controlled" to try and make that government policy, like so many in the "progressive" movement openly advocated as long ago as the 1920's.

Click to expand...

The movement appears to have been necessary.

There is no "Absolute Anarchist", unless that preson is an absolute idiot. That doesn't mean I think we need strict laws to regulate every behavior. We should merely have certain standards, like safe speeds on our roads, and stopping at red lights. Try and victimize people, and you run the risk on them turning the tables by being a better shot. We would be a much better behaved population if the givernment never got involved with regulating our behavior. If the ancestors of many of the 3 million people we have incarcerated had been shot in the commision of their crimes we might have much more polite society.

Click to expand...

Some of these issues of an impolite society are merely the bi-product of an Individualistic Society.

So, what makes a more polite society is a punishment response, such as imprisonment or being shot? The Laws, and laws are a reminder of what that punishment will be if you don't "walk the straight, and narrow."

Beretta92FSLady said:

Humans are incapable of not being controlled. Self-interest will always be a driving force in humans, and when the self-interest runs into say, the self-interest of another individual, well...

Click to expand...

I believe the opposite- that humans are capable of not being controlled. They simply choose the easiest path in most cases. This means exploitation in many cases, and taking advantage of opportunities at the expense of others. Does implementing restrictive laws and creating a system so easily corrupted make things better? One needs only to scan this very board to find numerous examples of governmental abuse and corruption to see how this system is working to keep the citizenry in check.

Personally, I'd like a refund on all taxes I've paid. I'll handle my own policing, education, health care, and other services, thanks. If my area is being exploited by criminals, myself and my neighbors will handle it.

PrayingForWar said:

I think I can live with that sort of "anarchy".

I just can't imagine trying to do simple things like DRIVE, in a world with no traffic laws.

Click to expand...

Some cites in Europe have been experimenting with removing traffic lights, even at busy intersections. They are finding that a natural order emerges.

Remember though, no government would mean no public roads. Roads would be owned privately by individuals or groups. Use of the roads would be subject to rules made by the property owner. Disputes could be settled in private courts. ( we have private courts now we call it "arbitration") Refusal to go along with the decision of the court could be met with shunning from the community.

I am not saying "anarchy" would work,(I would love to think it would) but I do want to help rid folks of some of the mis-representations of anarchist thought. Don't think of anarchy as "chaos", think of it as "order without control".

Some folks think of anarchy as freedom from responsibility, this is false. In an anarchist society everyone would necessarily have increased responsibility.

Some communities might adopt "socialism", but everyone would be free to leave that community in favor of one that is "capitalist". Naturally, the capitalist societies will flourish, and the socialist ones will not. With no tax collector forcing everyone to subsidize the socialist communities there will be nothing to mask the inherent fallacies in socialism and the problems associated with such policies will evidence themselves rather quickly.

For a different view of anarchy than you may be use to, I would suggest you read some essays by Anarcho-capitalists such as Murray N. Rothbard and Jefferey Tucker. I think you will find it pretty interesting. A good place to start is the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

PrayingForWar said:

Wow, do you call out your own name during a manual climax too? (middle finger icon here)

Click to expand...

Hmm, would that make me gay?

On a serious note;

My understanding of Anarchy is community controlled direct democracy, or a lack of any hierarchy. This includes labor.

I used to hang out with the Phoenix Anarchists. Unfortunately, they were not anarchists but lazy communists. Anarchy seeks to create shared wealth, all are equal. They were not looking to create anything, only destroy and leech.

This video highlights my understanding of anarchy, at least at one time. I have not watched it in a very long time.

[video=youtube;VTDbH_Ruojw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTDbH_Ruojw[/video]

PrayingForWar said:

What should be telling, at least to the moonbats with the "Eat the Rich" bumperstickers, is that these socilaist ideas are being pushed by some billioniares. Who I suppose envision themselves at the top of a food chain they have full political control of. Thank God there are still some rich people who understand how they got rich, and that they get richer in a society allowed to generate more wealth.

Click to expand...

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme,[sic] but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen, Author

What's with the "[sic]" after "programme"? Would you put one after "colour" or "organisation"? I don't get it. Are you mocking the spelling used by that author?

eye95 said:

What's with the "[sic]" after "programme"? Would you put one after "colour" or "organisation"? I don't get it. Are you mocking the spelling used by that author?

Click to expand...

Not at all, I was anticipating that some folks who are not familiar with that spelling would comment saying I misspelled the word. I was trying to avoid that confusion by showing that I was quoting the original.

But you are right, it isn't a "mis-spelling" just a different spelling. In hindsight the "[sic]" was probably not needed, and might of even been an improper usage.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.

[/my distraction]

Beretta92FSLady said:

When there is a disaster Americans will band together for a period of time. But, there are limits -Hurricane Katrina for example, and the hell that broke loose there after a week-or-so.

Click to expand...

Only in the city of criminals. The surrounding region picked itself up and did not slide into anarchy. This is probably a fair amount to do with most people having guns in those areas unlike the disarmed NO. Again though it was individuals self regulating, and importantly defending themselves with arms, that kept the rest of the region decent.

We will see soon though. I am of the opinion that we are going to have a Great Depression 2 (the so-called recession is just a warm-up). Greece, and a few other countries had major rioting. It will be worse here in the U.S. Why? Because there are 80+ million armed citizens, and I don't know about any of you, but things go to sh*t, lines will be drawn, and everyone will be out to protecting their own.

Click to expand...

If Obama has a second term I'd look to the FDR times to see what will happen. If we can get a free market guy in there I'd look to the times of Calvin Coolidge, who took a deep depression and in a very short time had something very different. Though if we get enough free market people in congress and Obama can do a re branding as Clinton did perhaps we can survive him.

rotorhead said:

I believe the opposite- that humans are capable of not being controlled. They simply choose the easiest path in most cases.

Click to expand...

All human interaction is based on either reason, or force. People who insist chaos would reign in the absence of government must have a very difficult time attending church, joining civic clubs, particpating in non-school youth sports, playing games, etc., without using government force to enforce the rules.

Those are all examples of having rules, without rulers. Even in organizations with elected or appointed leaders, association and participation is completely voluntary - any force used would be criminal. The vast majority of people's daily lives don't involve the use of force.

KBCraig said:

All human interaction is based on either reason, or force. People who insist chaos would reign in the absence of government must have a very difficult time attending church, joining civic clubs, particpating in non-school youth sports, playing games, etc., without using government force to enforce the rules.

Those are all examples of having rules, without rulers. Even in organizations with elected or appointed leaders, association and participation is completely voluntary - any force used would be criminal. The vast majority of people's daily lives don't involve the use of force.

Click to expand...

Religious Organizations have a reward system, it's called Heaven. I wonder how many individuals would be interested in Religious Organization duties if a huge carrot like Heaven wasn't on the table.

All of those items you describe function within a multi-layer system of reward, and punishment.

I suppose we will never know for sure if modern day individuals would be capable of handling such responsibility as so-called 'personal responsibility'.

since9 said:

Anarchy has never worked throughout either human or animal history.

Click to expand...

Is that what you think?

PrayingForWar said:

Dreamer, seriously dude, CAT Scan.

Click to expand...

Attacking the sanity of your opponent was one of the favorite "strategies" of the KGB, and is one of the more underhanded strategies detailed in "Rules for Radicals"...

It works for the Sheeple who are too lazy to do the research themselves, and are easily influenced by appeals to emotion.

Just sayin'...

PrayingForWar said:

If I cared to waste my time I could find something online equally or even more credible tha wikipedia to debunk your looney stories. It's not worth it.

Click to expand...

You're right. Documentaries by the BBC probably aren't much more reliable than Wiki...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fB6nViwJcM

And a book published by a top Swiss historical academic, where she quotes an ex-Prime Minister of Italy regarding this op are probably untrustworthy as well:

http://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Armies-Operation-Contemporary/dp/0714685003


You are intellectually lazy, and you have NO knowledge of geopolitical history.

I would feel genuinely sorry for you, if you weren't so heavily invested in your own irredeemable ignorance...

As it is, I find your ad-hominem attacks and silly coincidence-theory stance on geopolitics to be a delightful opportunity to educate my fellow forum members on the truth of 20th century geopolitics, propaganda, and psycho-socio control.

Thank you for your service to this forum...