insane patriotards get butthurt over mechanic using imperial flag to fix machinery

[OC for ME]

What kind of rules would you follow and what rules would you have others observe and abide?

Uh oh...now ya gone dunnit. This line of thinken don't jive with the concept(s) being tossed around. remember the #1 rule...there are no rules.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Correct~~If you want it, take it. If you don't like it, destroy it. If someone annoys you, well you figure it out.

 

[J_dazzle23]

I've had statism shoved down my throat my entire life. I've been told to worship the flag in both public and private schools. I've been told that I am obliged to "love my country." I've been told that I "better" respect the imperial military. I am an individualist by nature, and for my entire life, these assclowns have demanded that I join their creepy, cult-like collective. Now, they get butthurt when I show anger for how people like them have treated me.

--Moderator edited/deleted F-bomb--

I can tell you one thing. I LOVE my d@mn country, because of the sacrifice that people of MY COUNTRY have made to help maintain MY personal freedom. Because of the men that sign a blank check, for and up to their lives (which is often cashed in) for the ideal of FREEDOM.

If you have a problem with current infringement of freedoms by PEOPLE in this country, then rock on. But you will get NO sympathy from me by disrespecting the lives lost that our country and flag stands for. Lives that were given so you could be assured the ability, for example, to come in THIS forum and speak your mind.

If it a perfect system? Heck no. is it corrupt? in many ways. But an idealist with no answers such as yourself should be able to respect the ideals the the men standing behind that flag gave their lives to protect.

 

[state hater]

Helter Skeltor? Be careful what you wish for, with your social skills in a land with no rules you would not last long.

Anarchy means "no rulers," not "no rules." You don't know me.

 

[state hater]

Nobody here has demanded a damn thing of you, other than act like you have head on your shoulders. There is nothing stopping you from going someplace that has different rules.

Like Somalia...

Once again, you don't know me, so you don't know what I've experienced.

 

[state hater]

What kind of rules would you follow and what rules would you have others observe and abide?

(1) non-aggression principle

(2) self-ownership

(3) all other rules voluntarily agreed to

 

[J_dazzle23]

Anarchy means "no rulers," not "no rules." You don't know me.

Synonyms, as per webster: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil

Yeah....don't sign me up for that anarchy deal.

Anarchy means "no rulers," not "no rules." You don't know me.

 

[state hater]

I can tell you one thing. I LOVE my d@mn country, because of the sacrifice that people of MY COUNTRY have made to help maintain MY personal freedom. Because of the men that sign a blank check, for and up to their lives (which is often cashed in) for the ideal of FREEDOM.

If you have a problem with current infringement of freedoms by PEOPLE in this country, then rock on. But you will get NO sympathy from me by disrespecting the lives lost that our country and flag stands for. Lives that were given so you could be assured the ability, for example, to come in THIS forum and speak your mind.

Governments don't give us freedom.

Tell me exactly what foreign entity has tried to take away my freedom of speech, that your beloved troops stopped. If the troops fought for freedom, then they'd eliminate the government.

If it a perfect system? Heck no. is it corrupt? in many ways. But an idealist with no answers such as yourself should be able to respect the ideals the the men standing behind that flag gave their lives to protect.

You're full of it. I have plenty of answers: www.ancapfaq.com

 

[Bernymac]

(1) non-aggression principle

(2) self-ownership

(3) all other rules voluntarily agreed to

What is stopping from living off the grid away from a society that you seem to hold with such contempt?

 

[state hater]

Synonyms, as per webster: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil

Yeah....don't sign me up for that anarchy deal.

Those are derived from the bastardized definition of "anarchy" that ruling classes promote. If you knew your ancient Greek, then you'd know the true definition of that word.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Governments don't give us freedom.

Tell me exactly what foreign entity has tried to take away my freedom of speech, that your beloved troops stopped. If the troops fought for freedom, then they'd eliminate the government.



You're full of it. I have plenty of answers: www.ancapfaq.com

I never said the government gave you freedom. Nice strawman, though.

Men gave lives in the name of freedom for this country, of whi ch you are a part.

Seriously? You are going to link me to a biased site with no empirical peer reviewed data?

What government tried to take away speech? England, 16th century.

 

[state hater]

What is stopping from living off the grid away from a society that you seem to hold with such contempt?

I'd still be on some gang's turf, even if it's nominally less patrolled.

Really, my only option would be to live on "public land" in some wilderness area. Such land (whether it's BLM desert land, USFS land, etc.) is still patrolled by armed thugs from time to time.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Those are derived from the bastardized definition of "anarchy" that ruling classes promote. If you knew your ancient Greek, then you'd know the true definition of that word.

Um....yeah. a simple Google search gives you Greek linguistic history of the word.

But if you want to join us in the 21st century, those "bastardized" terms is how modern civilization defines anarchy.

Maybe we can get into how many other words mean something to society now than they did 2000 years ago?

 

[state hater]

I never said the government gave you freedom. Nice strawman, though.

You made a direct reference to government men: "because of the sacrifice that people of MY COUNTRY have made to help maintain MY personal freedom. Because of the men that sign a blank check, for and up to their lives (which is often cashed in) for the ideal of FREEDOM."

There's no strawman.

Men gave lives in the name of freedom for this country, of whi ch you are a part.

B.S. They fought for the ruling class, which is anti-freedom.

Unless you're claiming that they don't, in fact, follow orders from the government?

Seriously? You are going to link me to a biased site with no empirical peer reviewed data?

That's my new site. You falsely accused me of not having answers. If you go through the site, you'll see that plenty of the answers have external links.

What government tried to take away speech? England, 16th century.

That predates your beloved USA.

Once again, tell me what foreign entity has tried to take away my freedom of speech, that the troops have stopped.

 

[state hater]

Um....yeah. a simple Google search gives you Greek linguistic history of the word.

But if you want to join us in the 21st century, those "bastardized" terms is how modern civilization defines anarchy.

Maybe we can get into how many other words mean something to society now than they did 2000 years ago?

Wars between governments don't entail chaos and mayhem (to say nothing of domestic tyranny), but the mere concept of "without rulers" does entail chaos and mayhem?

 

[J_dazzle23]

Wars between governments don't entail chaos and mayhem (to say nothing of domestic tyranny), but the mere concept of "without rulers" does entail chaos and mayhem?

Can you tell me any time ever, "without rulers" has worked Long term?

Also...in response, you did strawman the arguement. I said people IN the country. They signed up of free will. No one forced them. Just because they live in this country you can't extrapolate that to mean THEY are the government.

Although people governing themselves is the whole idea.

Society will always hold those that violate mores accountable, government or not. You will always have societal ruling class

 

[WalkingWolf]

(snip) You will always have societal ruling class

Even baboons have a social ruling class...

 

[Bernymac]

I'd still be on some gang's turf, even if it's nominally less patrolled.

Really, my only option would be to live on "public land" in some wilderness area. Such land (whether it's BLM desert land, USFS land, etc.) is still patrolled by armed thugs from time to time.

It is no wonder you seem so angry at everything that does not hold your point of view. You feel trapped in a world that does not conform to your ideals. You claim to have plenty of answers but those answers seem to fall short of what you want for your Eden. You have your idea of freedom and have no way of truly achieving it. You have experienced a lot of things that shaped your ideals and they don't quite fit in the current state of the world.

You seem to believe, that you have very few options and yet they also do not fit within the confines of your views.

I hope you find happiness somewhere.

 

[marshaul]

Two things have become clear:

1. This thread is now worthless.

2. OP is an agent provocateur.

 

[marshaul]

Although people governing themselves is the whole idea.

What you just described is "anarchism". All those synonyms you cherry-picked from your dictionary are instances of the same word being used to mean different things – notably by opponents (rather than proponents) of anarchism. What you just did is akin to getting a definition of "conservative" from a modern leftist. The whole point of those usages is to describe a discreditable (but fantastical) philosophy that nobody would adopt. And yet somehow you imagine that to be identical with anarchist theory as espoused by, you know, actual anarchists? I promise you that a dictionary is not capable of thinking for you.

It's certainly not the "idea" behind the US, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. A strong centralized government is basically the antithesis of self-rule; it's basically the definition of "oligarchy".

The ancient Saxon common law was largely anarchistic, as was the ancient Irish system. Law without rulers works just fine. Actually, given that law with rulers has without exception devolved into corruption every time it's been attempted, I'd say it is, in fact, the various -archys which have never worked throughout all of history.