Anarchist Roll Call

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The State is coming to an end in America because it cannot financially sustain itself…

Would you care to make a prediction as to when?

I cannot predict a date or even what decade. I’d say sooner rather than later. The first most predictable indication will be a complete and total collapse of the dollar; money is the key to hegemony. Once the government loses control on that they cannot remain in tact. All states have fallen thusly.

Since I have no hope that government can rewrite economic law I can only come to one conclusion. no government can keep its power when it destroys the currency; it is this that has destroyed all empires.

Regrettably, I also know people will see the “anarchy” that results from the resulting power vacuum and conclude that “anarchy is bad,” with never having actually experienced it, which is why I prefer the process be a more peaceful one.

The question remains how many people will choose freedom over being ruled? That is why I see the need to educate now before it gets worse.

Well then LIFTI, you have a problem. You’re convinced it’s going to happen, and you may be right, and by your own words you conclude that regretfully it will happen violently so folks will never experience it in a “pure state.”

Now what? Now you’re faced with the chaos definition of anarchy. So we never will see the peaceful model? Or will the peaceful model eventually evolve from the chaotic one?[/quote]

Anarchic society can only be brought about when enough people understand how it is willingly brought about through deliberate, nonviolent actions. I think we can both agree we cannot solve the problem of coercion and violence with more coercion and violence.

Should the US’s hegemony come to an end hopefully the foundations of liberty that have already been built will remain in tact and we will just have to start anew under a new government. The hard part has been done already.

Now is the time to educate people on the fact that they do not have to be slaves to an anti-social system that ultimately does not work.

183

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

As you’ll no doubt know from your long acquaintance with me, I’m a stickler for the meanings of words. Unfortunately, the word “anarchy” has acquired a number of connotations that are divorced from the original meaning of the word. Rather like “fascism” or “communism,” I suppose.

As an aside, I like what George Orwell once said about fascism:

The word ‘fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else… almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘fascist.’
quote]

Hello Varq, Just a data point on the use of “fascism”. Eliade, who you quoted before, was in his early career a true blue fascist. In the early 90’s, I found in Bucharest this little pamphlet written by him, which ticked all the boxes (strong man, blood and soil etc.). (Probably translated and reprinted by some Greater Romania fantasist.)

As for the debate on anarchy, I have spent most of my life cleaning up after People With A Plan. Today, I prefer little ambitions, little truths and improving things gradually, Voltaire, not Rousseau. Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong. That requires law to contain and government to enforce the containment. Keep us in line, by all means, but lose it at our peril.

The easiest example of natural Man is how he behaves on the internet;-) Salem witch hunt ain’t in it…

184

[quote]TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.[/quote]

Always?

Prove it.

185

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.[/quote]

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

186

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make[/quote]

It’s in the logic.

187

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

It’s in the logic.

[/quote]

Ill Logic

189

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

Pitt, I don’t think you remember LIFTI’s basic premise when it comes to history.[/quote]

That is correct. Understanding history only provides a gage to what has happened (assuming perfect knowledge of history is even possible). History says what was not what is or ought to be. For that we can only trust in reasoning and logic.

190

Lift I admire your knowledge
the only issue I see with anarchism is that in order for it to work, the vast majority of a population needs to be comfortable with it - and also must be supporting of it.

Opposition would be its downfall

but without that, theoretically, I cant see it being a negative thing by any means. In fact, I find it to be something to work towards

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

Pitt, I don’t think you remember LIFTI’s basic premise when it comes to history.[/quote]

You are right I do not

192

TQB, with you all the way on Voltaire vs. Rousseau. You have to be a sort of misanthrope, and fairly indifferent to how people actually live and what harms them, to want to scrap all of society and start again with something pure.
And Eliade was not a good guy.

193

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

Pitt, I don’t think you remember LIFTI’s basic premise when it comes to history.

That is correct. Understanding history only provides a gage to what has happened (assuming perfect knowledge of history is even possible). History says what was not what is or ought to be. For that we can only trust in reasoning and logic.[/quote]

Lifty in most instances I think you post well reasoned posts, with the exception of pertaining to Anarchy. I believe that subject brings out more dogma than religion.And I am not just talking about you.
I mean no disrespect, but to illustrate my point I will attempt to mimic your style of communication on this subject

Understanding history provides a gage to what has happened (assuming perfect knowledge of history is not possible) so we should not even consider history. History says what was and what was not or what should be shall be .For we can only trust in logic reasoning and logic and the wee gee board

Actually I agree with your statement but you do not answer the questions. You put out these dogmatic statements. My question pertained to proof, how did your answer address my request for proof, I understand you have a theory , an even well reasoned theory. But it is not fact and can not be stated as such. One thing history has over your theory is even with all the corrupt aspects History is verified in the majority of cases. Due to political pressure it has a lot of fallacies. But over all history is just that

194

[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
Lift I admire your knowledge
the only issue I see with anarchism is that in order for it to work, the vast majority of a population needs to be comfortable with it - and also must be supporting of it.

Opposition would be its downfall

but without that, theoretically, I cant see it being a negative thing by any means. In fact, I find it to be something to work towards [/quote]

That is precisely what it comes down to: a condition that we wish to bring about by specific actions. It’s analogous to the difficulties faced when the promoters of liberty tried to condition the human mind to accept the immoral position of slavery. It wasn’t something that was decided overnight and then brought about the next day.

In some respects all we anarchists are really trying to do is expand the definition of slavery, defending our position against the state on completely moral grounds.

195

For a number of years my friends and I have been discussing the refragmentation of American society. As pressures (either external or internal) build to the breaking point, people will increasingly fall back to smaller associations or groups based on geography, race, creed, religion, etc. to deal with the emerging threats as the larger societal group proves it is incapable of protecting the individual or begins to coerce the individual into behaviors or sacrifices greater then the individual is willing to bear. All revolutions are based in this basic premise.

When enough people join enough smaller group in deference to the larger cohesive then critical mass is achieved and boils over from rhetoric into action - when a significant catalyzing event occurs. That is why polarizing political figures are never desirous in a volatile period. unfortunately - we have have three successively more polarizing presidents in row (each more polarizing than the previous) - this is being exacerbated because all three presidency oversaw increasingly larger intrusions by the government into the lives of individuals. Each was polarizing for different reasons and in different ways . . . but the current president is adding increasing fuel to the fire amidst the worse economic times we have seen in decades - all of this ripens the desire among the smaller groups to push back against the larger (state’s rights amendments, third party memberships, various political affiliations, etc) and will lead to revolt and rebellion is the pressures are not relieved via another means.

All of that to say - men in general tend to gather together in increasingly larger groups until the groups no longer serves the interest of the individual and he falls back to smaller and smaller groups. We form associations for convenience and self-interest and when those are no longer served (or when the abuses become too great) we seek to alleviate ourselves of the evil monster we have created. The best government for the individual is no government - but because of the evil in other men, the individual seeks associations that will provide him with security while not taking away his freedom - which is where the real irony lies because those two ideas will always be on opposite sides of the scales. Anyway, I’ve rambled on for some time now and I am sure no one has read this far - but wanted to put my ideas out there for perusal - long live anarchy!!

196

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TQB wrote:
Left to his natural inclination, Man will gang up on the weak and soon slavishly follow the strong.

Always?

Prove it.

If proof is required where is the proof to all the claims you make

Pitt, I don’t think you remember LIFTI’s basic premise when it comes to history.

That is correct. Understanding history only provides a gage to what has happened (assuming perfect knowledge of history is even possible). History says what was not what is or ought to be. For that we can only trust in reasoning and logic.

Lifty in most instances I think you post well reasoned posts, with the exception of pertaining to Anarchy. I believe that subject brings out more dogma than religion.And I am not just talking about you.
I mean no disrespect, but to illustrate my point I will attempt to mimic your style of communication on this subject

Understanding history provides a gage to what has happened (assuming perfect knowledge of history is not possible) so we should not even consider history. History says what was and what was not or what should be shall be .For we can only trust in logic reasoning and logic and the wee gee board

Actually I agree with your statement but you do not answer the questions. You put out these dogmatic statements. My question pertained to proof, how did your answer address my request for proof, I understand you have a theory , an even well reasoned theory. But it is not fact and can not be stated as such. One thing history has over your theory is even with all the corrupt aspects History is verified in the majority of cases. Due to political pressure it has a lot of fallacies. But over all history is just that [/quote]

Pitbull, all you need concern yourself with is whether or not my arguments are consistent and whether or not the meanings of the words I use are consistent with reality.

For example, I claim income taxation is theft. All the proof one needs to unravel this argument is to show my understanding of theft is wrong or show that I am making some categorical mistake about the nature of income taxation. That is the “proof” you need.

For philosophical arguments we cannot just rely on empirical data but rather on that as well as logic.

197

Has anyone mentioned that there are a lot of rich, world-wide corporations that are the heart of our quickly globalizing economy/government, and that it’s money that stands in the way of anarchism, not ethics?

198

Lifti and Push - you can deal with her . . . have fun . . .

200

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Lifti and Push - you can deal with her . . . have fun . . .

[center]LOL[/center]

I’m thinking you and I are really just engaged in a good ol’ fashioned testosterone fueled endurance competition over on the other thread.[/quote]

got to get my cardio in . . .