Anarchist Roll Call

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

help me understand this cuz…

even if we didnt have a government, just small communities, you’d still need a governing body - people will never completely agree.

you don’t want a ruler, yet men are animals, where alpha males are present. If we had small communities, its only a matter of time before men from one community want or need something from another, and have no choice but to take it by force. Eventually one community would be too strong to stop.

you can’t compare todays world with what the world was even at the time of the American Revolution - the manpower and money we need to protect our borders, build new technologies, run new technologies ect is too great. In short, humanity would never ADVANCE under anarchism. its a huge step back…

And please, don’t say Americans are dying “for no reason”.
All politics aside, Men and Women in the military are sworn to protect their Country and people… Getting ordered to go to War by the President and the Senate, is an order to protect the country, thus, its people. Follow?

if I’m misinformed, tell me.

HIJACK
Varqanir, how do I join the War Room??

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy…

Prove it.[/quote]

The history of all humanity proves this. People are animals. Animals have alpha and betas and those in between. This will form a hierarchy. Instead of fighting it out, we have elections. Not that hard.

63

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think it is like anything , Try and use the good parts and leave the bad alone[/quote]

The problem is that the government doesn’t leave you alone.

64

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
help me understand this cuz…

even if we didnt have a government, just small communities, you’d still need a governing body - people will never completely agree.

you don’t want a ruler, yet men are animals, where alpha males are present. If we had small communities, its only a matter of time before men from one community want or need something from another, and have no choice but to take it by force. Eventually one community would be too strong to stop.

you can’t compare todays world with what the world was even at the time of the American Revolution - the manpower and money we need to protect our borders, build new technologies, run new technologies ect is too great. In short, humanity would never ADVANCE under anarchism. its a huge step back…
[/quote]

I agree exactly.

Just because they swore to protect a country does not mean that they are doing that- it truly depends on the war. Because the powers that be order them to war does not necessarily mean that they are “protecting” so much as “fighting”. There is a tremendous difference between the two. This is not their fault, of course.

66

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
spyoptic wrote:
help me understand this cuz…

even if we didnt have a government, just small communities, you’d still need a governing body - people will never completely agree.

you don’t want a ruler, yet men are animals, where alpha males are present. If we had small communities, its only a matter of time before men from one community want or need something from another, and have no choice but to take it by force. Eventually one community would be too strong to stop.

you can’t compare todays world with what the world was even at the time of the American Revolution - the manpower and money we need to protect our borders, build new technologies, run new technologies ect is too great. In short, humanity would never ADVANCE under anarchism. its a huge step back…

I agree exactly.

And please, don’t say Americans are dying “for no reason”.
All politics aside, Men and Women in the military are sworn to protect their Country and people… Getting ordered to go to War by the President and the Senate, is an order to protect the country, thus, its people. Follow?

Just because they swore to protect a country does not mean that they are doing that- it truly depends on the war. Because the powers that be order them to war does not necessarily mean that they are “protecting” so much as “fighting”. There is a tremendous difference between the two. This is not their fault, of course.
[/quote]

no matter the dispute, our armed forces are there for American interests and what all those boil down to are the american people’s continued prosperity or at worst their survival. Also, if you get sent to fight, you are guaranteeing that at least one guy doesn’t have to get over there to take your place.

67

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

no matter the dispute, our armed forces are there for American interests and what all those boil down to are the american people’s continued prosperity or at worst their survival.

[/quote]

That is wholly and unequivocally untrue, as well as being a dangerously naive.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

I don’t see why it’s such a big deal. The man’s political views are similar to his- I don’t recall Varq saying anything about believing in Crowley’s “magical powers.” You’re seizing on an unrelated issue, a facet of Crowley’s life that has no real bearing on his political views.

If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. If you can’t do that, attack a person that the messenger obliquely mentioned in passing.

It has quite a bit to do with it when looked at in the context I suggested - Varq’s scoffing at virtually anyone with faith/mysticism on the one hand (Christianity and creation) but conveniently overlooking it on the other when it suits his purpose (anarchy).

Guarantee you one thing, you can’t take a man like Crowley and separate his political views from his spiritual ones. They are intertwined to the nth degree.[/quote]

Bullshit. There’s plenty of Christian and Catholic Democrats out there, and I’d use them in a second to help whatever argument I was trying to make. Just as if there was a Republican who was an atheist that you agreed with, you’d use theirs.

This is simply wrong.

69

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
spyoptic wrote:

no matter the dispute, our armed forces are there for American interests and what all those boil down to are the american people’s continued prosperity or at worst their survival.

That is wholly and unequivocally untrue, as well as being a dangerously naive.[/quote]

well out of any war that America has been involved in in the last century, how is this not true? I gotta run tho, later.

71

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Study Crowley before hollering “bullshit.”[/quote]

I know who he is. I don’t respect him at all. But you’re still wrong.

73

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…

… And I can protect myself just fine.[/quote]

“For now.”

–T Hobbes

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It has quite a bit to do with it when looked at in the context I suggested - Varq’s scoffing at virtually anyone with faith/mysticism on the one hand (Christianity and creation) but conveniently overlooking it on the other when it suits his purpose (anarchy).

Guarantee you one thing, you can’t take a man like Crowley and separate his political views from his spiritual ones. They are intertwined to the nth degree.[/quote]

I’m sorry, Push, but I believe that you’re projecting your own tactics onto me.

If I scoff at all, I scoff at ideas that I think are mistaken. I don’t scoff at you or anyone else for believing them, and I certainly wouldn’t scoff at you for expressing another idea unrelated to the idea I think is mistaken, just because I disagree with another idea you happen to believe.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said that divination and the occult were a crock of shit. Yes, by association, I think that anything Crowley had to say on that particular subject may be found in the same crock.

However, that does not diminish, in my eyes, what he said about the Rights of Man, any more than Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves invalidates what he said about equality. Ideas exist independently of their proponents.

75

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

well out of any war that America has been involved in in the last century, how is this not true? I gotta run tho, later.

[/quote]

World War I - no real necessity for American involvement. I’m not against what we did, but I do believe that we could have just as easily stayed out of that war.

Vietnam? Absolutely no good reason that we should have ever been there in any way, shape, or form.

Most of the Central American things we did in the 80s, the overturning of Allende in 1973, etc.- no real reason aside from protecting business interests (not a valid reason to overturn other country’s elected governments).

And finally, this beautiful tragedy of the Iraq War.

So we were justified in WWII and Korea in my eyes (even though Korea is shaky, too.) That’s about it.

The real question is - when does America ever go to war to actually to defend itself?

76

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
It has quite a bit to do with it when looked at in the context I suggested - Varq’s scoffing at virtually anyone with faith/mysticism on the one hand (Christianity and creation) but conveniently overlooking it on the other when it suits his purpose (anarchy).

Guarantee you one thing, you can’t take a man like Crowley and separate his political views from his spiritual ones. They are intertwined to the nth degree.

I’m sorry, Push, but I believe that you’re projecting your own tactics onto me.

If I scoff at all, I scoff at ideas that I think are mistaken. I don’t scoff at you or anyone else for believing them, and I certainly wouldn’t scoff at you for expressing another idea unrelated to the idea I think is mistaken, just because I disagree with another idea you happen to believe.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said that divination and the occult were a crock of shit. Yes, by association, I think that anything Crowley had to say on that particular subject may be found in the same crock.

However, that does not diminish, in my eyes, what he said about the Rights of Man, any more than Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves invalidates what he said about equality. Ideas exist independently of their proponents.[/quote]

I agree

77

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think it is like anything , Try and use the good parts and leave the bad alone

The problem is that the government doesn’t leave you alone.[/quote]

I totally agree, it is tough to balance regulation and free enterprise, you have Government that wants to over regulate then you have free enterprise that will put profit before anything

78

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Well. There you go.

Wolves don’t need herders.

That’s another thing anarchy has in common with atheism. It’s not for everyone, because most people still really, really need religion. Some don’t, despite religious people’s passionate insistence that they do. And the argument of religion against atheism are practically identical to the argument of government against anarchy. And for the same reasons.
[/quote]

hold on a second . . . maybe its the whiskey . . . but are you saying that just because I acknowledge my belief system is religious I can’t be an anarchist?

Aww man . . .taking my bottle and going home . . . .

79

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
…

Well. There you go.

Wolves don’t need herders.
…

…or sewers, aqueducts, power, light, protection, workers’ compensation, pensions, transport, Jameson’s (my preference being Lagavulin, in homeopathic doses)…

But as I recall, V, wolves are very much archists, with an arch-Alpha Male enforcing “rules.”

No, I think the animal phylum you would choose to emulate would be the Acrasiade, the slime molds.

These happy creatures exist independently as isolated single cell organisms which congregate only at the instigation of a mysterious signal (thought to be cAMP–J T Bonner) to form a collective plasmodium. The plasmodium serves as the community sex organ, producing fruiting bodies.

Now doesn’t that fit better with an anarcho-syndicalist model of utopian human society?

“Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the Alpha Male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.” David L. Mech, Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 1999

Large wolf packs larger than one nuclear family are rare, and occur only when conditions (i.e. famine) dictate. Once the hard times are over, the pack disintegrates. In other words, a wolf pack is a voluntary association, with the leader leading, and anyone wishing to follow following. No allegiance by coercion here.

My model stands.

And at least where I live, no government agency produces my whiskey, power, or light. No government agency built my car, nor refined its fuel, nor built the road on which it travels. Private companies did this, and likely they would have done the job just as well without government intervention. As for the rest, I don’t use worker’s compensation or a government pension, nor a sewer or aqueduct. And I can protect myself just fine.[/quote]

I’m moving to MN . . .wait, no, i want to go to Montana - but V’s got it taken care of in MN

80

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy…

Prove it.

The history of all humanity proves this. People are animals. Animals have alpha and betas and those in between. This will form a hierarchy. Instead of fighting it out, we have elections. Not that hard.[/quote]

wait - I thought the history of humanity proved that all animals are human . . .