Anarchist Roll Call

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

perhaps I was in the bottle too long last night, but how did this great thread about anarchy devolve into a defense/attack of American government?

I thought it pretty exciting when Lifti and V where on track describing the characteristics of anarchistic thought and principles, but then a bunch of pirates swarmed the decks of the good ship Libertaria and proceeded to assault the vacationing idealists and forced them into hand-to-hand combat defending the Island politics of of Dr. Moron . . .I’m really confused . . . back to the rum . . . .

82

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

“For now.”

[/quote]

That phrase is indelibly linked in my mind to Bill Nighy.

Hobbes predicted that the life of anyone opting out of the social contract would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. I invite you to examine the life of Sylvan Hart.

84

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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.

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?

[/quote]

Now, Irish, don’t go selling yourself short.

A man who is self-reliant in his spiritual beliefs, without needing the organization of a church to nurture his faith (as I know you are), has much in common with a man who has no need of a government agency dictating how he lives his life.

So while you are not an atheist, you are an athreskeist, which is close enough.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Create a different example, please. With me, ye aint a-gonna get away with commensurately comparing Jefferson and Crowley.
[/quote]

Fine.

“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment? Google the source if you wish. I’ll wait.

86

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I agree with what you’re saying, and believe it or not feel the same way. I’m just a bit anti-authoritarian, and I hate when the gov’t gets involved in things too.

However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy, it would never work. It would work for some of us- Varq, Push, Hedo, Thunder… there’s really not anyone on this board that couldn’t handle their own affairs and not need much government intervention.

But think of all the people who never pay attention to politics, have no concept of how to get by on their own, and expect the gov’t to do the great majority of the work for them. This is a large population, the ones that expect their leaves to be picked up, their garbage to be disposed of, their sewers to work, their roads maintained. That’s us too. Things like this could not be achieved without some sort of government… and I trust private companies even less to do a reliably good job when there is no oversight.

Private companies without government is bad, just like government without the media is bad. All lead to abuses of power.[/quote]

And who oversees the government? The voters? Come on, every single person in America gets four votes for five offices in D.C… In 2010, I personally get to vote on exactly one person currently serving in D.C… So don’t tell that I get to exercise “oversight” on the government with my ballot.

On a micro-level, each person has practically no say at all about the operation of the federal government, so how could you argue that “the people” have the ability to oversee the government on a macro-level? Every single person gets to exercise “oversight” on such a negligible sliver of government that government as a whole is effectively unaccountable to voters. Limit voters to a choice of two nearly-identical parties, and what do you have then?

I just can’t see how you come to the idea that government is preferable because private companies have no oversight, when each individual person can exercise as much or more “oversight” over private firms with their money than they can the government with their ballots.

87

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I agree with what you’re saying, and believe it or not feel the same way. I’m just a bit anti-authoritarian, and I hate when the gov’t gets involved in things too.

However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy, it would never work. It would work for some of us- Varq, Push, Hedo, Thunder… there’s really not anyone on this board that couldn’t handle their own affairs and not need much government intervention.

But think of all the people who never pay attention to politics, have no concept of how to get by on their own, and expect the gov’t to do the great majority of the work for them. This is a large population, the ones that expect their leaves to be picked up, their garbage to be disposed of, their sewers to work, their roads maintained. That’s us too. Things like this could not be achieved without some sort of government… and I trust private companies even less to do a reliably good job when there is no oversight.

Private companies without government is bad, just like government without the media is bad. All lead to abuses of power.

And who oversees the government? The voters? Come on, every single person in America gets four votes for five offices in D.C… In 2010, I personally get to vote on exactly one person currently serving in D.C… So don’t tell that I get to exercise “oversight” on the government with my ballot.

On a micro-level, each person has practically no say at all about the operation of the federal government, so how could you argue that “the people” have the ability to oversee the government on a macro-level? Every single person gets to exercise “oversight” on such a negligible sliver of government that government as a whole is effectively unaccountable to voters. Limit voters to a choice of two nearly-identical parties, and what do you have then?

I just can’t see how you come to the idea that government is preferable because private companies have no oversight, when each individual person can exercise as much or more “oversight” over private firms with their money than they can the government with their ballots.
[/quote]

I also do not know why private companies have no oversight.

A company that works for me has plenty of oversight and when I do not like what I see I refuse to do business with them.

Somehow, when you try that with governments they try to kill you.

88

[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.[/quote]

No. This is not proof.

[quote]
People are animals.[/quote]

So are lions, and tigers, and bears…oh my! Take me to their leaders.

[quote]
Animals have alpha and betas and those in between.[/quote]

No. This is a huge fallacy. There is no such thing as alpha and beta personalities. Leastwise, there is no certain way to categorize such individuals that does not rely on subjective valuations. This is just a trick of the collectivist elites to polarize cultures and monopolize the power structure.

Your above premise is wrong thus this conclusion is also wrong. I could stop disassembling your argument here but I have nothing better to do anyway.

I know you like fighting because you use it as part of your handle but it isn’t always necessary to “fight it out” to solve problems. Consider the following examples that show how problems can be solve which require peaceful human cooperation rather than fighting:

Language – With out human cooperation this would never have been possible. Let’s not also forget that multilingualism also requires the same kind of cooperation. Think of how much better we solve problems with language than with swords and bombs.

Trade – fighting hinders this. In stead of pillaging we can exchange our skills to bring about greater wealth for everyone willing to work. Consider also that most wars are started over economic reasons and are not just struggles for power.

The mere idea that people can even come together to form a government proves that they can cooperate peacefully enough to agree upon rules – government did not bring itself about.

The advancement of society, what we might call “progress” is only possible when people are peaceful, free, and prosperous. Government does not enable these in man but rather man does in himself: in his ideas and his actions.

If anything history proves that Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity must be defended as one idea.

89

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Language – With out human cooperation this would never have been possible. Let’s not also forget that multilingualism also requires the same kind of cooperation. Think of how much better we solve problems with language than with swords and bombs.[/quote]

The counterpoint to this, of course, is that sometimes the wrong word can lead to the problem being solved with really big bombs.

Toward the end of the Second World War, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum calling for Japan’s surrender. The Japanese cabinet was indeed ready to agree to a surrender, but was not ready to say so publicly. So the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, pressed by radio reporters for a statement, said in essence, “no comment.”

Unfortunately, the word he used (mokusatsu) was an ambiguous one, which could mean “withhold comment,” but which could also be translated as “ignore,” or even worse, “not dignify with a reply.” It was the latter of the two nuances that made it into English on the radio. As one may imagine, this infuriated the Japanese cabinet (nobody likes being misquoted), but not so much as it infuriated the Allied High Command (nobody likes being insulted), who responded with atomic bombs shortly thereafter.

90

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Language – With out human cooperation this would never have been possible. Let’s not also forget that multilingualism also requires the same kind of cooperation. Think of how much better we solve problems with language than with swords and bombs.

The counterpoint to this, of course, is that sometimes the wrong word can lead to the problem being solved with really big bombs.

Toward the end of the Second World War, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum calling for Japan’s surrender. The Japanese cabinet was indeed ready to agree to a surrender, but was not ready to say so publicly. So the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, pressed by radio reporters for a statement, said in essence, “no comment.”

Unfortunately, the word he used (mokusatsu) was an ambiguous one, which could mean “withhold comment,” but which could also be translated as “ignore,” or even worse, “not dignify with a reply.” It was the latter of the two nuances that made it into English on the radio. As one may imagine, this infuriated the Japanese cabinet (nobody likes being misquoted), but not so much as it infuriated the Allied High Command (nobody likes being insulted), who responded with atomic bombs shortly thereafter.[/quote]

Sounds like no one really tried to make an effort at understanding what was being said. Many fights start that way!

91

Ok you raise good points, and I had to do some wikipedia to straighten some shit out… lemme regurgitate some facts here…

Vietnam could be justified because it was a war against the spread of communism. If Vietnam fell then nothing could stop communism from taking all of Indochina. Same with the Korean war. It was a proxy war, or, a war where two nations ( US and China) use a third party to justify war.

In WWI America was defending itself. the Germans sunk the British ship Lucitenia, which killed 128 Americans. But what really got America involved was a British-intercepted telegram from Berlin to Mexico stating that if America got involved, Mexico should attack the U.S and reclaim Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

As for Iraq, doesn’t the Middle East hold 80% of the world’s oil. This is just pure uneducated speculation but maybe we’re securing some fat oil fields for the upcoming war with China in the next decade or two. Thatd be some scary shit…

Anyways you coulda looked all this shit up yourself, but fuck it, I got spare time.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Bullshit. The atomic bombs were not dropped out of infuriation. To imply such is simply a vacuous revision of history. At the very least it is a stupendously gross oversimplification.

“Hey, did you hear them fuckin’ Japs?”

“Yeah, I heard 'em.”

We’ll knock those fuckers down a peg or two."

“How? How will we ever do that? They’re rabid remnants of an elite warrior society.”

“Yeah, but they don’t know what we got cookin’ in New Mexico.”

“Ohhhhhhhh…you mean THAT.”

“You betcha. Fetch the Enola Gay for me.”
[/quote]

As I understand it, the point with the use of atomic bombs was to inuduce terror to hasten capitulation.

94

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Bullshit. The atomic bombs were not dropped out of infuriation. To imply such is simply a vacuous revision of history. At the very least it is a stupendously gross oversimplification.

“Hey, did you hear them fuckin’ Japs?”

“Yeah, I heard 'em.”

We’ll knock those fuckers down a peg or two."

“How? How will we ever do that? They’re rabid remnants of an elite warrior society.”

“Yeah, but they don’t know what we got cookin’ in New Mexico.”

“Ohhhhhhhh…you mean THAT.”

“You betcha. Fetch the Enola Gay for me.”

[/quote]

And Lord knows you’d never stoop to vacuous and stupendously gross oversimplification.

The mokusatsu misunderstanding is well-known and recognized by linguists and historians. I needn’t defend it here.

95

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Language – With out human cooperation this would never have been possible. Let’s not also forget that multilingualism also requires the same kind of cooperation. Think of how much better we solve problems with language than with swords and bombs.

The counterpoint to this, of course, is that sometimes the wrong word can lead to the problem being solved with really big bombs.

Toward the end of the Second World War, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum calling for Japan’s surrender. The Japanese cabinet was indeed ready to agree to a surrender, but was not ready to say so publicly. So the Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, pressed by radio reporters for a statement, said in essence, “no comment.”

Unfortunately, the word he used (mokusatsu) was an ambiguous one, which could mean “withhold comment,” but which could also be translated as “ignore,” or even worse, “not dignify with a reply.” It was the latter of the two nuances that made it into English on the radio. As one may imagine, this infuriated the Japanese cabinet (nobody likes being misquoted), but not so much as it infuriated the Allied High Command (nobody likes being insulted), who responded with atomic bombs shortly thereafter.

Bullshit. The atomic bombs were not dropped out of infuriation. To imply such is simply a vacuous revision of history. At the very least it is a stupendously gross oversimplification.

“Hey, did you hear them fuckin’ Japs?”

“Yeah, I heard 'em.”

We’ll knock those fuckers down a peg or two."

“How? How will we ever do that? They’re rabid remnants of an elite warrior society.”

“Yeah, but they don’t know what we got cookin’ in New Mexico.”

“Ohhhhhhhh…you mean THAT.”

“You betcha. Fetch the Enola Gay for me.”
[/quote]

The bombs were dropped because America knew that if Japan was going to be taken over by manpower it would cost hundreds of thousands of casulties.

Also, there were serious talks about dropping 3 atomic bombs in Indochina is the 1950s as France was losing its grip on the region.

96

I want my anarchy back!!! . . .(mutters angrily to self, throws empty bottle against the wall and stomps off to the woods . . . . waves a salute towards MN to thanks V for still including him in the now non-existent discussion, flips the double bird to DC, Beijing, Moscow, Riyadh . . . . . soon sounds of delighted mayhem and shooting erupt from the firing range . . . .)

97

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Bullshit. The atomic bombs were not dropped out of infuriation. To imply such is simply a vacuous revision of history. At the very least it is a stupendously gross oversimplification.

“Hey, did you hear them fuckin’ Japs?”

“Yeah, I heard 'em.”

We’ll knock those fuckers down a peg or two."

“How? How will we ever do that? They’re rabid remnants of an elite warrior society.”

“Yeah, but they don’t know what we got cookin’ in New Mexico.”

“Ohhhhhhhh…you mean THAT.”

“You betcha. Fetch the Enola Gay for me.”

And Lord knows you’d never stoop to vacuous and stupendously gross oversimplification.

The mokusatsu misunderstanding is well-known and recognized by linguists and historians. I needn’t defend it here.
[/quote]

Varqanir, who do I talk to about joining the War Room… its for vets, right?

98

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Varqanir, who do I talk to about joining the War Room… its for vets, right?
[/quote]

Sorry I didn’t respond earlier.

If you’re serving, or if you served, in the armed forces, then you can join the War Room.

Only another member can invite you in, which I’ll do if you’re a current or former serviceman.

100

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I want my anarchy back!!!
[/quote]

:slight_smile:

Deep down, so does everyone.