Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2014, 09:52 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 09:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Is this an argument? Then I can argue the same. Why should governments exist today?

Don't go full retard on me.

Same reasons as ever. Human beings, as social animals, benefit from mechanisms for collective decision making and the means to enforce those decisions.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that go away any time soon.

(25-06-2014 09:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The society today is not even remotely comparable in its size, scope, and complexity, compared let's say to 19th century when many of them appeared, or even earlier.

Yes. I literally just said that. It's far larger, more complicated, and more interrelated.

That means more rules and regulation - inevitably.

(25-06-2014 09:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And, I don't remember government having any credit for invention of electricity, automobiles and plastic. That is all science and free market.

You're operating under serious delusion if you think those are non-overlapping abstracts.
(but then, show me something I didn't know)

The construction of electrical infrastructure was purely a governmentally-directed process. Likewise proper road networks. You know there's a reason it's not just the millionaires dabbling with those newfangled electric piles and horseless carriages, right?
(but we both know you don't know that - so, please read a book)

You can return to the level government of the 19th century if you wish to embrace the conditions (all the conditions) of the 19th century.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
25-06-2014, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2014 10:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't go full retard on me.

Same reasons as ever. Human beings, as social animals, benefit from mechanisms for collective decision making and the means to enforce those decisions.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that go away any time soon.
Does that mean we collectively decide what is a scientific fact about reality and then we go to enforce it? That was the way in dark ages Laugh out load
I don't see any of the laws or government practices being tested scientifically for effectiveness and modified accordingly. What I see is mob rule and even scientists cheering for mob rule Facepalm

(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. I literally just said that. It's far larger, more complicated, and more interrelated.

That means more rules and regulation - inevitably.
No, that does not mean anything at all. "It's complicated" is not an argument Laugh out load

(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You're operating under serious delusion if you think those are non-overlapping abstracts.
(but then, show me something I didn't know)

The construction of electrical infrastructure was purely a governmentally-directed process. Likewise proper road networks. You know there's a reason it's not just the millionaires dabbling with those newfangled electric piles and horseless carriages, right?
(but we both know you don't know that - so, please read a book)

You can return to the level government of the 19th century if you wish to embrace the conditions (all the conditions) of the 19th century.
If you wish to embrace the nature of human beings as social animals, and not as logical, reasoning, evidence-obeying thinkers, then you can return to the conditions of stone age, all the conditions of the stone age.

The unpleasant thing that I do is turning your arguments back at you. It's impertinent, smart-alecky, puerile, immature, but it's also absolutely justified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't go full retard on me.

Same reasons as ever. Human beings, as social animals, benefit from mechanisms for collective decision making and the means to enforce those decisions.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that go away any time soon.
Does that mean we collectively decide what is a scientific fact about reality and then we go to enforce it? That was the way in dark ages Laugh out load
I don't see any of the laws or government practices being tested scientifically for effectiveness and modified accordingly. What I see is mob rule and even scientists cheering for mob rule Facepalm

(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. I literally just said that. It's far larger, more complicated, and more interrelated.

That means more rules and regulation - inevitably.
No, that does not mean anything at all. "It's complicated" is not an argument Laugh out load

(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You're operating under serious delusion if you think those are non-overlapping abstracts.
(but then, show me something I didn't know)

The construction of electrical infrastructure was purely a governmentally-directed process. Likewise proper road networks. You know there's a reason it's not just the millionaires dabbling with those newfangled electric piles and horseless carriages, right?
(but we both know you don't know that - so, please read a book)

You can return to the level government of the 19th century if you wish to embrace the conditions (all the conditions) of the 19th century.
If you wish to embrace the nature of human beings as social animals, and not as logical, reasoning, evidence-obeying thinkers, then you can return to the conditions of stone age, all the conditions of the stone age.

Have you ever read a history book? Do you really think your position is informed and well thought out or are you just fucking with us?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2014 11:04 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 10:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Have you ever read a history book? Do you really think your position is informed and well thought out or are you just fucking with us?
That's a good question. I am a Master's degree student of Historical Sociology. I have studied many history books and of course had this subject at four schools for about a quarter of my life or so. I passed multiple history exams, especially recently, especially with regard to formation of states and nations, national movements, democratization, modernization, secularization... I know something of Norbert Elias, Charles Tilly, Michel Foucault... Then there's the Sociology aspect.

Sorry if I'm not clear about it. The truth is, most of what I learn are dry facts and processes. What I am really drawn to and what I do are value judgments, which is a very controversial topic in Sociology, even more so in History. Yet value judgments are essential to philosophy, which is my hobby.
I have found that except the factography and statistics, half of my studies overlap with psychology and half with philosophy. So I am combining in these and I use my official school studies as a background, not as a main instrument. I have found this multi-disciplinary approach extremely useful. The interacting whole is better than a sum of its parts. True - many of my classmates are better at history, but none of them can do the multi-disciplinary approach. Most lack the various disciplines that I know (i.e. economy, philosophy, law) and all of them are compartmentalized, they just don't combine the disciplines for additional understanding.

By that I'm saying - there are very few people to back me up in what I officially study. Few people really think that way or have this diverse background, except maybe bigger names like Karl Mannheim, Robert Nozick perhaps, Murray Rothbard, Alain Touraine (lefty)... You'd find more credibility for me in the discipline of psychohistory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 07:36 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  You just said you don't want to participate.
Yes and that's not the point. Even if I didn't participate, I might want me or other people to have freedom not to support everything that the state does.
Right now, in USA, you buy your groceries and the taxes from that can go anywhere, including the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, Guantanamo maintenance, prison industry, anything.
And if you try not to pay the taxes, you end up in prison, anally raped as 200 000 American inmates every year.

On free market, when you pay something, the money will go to fund more of that something you paid for and maybe make it better, not completely the opposite. You don't pay for medicine and the money go to killing people. Sorry if that upsets you, that is the nature of taxes, they are "non-equivalent" and "non-returnable" as lawyers say.

(25-06-2014 07:38 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  Looks like 'thoughtsfromaconservativemom' doesn't know shit about history if she thinks there were no taxes.
There were taxes - but also less regulations. The state does better as a pure parasite than when it tries to "help" by telling people what they must and can't do.
Only if you ignore what life was like BEFORE such regulations were put in place.
Quote:I might want me or other people to have freedom not to support everything that the state does.
And uh HOW exactly would such a system be implemented where it wouldn't be even more expensive monitoring whose taxes go to what?

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't go full retard on me.

Same reasons as ever. Human beings, as social animals, benefit from mechanisms for collective decision making and the means to enforce those decisions.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that go away any time soon.
Does that mean we collectively decide what is a scientific fact about reality and then we go to enforce it? That was the way in dark ages Laugh out load
I don't see any of the laws or government practices being tested scientifically for effectiveness and modified accordingly. What I see is mob rule and even scientists cheering for mob rule Facepalm

Jesus christ.

What did I just say about going full retard?

(25-06-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, that does not mean anything at all. "It's complicated" is not an argument Laugh out load

That you're too vacuous and ideologically blinded to understand it is not my problem.

There's no need for airwave regulation until radio is invented. Deal with it.

(25-06-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you wish to embrace the nature of human beings as social animals, and not as logical, reasoning, evidence-obeying thinkers, then you can return to the conditions of stone age, all the conditions of the stone age.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world.

Human beings are animals. That is a value-neutral factual statement. We are social animals. That, too, is a value-neutral factual statement.

Your facetious reponse only becomes remotely coherent if one imbues all sorts of ridiculous presuppositions prejudices. Good luck with that.

(25-06-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The unpleasant thing that I do is turning your arguments back at you. It's impertinent, smart-alecky, puerile, immature, but it's also absolutely justified.

One the one hand, it's gratifying that you realize what disingenuous tosser you're being.

On the other hand, it's positively adorable that you think it's justified.

No, for that to be true, you'd have to find a way to stop comprehensively mischaracterising anything anyone ever says to you, and you'd further have to scrape together a response that wasn't irreconcilably littered with fundamental untruths and inaccuracies.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
25-06-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 10:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's a good question. I am a Master's degree student of Historical Sociology. I have studied many history books and of course had this subject at four schools for about a quarter of my life or so. I passed multiple history exams, especially recently, especially with regard to formation of states and nations, national movements, democratization, modernization, secularization... I know something of Norbert Elias, Charles Tilly, Michel Foucault... Then there's the Sociology aspect.

Then why are you so ignorant?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 11:04 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-06-2014 10:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's a good question. I am a Master's degree student of Historical Sociology. I have studied many history books and of course had this subject at four schools for about a quarter of my life or so. I passed multiple history exams, especially recently, especially with regard to formation of states and nations, national movements, democratization, modernization, secularization... I know something of Norbert Elias, Charles Tilly, Michel Foucault... Then there's the Sociology aspect.

Then why are you so ignorant?

I cannot understand that either. He has the historical knowledge of a 6 year old yet claims to have masters in this. Either that or he just intentionally misrepresents what he knows to be false to support his ideology. If that is the case it makes it worse.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
25-06-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 03:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-06-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Quiet, you.

I'm sure in whatever fantasist wish-fulfillment anarchist utopia anyone cares to imagine, the problem of someone who up and decides, "I don't like you guys, so I'm gonna leech and contribute nothing" would never occur.

And even if it did I'm totally sure there'd be no consequences whatsoever, of course.
I'm gonna leech? Facepalm There is more of national debt on my head than I ever had money, no matter which democracy I live in. How is that not leeching? How is that not greed?

I don't want to leech from the state - but I want my economic opportunities to earn the money so I don't have to leech, which means no taxes. I don't want the government services unfairly securing money to itself through armed taxation. I want them on equal footing with any private company providing the same services that has to get people to pay them voluntarily. At which point you will quickly find that almost everyone will choose someone better.

[Image: 599945_10152294852840515_993484051_n.jpg]

No, not true. Just because there wasn't a direct income tax, there were taxes such as real estate, personal property, and sales taxes, as well as tariffs and fees.

All of these came out of people's pockets, too.

Are all libertarians this ignorant?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2014, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2014 11:37 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(25-06-2014 10:57 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  Only if you ignore what life was like BEFORE such regulations were put in place.
Life before government regulations was bad. But government was there all along! And it blocked people from getting better!
I'd say the reason why negotiation of capitalists with workers took so long in Britain, was because the capitalists could call on the government armed forces to beat up the workers if the protests got too intense.

If there was a free society before the government, no nobles, feudalism and theocracy, and things still were bad, then of course you'd have a point. But the abolition of government and taxes is the same in nature as the abolition of slavery. Slavery is as old as humanity itself. Nobody had any idea how things would work out economically when slavery would be abolished. Sometimes we know out of a principle that things don't make sense and need to be abolished - which means, giving the same opportunities to everyone, or more exactly, not enforcing violently special advantages for some institutions.

Hell, we both have a point. Psychohistory says, the very first violent institution is the family, the violent, coercive childhood, because that was necessary for survival in early history and prehistory - and only later it became unnecessary, elaborate set of cultural trappings. After learning the power and submission in childhood, adults seek power or submission in institutions like government. That is true. If government was abolished today, people would set it up tomorrow. But the same fact means, that different, non-violent parenting leads to freedom-loving, curious cooperating people, because children are born like that.

(25-06-2014 10:57 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  And uh HOW exactly would such a system be implemented where it wouldn't be even more expensive monitoring whose taxes go to what?
Maybe it will surprise you - that's how free market works by default, no extra monitoring needed Wink Every businessman is motivated to monitor his own finances, it's called accounting Tongue Does that make sense to you?

(25-06-2014 11:04 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Then why are you so ignorant?
I'm not, it's just the worst thing you think you can say to me. Tell me, what did YOU study? Any humanities?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: