[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2014, 10:44 PM
[split] Ignorance about anarchism
(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Any good anarchist, just like any good self-identified communist or libertarian, has one of two equally compelling choices. Option 1, to pretend that if we magically set up a perfect society, nobody would ever break the rules because reasons. Or option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary, but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil.

All that work trying to explain to you libertarianism for nothing. No matter how many times I scream "No, there _IS_ option 3", it doesn't sink in. If the libertarian position was really unreasonable, why do you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead make up silly strawmen?

Once more: Option 3, to accept that, as you said in option 2, it's entirely subjective, and, therefore, there can be no one-size-fits all system that works for everybody. The solution, then, is obvious. Everyone needs to accept that everyone else also has equally valid opinions about where to draw those arbitrary lines in the sand, and the only way people can be happy is if these decisions are made at the state/local level, where communities are more likely to be homogenous and in agreement. Let Texas draw their lines where Texans see fit, and let New Yorkers do the same. Just agree to peacefully co-exist and not have the Texans to fight to get all the laws passed at the national level to force New Yorkers to do it there way. Then people have a choice to voluntarily decide which state has the laws they can live with and can enter into a social contract with that state where they agree to subject themselves to those laws in exchange for what the state offers.

As I've said a million times, the ONLY TIME I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ANY POLICY is when you argue for laws which draw the line in the sand where you see fit AND insist that such law must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live so that your arbitrary laws become inescapable, no matter how oppressive. In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.

If this position was unreasonable you wouldn't pretend like you can't understand it. You wouldn't pretend we were only presenting 2 ridiculous options when the fact is neither option 1 nor 2 reflects anything we've ever said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Once more: Option 3, to accept that, as you said in option 2, it's entirely subjective, and, therefore, there can be no one-size-fits all system that works for everybody. The solution, then, is obvious.'

So obvious in fact, that there are tons of people who disagree with you. Alright, continue...


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Everyone needs to accept that everyone else also has equally valid opinions about where to draw those arbitrary lines in the sand...

Okay, everyone's opinion is equally valid. One has to wonder how we decide which is 'better', but continue...


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...and the only way people can be happy is if these decisions are made at the state/local level, where communities are more likely to be homogenous and in agreement.

So everyone's opinions are equally valid, but those who think the solution lies with a stronger central government, those people are WRONG! Alright, continue..


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Let Texas draw their lines where Texans see fit, and let New Yorkers do the same. Just agree to peacefully co-exist and not have the Texans to fight to get all the laws passed at the national level to force New Yorkers to do it there way.

And those who are of the opinion that peaceful coexistence is bollocks, their opinions are still equally valid (yet wrong), right? Okay, continue...


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Then people have a choice to voluntarily decide which state has the laws they can live with and can enter into a social contract with that state where they agree to subject themselves to those laws in exchange for what the state offers.

Okay, What about the people that can't afford to move on their own? Who is going to fit the bill to help these people move? Are Texans going to collectively fund a 'Get the Fuck out of Texas' grant to help people leave their backwater state? Cause that sounds suspiciously like socialism! But alright, continue...


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I've said a million times, the ONLY TIME I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ANY POLICY is when you argue for laws which draw the line in the sand where you see fit AND insist that such law must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live so that your arbitrary laws become inescapable, no matter how oppressive.

Unless of course those laws that "must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live" are those that cover or incorporate "everyone needs to accept that everyone else also has equally valid opinions" or "people have a choice to voluntarily decide which state has the laws they can live with and can enter into a social contract with that state" or "agree to peacefully co-exist and not have the Texans to fight to get all the laws passed at the national level to force New Yorkers to do it there way". But what about the people who find even these laws 'oppressive', are not their opinions just as equally valid? But alright, keep on weaving your fairy tale..


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.

Right, except that your state has decided not to uphold to those ideas of allowing free and clear interstate travel and have closed off their borders to other states. You don't like that, but you lack means to get yourself out of the state, both financially and legally (the cops are instructed to shoot border jumpers on sight). Sad day for you, but your opinion is no more valid than the xenophobic majority that wields power, and there is no appeal to a higher authority to be made. But no, by all means keep going...


(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If this position was unreasonable you wouldn't pretend like you can't understand it. You wouldn't pretend we were only presenting 2 ridiculous options when the fact is neither option 1 nor 2 reflects anything we've ever said.

Oh the only one here that doesn't seem to understand it is you. Thank you for playing, but I award you no points and my god have mercy on your soul.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-05-2014, 06:46 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...and the only way people can be happy is if these decisions are made at the state/local level, where communities are more likely to be homogenous and in agreement.

So everyone's opinions are equally valid, but those who think the solution lies with a stronger central government, those people are WRONG! Alright, continue..

Remember, I'm not saying that people are wrong for demanding stronger central government. I'm saying that people are wrong for demanding ONE stronger central government with ONE set of laws that everybody must live by. If Californians want a strong central government, fine, move all the decision making to Sacramento. If they want one set of laws, fine, remove all county/city ordinances and have only state laws.

Yes, this really IS very, very obvious. You concede the point that everybody has different opinions that are equally valid. But, when I suggest we need a system that allows multiple opinions to co-exist, suddenly this is highly offensive to you and you're back to insisting that everybody must be forced to live by one opinion, and all the people with different opinions need to just battle it out, fight to the death, to get the "club" (the ruling majority at the federal level) so they can force their opinion on everybody else. Again, if you like this neanderthal way of solving problems, FINE, just let me leave!!! The only thing I'm opposed to is that you insist that your laws must apply to every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live so that there is no possibility to escape or flee.

(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And those who are of the opinion that peaceful coexistence is bollocks, their opinions are still equally valid (yet wrong), right? Okay, continue...

I realize that to both democrats and republicans peaceful coexistence is bullocks. Yes, it's true they both have a 'fight to the death' mentality. My question to you is would it REALLY kill you if there was one small space carved out, say a remote corner in Alaska, where us libertarians had our own community where we peacefully co-existed? See, remember, that this is one way street. If we libertarians were allowed to have our own peaceful little corner, it wouldn't stop the rest of you club-wielding neanderthals from having the whole rest and you guys could continue to beat the shit out of each other. We are willing to co-exist with you and not try to make you change your ways. But it doesn't work the other way around. You insist that because I was born in the US, I am subject to your rules no matter where I go. Even if I build a rocketship and fly to Mars and live in a cave with an oxygen mask, you guys will STILL send your enforcement agents after me to hunt me down to make sure I am reporting back to you my every daily activity and haul me back to earth if I don't comply.

(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, What about the people that can't afford to move on their own? Who is going to fit the bill to help these people move?

So do you REALLY think it's normal that people can never afford to move, and spend their whole lives living in their parent's home because they'll never be able to afford to move out? 99.9% of the population DOES at some point come up with the funds to pack up and move, and when they do, the difference in cost between making a move in-state vs. cross-state is inconsequential. So you're advocating that because maybe there are 0.1% of losers who will never in their whole life be able to move, therefore the rest of us need to suffer with this barbaric system with no means of escape? I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. You're so desparately clinging to your 'might makes right' mentality that you're trying to find any excuse why peaceful coexistance cannot work.

(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But what about the people who find even these laws 'oppressive', are not their opinions just as equally valid?

Sure, if the US followed the constitution and thus had 50 autonomous states each with their own laws there might still be some people who found all 50 systems oppressive. But surely being able to pick between 50 competing systems the one you find least oppressive is better than having only 1 oppressive system with no possibility of escape. Why is the idea of giving people the freedom to choose SOOO very offensive to you? Do you like having a gun pointed to your head and being forced to do something against your will? So, when the only thing that I'm saying is that I will treat you the way you want to be treated, and I want to let you choose for yourself the system that works best for you, why is that so offensive to you? My guess is because I'd expect the same in return and the "club" is SOOOO precious to you, it's SOOOO important to be able to force me to do things against my will, that you'd rather subject yourself to the same oppression than give me freedom. You'd rather have a system where you and I fight to the death to get 51% of the controlling votes in Congress, knowing that means I may win and then beat the shit out of you if you don't do everything my way.

(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But alright, keep on weaving your fairy tale..

It's not a fairy tale. The US did it in the 19th century and enjoyed the greatest growth the country had ever seen, transforming a once sparsely populated wilderness into the world's largest economy and a beacon of hope. In the 20th century, Switzerland followed this same model and similarly has enjoyed the most stable economy, the highest per capita wealth in the world, and gets consistently ranked as one of the best places to live. So it's not a fairy tale. It's reality. A

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.

(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, except that your state has decided not to uphold to those ideas of allowing free and clear interstate travel and have closed off their borders to other states.

You're building false walls. As I've clearly said the one critical role of the federal government is to ensure freedom of mobility, that no state closes its borders trapping its citizens as slaves who cannot escape. Yes, if that happened, I agree the other states should raise arms and free the slaves. However, it's absurd that you bring this up as an objection when what you're advocating is exactly that. YOU are the one advocating there be one state with closed borders (only at the national level, not the state level). Libertarians are always against closed borders. Even the right-wing conservative libertarians like Ron Paul argue that the US should tear down the wall between the US and Mexico and open the borders so anyone is free to come and go. It's your side that builds these walls to trap people in or out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 07:53 AM by Chas.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Any good anarchist, just like any good self-identified communist or libertarian, has one of two equally compelling choices. Option 1, to pretend that if we magically set up a perfect society, nobody would ever break the rules because reasons. Or option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary, but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil.

All that work trying to explain to you libertarianism for nothing. No matter how many times I scream "No, there _IS_ option 3", it doesn't sink in. If the libertarian position was really unreasonable, why do you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead make up silly strawmen?

Once more: Option 3, to accept that, as you said in option 2, it's entirely subjective, and, therefore, there can be no one-size-fits all system that works for everybody. The solution, then, is obvious. Everyone needs to accept that everyone else also has equally valid opinions about where to draw those arbitrary lines in the sand, and the only way people can be happy is if these decisions are made at the state/local level, where communities are more likely to be homogenous and in agreement. Let Texas draw their lines where Texans see fit, and let New Yorkers do the same. Just agree to peacefully co-exist and not have the Texans to fight to get all the laws passed at the national level to force New Yorkers to do it there way. Then people have a choice to voluntarily decide which state has the laws they can live with and can enter into a social contract with that state where they agree to subject themselves to those laws in exchange for what the state offers.

As I've said a million times, the ONLY TIME I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ANY POLICY is when you argue for laws which draw the line in the sand where you see fit AND insist that such law must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live so that your arbitrary laws become inescapable, no matter how oppressive. In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.

If this position was unreasonable you wouldn't pretend like you can't understand it. You wouldn't pretend we were only presenting 2 ridiculous options when the fact is neither option 1 nor 2 reflects anything we've ever said.


Why states? Why any arbitrary political division? What makes states sacrosanct? I want things the way I want them on my property and everyone else can fuck off.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-05-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 05:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Any good anarchist, just like any good self-identified communist or libertarian, has one of two equally compelling choices. Option 1, to pretend that if we magically set up a perfect society, nobody would ever break the rules because reasons. Or option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary, but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil.

All that work trying to explain to you libertarianism for nothing. No matter how many times I scream "No, there _IS_ option 3", it doesn't sink in. If the libertarian position was really unreasonable, why do you refuse to acknowledge it, and instead make up silly strawmen?

Nah, strawmen are your game.

As ever, you don't understand. You repeatedly and vociferously affirm option 2, and, indeed, continue to do so in this very post.

"Everyone else is wrong", the option I presented, and your pretended distinction, "everyone else is wrong, therefore keep away from me", are, as you may notice, the same.

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Once more: Option 3, to accept that, as you said in option 2, it's entirely subjective, and, therefore, there can be no one-size-fits all system that works for everybody. The solution, then, is obvious. Everyone needs to accept that everyone else also has equally valid opinions about where to draw those arbitrary lines in the sand, and the only way people can be happy is if these decisions are made at the state/local level, where communities are more likely to be homogenous and in agreement.

This simultaneously presupposes there will be greater homogeneity (!) at a "state/local" level - something literally impossible, if everyone has valid and varying opinions, which is a thing you explicitly just said - ignores (as ever) that "state/local" is a vague, empty, and meaningless qualifier, with boundaries and powers no less arbitrary or variable than any other level of government, and finally, denies a priori that there are any issues any people may wish to coordinate on a broader scale.

Three gaping flaws in one little paragraph. Not bad.

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Let Texas draw their lines where Texans see fit, and let New Yorkers do the same. Just agree to peacefully co-exist and not have the Texans to fight to get all the laws passed at the national level to force New Yorkers to do it there way. Then people have a choice to voluntarily decide which state has the laws they can live with and can enter into a social contract with that state where they agree to subject themselves to those laws in exchange for what the state offers.

Fun fact #1: not all issues are local.

Fun fact #2: Texan law doesn't apply in New York. Did you know that?

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I've said a million times, the ONLY TIME I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ANY POLICY is when you argue for laws which draw the line in the sand where you see fit AND insist that such law must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live so that your arbitrary laws become inescapable, no matter how oppressive.

No, that's a thing you made up. But you're very attached to it, so it survives any number of collisions with reality.

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.

No, that's a deranged and incredibly superficial mischaracterisation, but it's one you really, really love, so I do not expect you to abandon it any time soon.

(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If this position was unreasonable you wouldn't pretend like you can't understand it. You wouldn't pretend we were only presenting 2 ridiculous options when the fact is neither option 1 nor 2 reflects anything we've ever said.

You are congenitally incapable of understanding others. Option 2 is precisely what you say all the time.

But I like the return to the first person plural hivemind voice. Who's "we"?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-05-2014, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 10:08 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So everyone's opinions are equally valid, but those who think the solution lies with a stronger central government, those people are WRONG! Alright, continue..

Remember, I'm not saying that people are wrong for demanding stronger central government. I'm saying that people are wrong for demanding ONE stronger central government with ONE set of laws that everybody must live by. If Californians want a strong central government, fine, move all the decision making to Sacramento. If they want one set of laws, fine, remove all county/city ordinances and have only state laws.

Okay. What is to stop the residents of St. Louis from dumping their trash and pollution into the Mississippi River? What can the people in New Orleans or in other cities and towns downstream of them do to stop them? This is what your anarchist/libertarian wet-dreams fail to account for; our actions have far reaching consequences, with repercussions often far beyond what is immediately perceptible.

So where is the EPA in your decentralized scenario? Who is going to negotiate with China to try to get them to go greener to prevent their smog from drifting over the Pacific and into San Francisco?

Who is going to coordinate the building of dams, the upkeep of the interstate highway? Who is going to make sure that all of the states maintain a minimum level of standards for safety and the quality of their roads and bridges?

Who will be in charge of the power grid?

What happens to OSHA and other worker protections?

What about vehicle safety and emissions?

Who fits the bill for NASA?

What if there is a major failure at the Hoover Dam and the contents of Lake Mead go rushing downstream and flood massive swaths of southern California and Arizona. Which state will be responsible for cleaning that up? Who will fit the bill for a new damn?

Who is going to pay to repair the east coast after every hurricane, or the west coast after every earthquake, or the midwest after every tornado? What happens to FEMA?

Who would set and maintain standards for education? What would prevent states in the Bible Belt from eliminating evolution, cosmology, and critical thinking from their curriculums?


Many of these things require a baseline standard, a minimum that must be met to ensure the relative safety of all US citizen; not just New York citizens or Arizona citizens. States already can take on more stringent restrictions and regulations, like California does with emissions (which the auto industry hates). Now imagine auto manufactures having to make vehicles that conforms to the different emissions and safety requirements of 50 separate states? How many other scenarios just like this would pop up without centralized standards?


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, this really IS very, very obvious. You concede the point that everybody has different opinions that are equally valid.

I don't concede shit. Hypotheticals are hypothetical for a reason. Also, is satire entirely lost on you? I guess so...


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But, when I suggest we need a system that allows multiple opinions to co-exist, suddenly this is highly offensive to you and you're back to insisting that everybody must be forced to live by one opinion, and all the people with different opinions need to just battle it out, fight to the death, to get the "club" (the ruling majority at the federal level) so they can force their opinion on everybody else. Again, if you like this neanderthal way of solving problems, FINE, just let me leave!!! The only thing I'm opposed to is that you insist that your laws must apply to every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live so that there is no possibility to escape or flee.

I fail to see why you haven't taken the simple option of leaving the country. It's the easiest way to escape the tyranny of the laws of the federal government. I mean, if jumping state lines is a good enough solution, why not move it up a notch and change countries?


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And those who are of the opinion that peaceful coexistence is bollocks, their opinions are still equally valid (yet wrong), right? Okay, continue...

I realize that to both democrats and republicans peaceful coexistence is bullocks. Yes, it's true they both have a 'fight to the death' mentality.

No, those are just Republicans. The Democrats are a bunch of spineless pussies that give the Republicans almost everything they want anyways. They split the baby so many times in negotiations, they act like getting 5% of what they wanted was a victory; meanwhile the Republicans all stomp their feet down and cry like petulant kindergarteners until they get what they want.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  My question to you is would it REALLY kill you if there was one small space carved out, say a remote corner in Alaska, where us libertarians had our own community where we peacefully co-existed?

On a small scale, possibly. Sure, have at it hoss. Good luck beating the trend of abysmal failure that has accompanied every every other attempt at this ever. Maybe you should check in with Glenn Beck? This was one of his egotistical Libertarian side projects if I remember correctly.

:EDIT:

Yep, found it.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/gm1voi...k-s-utopia
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/i5mo2l...ck-holiday






(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  See, remember, that this is one way street. If we libertarians were allowed to have our own peaceful little corner, it wouldn't stop the rest of you club-wielding neanderthals from having the whole rest and you guys could continue to beat the shit out of each other. We are willing to co-exist with you and not try to make you change your ways. But it doesn't work the other way around. You insist that because I was born in the US, I am subject to your rules no matter where I go.

If you are a US citizen on US territory, that's how that fucking works. Don't like it, leave US territory. Then guess what? You are no longer subject to the laws that apply to US citizens on US territory. It really is that simple. I mean, if it works for state lines, right?


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Even if I build a rocketship and fly to Mars and live in a cave with an oxygen mask, you guys will STILL send your enforcement agents after me to hunt me down to make sure I am reporting back to you my every daily activity and haul me back to earth if I don't comply.

Fuck no, leave the country already.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, What about the people that can't afford to move on their own? Who is going to fit the bill to help these people move?
So do you REALLY think it's normal that people can never afford to move, and spend their whole lives living in their parent's home because they'll never be able to afford to move out?

Can everyone afford to move wherever they want jackass? No, there are dozens if not hundreds of other contributing factors. Picking up and moving across state lines is not something that everyone can afford to do whenever they want.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  99.9% of the population DOES at some point come up with the funds to pack up and move, and when they do, the difference in cost between making a move in-state vs. cross-state is inconsequential.

[Image: 1395695239462.jpg]


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So you're advocating that because maybe there are 0.1% of losers who will never in their whole life be able to move, therefore the rest of us need to suffer with this barbaric system with no means of escape?

Moving to another apartment or house in the same town/city/state is not the same as moving across the country to another state you fucktard. I don't doubt that a lot of people do move. I do doubt that 99.9% of them have the means to cross the country to do so.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. You're so desparately[sic] clinging to your 'might makes right' mentality that you're trying to find any excuse why peaceful coexistance[sic] cannot work.

Wrong fuktard. It's about collective responsibility.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But what about the people who find even these laws 'oppressive', are not their opinions just as equally valid?
Sure, if the US followed the constitution and thus had 50 autonomous states each with their own laws there might still be some people who found all 50 systems oppressive. But surely being able to pick between 50 competing systems the one you find least oppressive is better than having only 1 oppressive system with no possibility of escape.

You can escape already, leave the country. Surely you're not one of those "0.1% of losers" (your words) who can't afford to pick up your life at any time, right?


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Why is the idea of giving people the freedom to choose SOOO very offensive to you? Do you like having a gun pointed to your head and being forced to do something against your will?

Does your will supercede the wellbeing of your fellow citizens at all times? If your answer is 'yes, my personal liberty trumps all other considerations', then the rest of society can and will tell you to go fuck yourself. Someone who takes their personal liberty to such an extreme cannot be a constructive member of society if they do not take into account how their actions affect their fellow citizens.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So, when the only thing that I'm saying is that I will treat you the way you want to be treated, and I want to let you choose for yourself the system that works best for you, why is that so offensive to you?

Because what is best for any one individual may not be anywhere near the best for society, and advocating that everyone else can fuck off because 'personal freedom' is not a persuasive argument.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  My guess is because I'd expect the same in return and the "club" is SOOOO precious to you, it's SOOOO important to be able to force me to do things against my will, that you'd rather subject yourself to the same oppression than give me freedom.

If you abdicate your responsibility to your fellow citizens, you're a narcissistic asshole. Leave the country, go live out on a raft in international waters already; and good fucking riddance.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You'd rather have a system where you and I fight to the death to get 51% of the controlling votes in Congress, knowing that means I may win and then beat the shit out of you if you don't do everything my way.

Your view is so one-dimensional and myopic, one has to wonder if you can manage to get out of your house in the morning without smashing face first into a dozen walls.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But alright, keep on weaving your fairy tale..

It's not a fairy tale. The US did it in the 19th century and enjoyed the greatest growth the country had ever seen, transforming a once sparsely populated wilderness into the world's largest economy and a beacon of hope.

[Image: 1395695239462.jpg]

Even assuming it is true we did that with help from the best land grab in history (the Louisiana Purchase), and the unrestricted exploitation of the land, resources, and the Native Americans. That you would relish a return to that, to the ideal of eminent domain and expansion at all costs shows just how fucking selfish and short sighted your understanding is.

What options did the Cherokee have when American settlers took their land to fuel your touted 'growth'? Did they have the option to just change states, and move into a pro-native one? What hope was there on the Trail of Tears?


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In the 20th century, Switzerland followed this same model and similarly has enjoyed the most stable economy, the highest per capita wealth in the world, and gets consistently ranked as one of the best places to live. So it's not a fairy tale. It's reality.

[Image: 1395695239462.jpg]

(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 05:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In other words, you can make whatever silly laws you want, you can haul each other off to jail for jaywalking, just allow me to leave and move somewhere else if I find all your laws unbearable.
Right, except that your state has decided not to uphold to those ideas of allowing free and clear interstate travel and have closed off their borders to other states.
You're building false walls. As I've clearly said the one critical role of the federal government is to ensure freedom of mobility, that no state closes its borders trapping its citizens as slaves who cannot escape. Yes, if that happened, I agree the other states should raise arms and free the slaves. However, it's absurd that you bring this up as an objection when what you're advocating is exactly that. YOU are the one advocating there be one state with closed borders (only at the national level, not the state level).

You can still leave the country, why haven't you?

I am advocating for the realization and consideration that our actions have consequences beyond just ourselves, and to not recognise and account for this is narcissistic, selfish, irresponsible, and a detriment to everyone involved.


(15-05-2014 06:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Libertarians are always against closed borders. Even the right-wing conservative libertarians like Ron Paul argue that the US should tear down the wall between the US and Mexico and open the borders so anyone is free to come and go. It's your side that builds these walls to trap people in or out.

I'm sorry, but it's not the progressives and the liberals who want to enact a wall across the border with Mexico and man it with sniper-rifle armed border patrol officers; those are conservatives you are thinking about. But hey, nice attempt at misrepresentation.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
15-05-2014, 09:31 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why states? Why any arbitrary political division? What makes states sacrosanct? I want things the way I want them on my property and everyone else can fuck off.

I never said state lines are sacrosanct. When passing a law there has to be SOME jurisdiction. That's obvious. You can draw the jurisdictional line at the city, county, state, federal or continental level. I'm not declaring one arbitrary line "sacrosanct". I'm just saying that WHEREVER you draw the lines, give people a legal option to leave. That's it. If you want to draw the lines around the entire US, then, fine, just sign a treaty with the other American countries like they have in the EU that Americans are allowed to legally live and work in other places.

See, I'm VERY flexible. YOU are the one arbitrarily drawing the line so that it covers precisely every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live and work and telling me your line is non-negotiable--I must stay within your line and have no means of escape. You are being dogmatic, when I saw "can we please setup a libertarian community in a tiny remote corner of Alaska far away from you guys and have you leave us alone", and you're answer is "NO!!!".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Everyone else is wrong", the option I presented, and your pretended distinction, "everyone else is wrong, therefore keep away from me", are, as you may notice, the same.

You just proved that strawmen are YOUR game. Did I say 'everyone else is wrong, keep away from me?' NO!!! I said 'do whatever you want, just let me LEAVE'. What I'm calling for is totally different than the strawman you assign to me. If you're standing in a restaurant there is a HUGE difference between demanding that everybody must "keep away from you" vs my position that "I must be allowed to leave". The fact that I keep saying "Please, let me just leave" and you keep saying "NO!!!", you see this is a master<->slave relationship. That _IS_ the defining hallmark of a slave--he is not allowed to leave.

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  that "state/local" is a vague, empty, and meaningless qualifier, with boundaries and powers no less arbitrary or variable than any other level of government

No, see my post to Chas. I am _NOT_ suggesting meaningless, arbitrary boundaries. I am saying 'draw the boundaries ANYWHERE YOU WANT', just let people leave. _YOU_ are the one picking a meaningless, arbitrary that covers precisely every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live and telling me I must stay within your boundaries and that they are non-negotiable.

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  and finally, denies a priori that there are any issues any people may wish to coordinate on a broader scale.

I'm not arguing against coordinating on a broader scale. I'm only saying that, wherever you draw your lines, LET THE PEOPLE LEAVE! I'm like Moses talking to the Egyptians. Smile

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Fun fact #1: not all issues are local.

Fine, then the local jurisdictions, wherever you draw the lines, should work together. I've already conceded that it's a given that there needs broad rules about what happens when one jurisdiction damages the property in another, mainly by air and water pollution.

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Fun fact #2: Texan law doesn't apply in New York. Did you know that?

Yes, and I'm fine with that. What I'm NOT fine with is when Texans insist they know better than New Yorkers how life should be in the big apple and demand a law gets passed which not only forces New Yorkers to do it the Texan way, but even goes so far as to say that New Yorkers can't flee to escape the law.

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 10:44 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I've said a million times, the ONLY TIME I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ANY POLICY is when you argue for laws which draw the line in the sand where you see fit AND insist that such law must cover every square inch where an American citizen is legally allowed to live so that your arbitrary laws become inescapable, no matter how oppressive.

No, that's a thing you made up. But you're very attached to it, so it survives any number of collisions with reality.

It's not something I've made up. I've challenged you repeatedly to find ONE exception to that rule. The only time you proposed one was on environmental issues, something I already conceded required broad rules so that one jurisdiction doesn't damage property in another. If, despite all my challenges, you cannot find ONE exception to the rule, then I will continue to say the rule stands.

(15-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  option 2, to concede that actually some sort of imposed order and regulation are necessary, but that anything one hair further than one's personal subjective idea of "necessary" is innately, inherently, and irredeemably evil....

You are congenitally incapable of understanding others. Option 2 is precisely what you say all the time.

I DARE you to copy/paste one time when I've stated that. I am completely flexible on this and have said over and over pass whatever orders and regulations you think are necessary. I won't push back no matter how absurd and ridiculous i think they are. JUST LET ME LEAVE. That IS not option 2. And that also seems to be the one non-negotiable issue for you--you have made up your mind that when you make your rules you must arbitrarily be able to draw the jurisdictional lines so they cover every square inch that I'm legally allowed to live. You are so intent on controlling me that the one and only simple I request I make, that you let me leave, is something you won't even consider. And every time I say it, you keep making up these ridiculous strawmen because you don't want to admit that it all boils down to this one issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:31 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why states? Why any arbitrary political division? What makes states sacrosanct? I want things the way I want them on my property and everyone else can fuck off.

I never said state lines are sacrosanct. When passing a law there has to be SOME jurisdiction. That's obvious. You can draw the jurisdictional line at the city, county, state, federal or continental level. I'm not declaring one arbitrary line "sacrosanct". I'm just saying that WHEREVER you draw the lines, give people a legal option to leave. That's it. If you want to draw the lines around the entire US, then, fine, just sign a treaty with the other American countries like they have in the EU that Americans are allowed to legally live and work in other places.

See, I'm VERY flexible. YOU are the one arbitrarily drawing the line so that it covers precisely every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live and work and telling me your line is non-negotiable--I must stay within your line and have no means of escape. You are being dogmatic, when I saw "can we please setup a libertarian community in a tiny remote corner of Alaska far away from you guys and have you leave us alone", and you're answer is "NO!!!".

Except that the UE is just another arbitrary border. Being an EU citizen does not grant you the same rights of movement and travel outside of the EU as it does inside; same as being an American citizen within the United States. For fuck's sake... Facepalm

Do you have no self awareness?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(15-05-2014 09:31 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 07:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why states? Why any arbitrary political division? What makes states sacrosanct? I want things the way I want them on my property and everyone else can fuck off.

I never said state lines are sacrosanct. When passing a law there has to be SOME jurisdiction. That's obvious. You can draw the jurisdictional line at the city, county, state, federal or continental level. I'm not declaring one arbitrary line "sacrosanct". I'm just saying that WHEREVER you draw the lines, give people a legal option to leave. That's it. If you want to draw the lines around the entire US, then, fine, just sign a treaty with the other American countries like they have in the EU that Americans are allowed to legally live and work in other places.

See, I'm VERY flexible. YOU are the one arbitrarily drawing the line so that it covers precisely every square inch where I'm legally allowed to live and work and telling me your line is non-negotiable--I must stay within your line and have no means of escape. You are being dogmatic, when I saw "can we please setup a libertarian community in a tiny remote corner of Alaska far away from you guys and have you leave us alone", and you're answer is "NO!!!".

Oh, fuck off - I've drawn no line. You keep putting words in people's mouths. You are such a dickhead.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: