[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 12:15 PM by frankksj.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why do you, on the other hand, compulsively misrepresent history and conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that I posted?

Your posts are becoming too long for me to find the time to read, as I'm sure mine are for you. So, we'll have to agree to disagree. But don't forget the bottom line.

All I'm asking from you is my freedom. My ONLY request is that you please just let me flee and escape your rules. I'll crawl, swim, hike, whatever to freedom. Just stop chasing me and hunting me down. I moved halfway around the world to Switzerland to get away from you guys and you're STILL sending your enforcement agents after me, demanding that I report to you everything I do every day, surrender all the work of my hands to you so you can decide what to keep. I'm willing to peacefully co-exist with you. You can have WHATEVER crazy tyrannical laws you want. Just let me leave.

On the other hand, what you're asking from me is a life of indentured servitude, and you have millions of rules that you've ordered me to follow, micro-managing every aspect of my life. You've said, even in this forum, that it's selfish of me to abandon you (ie your "society"), and that I was born with a lifelong debt to you that I can never escape which means that you are entitled to micro-manage every aspect of my life and take a cut in all the fruits of my labor, whether I'm a part of your "society" and get anything back from it or not. And US liberals have actually gone so far as to say that renouncing one's citizenship to escape is an act of treason--a capital offense, and that my current ability to marry a foreigner and get a 2nd citizenship so I can renounce is a "loophole" that must be plugged so I have no means of escape.

Forget about politics. Put it on personal terms. Say we're just roommates, and we don't get along. All I'm asking for is to be able to leave and move on. You are insisting I must be forced at gunpoint to stay because you've become dependent on me and insist you have a right to determine my fate.

As far as your domestic US policy again, I have only 1 recommendation. Since, unlike me, most Americans are unable to obtain the legal right to live and work in another country, so when you draw your arbitrary jurisdictional lines specifying where Americans have to follow your rules, just don't draw the line so that it covers every square inch where an American is allowed to live, giving him no escape. Would it really kill you to draw the line somewhere else, like at the state level, and grant people the freedom to leave if they find your rules too oppressive?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Dubious legal grounds??? There was NOTHING in the documents the states signed saying that joining the federal government was a one-way street that couldn't be terminated. Anytime a contract has no termination clause it means it can be terminated at-will. NOBODY disputes this.

Um, no. I mean simply that fragmenting legislatures backed by public intimidation are not legitimate and legal actors. Many of the Confederate states were highly internally divided, many secessions were "ratified" by referenda which were anything but legitimate. There naturally remained a great many matters which needed to be negotiated in order to have any pretense of legitimacy even pretending the farcical secession conventions were valid.

Unilateral at-will termination is incredibly uncommon.

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, it was a huge travesty that blacks were categorized as livestock. But the North was just as culpable. Even the libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, who was adamant that all were born free and equal, and who should have known that blacks were humans since he was fucking them and making babies, and who argued that slavery was a disgrace, even he gave in and went along with it. So the North was, imo, just as culpable.

"the North" was no such monolithic thing in the matter. Seven slave states seceded before the inauguration. Four more after. Four never did.

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And so, after the South legally invested in those slaves, paid money to buy them and transport them, and built an economy that depended on them, I do not feel that it's reasonable that the North told the South they had to just free and forfeit that "asset".

Indeed. That never happened in peacetime.

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The North was a partner in the tragedy, the North shared responsibility, the North should have been willing to share the burden of righting the wrong.

That's a hell of a walkback from "the North started the war".

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The North should have been willing to open their pocketbooks and help buy the slave's freedom in a peaceful way that respected the people they wronged. The fact that the North refused to accept responsibility and wasn't willing to contribute to righting the wrong, expecting the South to cover the full burden, imo, that means the North wasn't much better than the South.

Yeah, that didn't happen.

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  They should have just paid the $5 billion the south demanded and been done with it.

"[T]he south demanded"? Yeah, no, that never happened either.

That's fantasy regardless; presuming that all slaveowners would sell, and straight up inventing the value out of thin air.

Slavery was legal, profitable, and expanding. Do these people seem like they'd give it up for a one time settlement?

There is further more the distinction to be made between buying the slaves, and compensating former slaveowners for having freed the slaves (which is what actually happened to some degree in some places). Only one involves buying into the paradigm that human beings can be bought and sold. So there's that.

(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The money would have fueled the industrial revolution, making machines to do the work of slave labor, blacks would have become machine operators, and the South's economy would have continued to thrive. Leaving the South a steaming pile of rubble for doing something that the North told them they could do is, to me, immoral.

You can't just make up what would have happened.

I'm pretty sure the destruction and devastation had something to do with starting an unnecessary and bloody war.

I mean, just maybe.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 12:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:45 AM)frankksj Wrote:  They should have just paid the $5 billion the south demanded and been done with it.

"[T]he south demanded"? Yeah, no, that never happened either.

That's fantasy regardless; presuming that all slaveowners would sell, and straight up inventing the value out of thin air.

No, it's a historical fact. Books have been written on the subject showing scanned copies of documents between the southern governors and northern negotiators, where the south was asking for, as I recall, $1300/slave to free all the slaves. The total cost was $5b. I didn't make any of this up. It's just that you lemmings choose not to believe anything that isn't written in your government provided textbooks. You forget that history was written by the victors, and obviously the victorious side isn't going to tout the fact that they just spent a fortune on a war that cost millions of lives when it all could have been avoided for less than what the war actually cost.

This shows the difference between libertarians and others. I saw, for example, once Ron Paul on Bill Maher. He made the same points, and the rest of the panel did not dispute one word of it. Rather they just concluded that he was crazy because "how could somebody actually be against the civil war?" They're not thinking for themselves because the real answer is "how could somebody be in favor of an unnecessary war which cost millions of lives and left half the country in ruin and could have been avoided for less than the cost of the war." But you guys don't think out of the box. You just echo what the government told you to say about how great the civil war was. This issue over the civil war is really basic, and isn't closely tied to libertarianism per se. Yet, virtually every libertarian I know feels as I do about the civil war, and ever non-libertarian defends it. Since the latter don't defend it on logical grounds, my conclusion is they just don't think for themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:36 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 11:27 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really are a disingenuous cunt. The Pioneer Zephyr was a diesel-powered railroad train - not an electric tram as you seem to think. And if you knew that,
you are a lying cunt.

Huh? I never said the long haul routes were electric. I was very clear the local light rail's were electric, because they were tethered to terrestial power plants. They didn't have the technology back then for long-haul electric. BUT, my point is that the free market DID always use whatever was the best technology at the time, because in a free market, if you snooze you lose. Stick with the old technology and somebody will always come along with a newer, better, faster, cheaper product. It's totally the opposite with a monopoly where everybody is forced to buy your product regardless. In that case, the only ones who are rewarded are those who preserve the status quo and don't disrupt. If you're a public servant and you stick your note on a wildly ambitious and risky project and it fails, you become an unemployed pariah. And best case, if it's a wild success, you get a pat on the back.

So, EvolutionKills says that on stuff like transportation it's too important to have a profit motive. I say the opposite. It's too important NOT to have a profit motive because without one there can be no progress.

Go back and look at what you wrote.

Quote:
(15-05-2014 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  And I stand by the statement. You obviously mean people to believe that the federal government took over all of these systems. That's the kind of lying cunt you are.

In every logical sense of the word the government took over. For example, nationwide government regulators capped the fares. Not just on trains, but even on air transport. If you had a plane and wanted to shuttle passengers from SF to NY for $500, you COULD NOT. All prices were set by government regulators and they determined who could operate (and naturally prices remained outrageously high and air travel was stagnant until the government deregulated in the 70's).

You keep saying that's not "taking over" simply because they government didn't physically confiscate all the property. But, using force to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property _IS_ taking over! YOU are being incredibly disingenuous to say that's not the case. What if I came into your home, told you I would haul you off at gunpoint and lock you in a cell if you used your computer in any way other than precisely what I prescribed? Would you seriously defend this and say it's "not taking over" simply because I didn't physically take the computer with me!?

You're just playing games because the fact is the government DID take over, and politicians began micro-managing public transportation and, as soon as they did, the stellar progress and innovation in that industry came to a grinding halt and has gotten worse and worse ever since and you just keep saying the problem is we need MORE government intervention!

Go back and look at what you wrote.

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
16-05-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 12:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, it's a historical fact. Books have been written on the subject showing scanned copies of documents between the southern governors and northern negotiators, where the south was asking for, as I recall, $1300/slave to free all the slaves. The total cost was $5b. I didn't make any of this up.

When? Under what conditions?

Certainly not before they started the war, at which point the issue was entirely moot.

(16-05-2014 12:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's just that you lemmings choose not to believe anything that isn't written in your government provided textbooks. You forget that history was written by the victors, and obviously the victorious side isn't going to tout the fact that they just spent a fortune on a war that cost millions of lives when it all could have been avoided for less than what the war actually cost.

Excellent straw man; most in keeping with your ignominious tradition.

(16-05-2014 12:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This shows the difference between libertarians and others. I saw, for example, once Ron Paul on Bill Maher. He made the same points, and the rest of the panel did not dispute one word of it. Rather they just concluded that he was crazy because "how could somebody actually be against the civil war?" They're not thinking for themselves because the real answer is "how could somebody be in favor of an unnecessary war which cost millions of lives and left half the country in ruin and could have been avoided for less than the cost of the war."

If, like you, he has his head so far up his own ass he can't see daylight, there would indeed be no point attempting to point out reality and how it differed from his fantasy.

Unilateral extralegal secession to preserve an institution not even under threat, forcible seizure of property and refusal to negotiate, and finally firing the open shots. But, do go on about how the South didn't start the war.

(16-05-2014 12:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But you guys don't think out of the box. You just echo what the government told you to say about how great the civil war was.

Ah, more fantasy.

You can't go a single paragraph without tripping over a composition fallacy, can you?

(16-05-2014 12:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This issue over the civil war is really basic, and isn't closely tied to libertarianism per se. Yet, virtually every libertarian I know feels as I do about the civil war, and ever non-libertarian defends it. Since the latter don't defend it on logical grounds, my conclusion is they just don't think for themselves.

If they, like you, are so ideologically blinded that they deny demonstrable historical fact - you know, the part where the South started the war, among many other things - then, sure, they might just reach those conclusions.

Reality begs to differ, but why let that trouble you now?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 01:33 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why do you, on the other hand, compulsively misrepresent history and conveniently ignore entire paragraphs that I posted?

Your posts are becoming too long for me to find the time to read, as I'm sure mine are for you. So, we'll have to agree to disagree. But don't forget the bottom line.

[Image: smell-the-win-bitches.jpg]

Or as the case turns out to be this time, ignoring my entire post, because I royally served you your fucking ass on a silver platter with all the fixings.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  All I'm asking from you is my freedom. My ONLY request is that you please just let me flee and escape your rules. I'll crawl, swim, hike, whatever to freedom. Just stop chasing me and hunting me down. I moved halfway around the world to Switzerland to get away from you guys and you're STILL sending your enforcement agents after me, demanding that I report to you everything I do every day, surrender all the work of my hands to you so you can decide what to keep. I'm willing to peacefully co-exist with you. You can have WHATEVER crazy tyrannical laws you want. Just let me leave.

You know what? I'm almost happy that they're harassing you, because you're such a fucked in the head narcissist that I just don't care any more. You do nothing but strawman us and project onto us what you want to argue against.

Go find a mirror and get down to really arguing with yourself already, and stop projecting your imaginary opponents onto real people, you fucking delusional twit.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  On the other hand, what you're asking from me is a life of indentured servitude, and you have millions of rules that you've ordered me to follow, micro-managing every aspect of my life.

Misrepresentation.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You've said, even in this forum, that it's selfish of me to abandon you (ie your "society"), and that I was born with a lifelong debt to you that I can never escape which means that you are entitled to micro-manage every aspect of my life and take a cut in all the fruits of my labor, whether I'm a part of your "society" and get anything back from it or not.

Even more misrepresentation.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And US liberals have actually gone so far as to say that renouncing one's citizenship to escape is an act of treason--a capital offense, and that my current ability to marry a foreigner and get a 2nd citizenship so I can renounce is a "loophole" that must be plugged so I have no means of escape.

Misrepresentation ad nausea.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Forget about politics. Put it on personal terms. Say we're just roommates, and we don't get along. All I'm asking for is to be able to leave and move on. You are insisting I must be forced at gunpoint to stay because you've become dependent on me and insist you have a right to determine my fate.

Fucking hell, even more misrepresentation. Not only that, but this is in direct contradiction to what I've explicitly stated at least a half dozen times you stupid cunt.


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as your domestic US policy again, I have only 1 recommendation.

Oh do tell... Dodgy


(16-05-2014 11:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Since, unlike me, most Americans are unable to obtain the legal right to live and work in another country, so when you draw your arbitrary jurisdictional lines specifying where Americans have to follow your rules, just don't draw the line so that it covers every square inch where an American is allowed to live, giving him no escape. Would it really kill you to draw the line somewhere else, like at the state level, and grant people the freedom to leave if they find your rules too oppressive?

Take your continued ranting at your own imaginary opponent, and shove that squarely up your own ass; provided you have enough room up there next you your head you dumb motherfucker.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-05-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Misrepresentation.

...

Even more misrepresentation.

...

Misrepresentation ad nausea.

...
Fukcing hell, even more misrepresentation. Not only that, but this is in direct contradiction to what I've explicitly stated at least a half dozen times...

Oh, so you've met him.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
It may be just me, but it seems the longer this debate goes the farther it gets from the fundamental disagreements.

How does any of this relate unless there is agreement on the fundamental purposes and responsibilities of society? Whether something is "good" or "bad" for society depends entirely on your values and the goals you are trying to accomplish.

Should society be trying to maximize "negative liberty" or "positive liberty"? Should it only protect us from others, or should it protect us from ourselves? How and why does a collective obtain any additional authority or value than that of the individual members? Are neutral rules and processes more important than outcomes, or are the outcomes more important? To what degree should society and government encourage or inhibit "Karma" (ie, bad/stupid decisions should have correspondingly bad consequences and good/smart decisions should have correspondingly good consequences)?

As far as I can tell, these are the real disagreements, or at least more so than whether or not we would have faster trains or better roads or whatnot under one system or another.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
16-05-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 01:52 PM)djhall Wrote:  Should society be trying to maximize "negative liberty" or "positive liberty"? Should it only protect us from others, or should it protect us from ourselves? How and why does a collective obtain any additional authority or value than that of the individual members? Are neutral rules and processes more important than outcomes, or are the outcomes more important? To what degree should society and government encourage or inhibit "Karma" (ie, bad/stupid decisions should have correspondingly bad consequences and good/smart decisions should have correspondingly good consequences)?

Those are indeed very interesting questions, and do not admit of simple or universal answers.

The point I originally made, which led to this derailment by a certain someone, was that it is incredibly unproductive to cast inevitable differences of opinion as innately better or worse.

(16-05-2014 01:52 PM)djhall Wrote:  As far as I can tell, these are the real disagreements, or at least more so than whether or not we would have faster trains or better roads or whatnot under one system or another.

It becomes relevant when one makes such claims as "my opinion is factually correct because [historical misinterpretation]".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 01:52 PM)djhall Wrote:  Should society be trying to maximize "negative liberty" or "positive liberty"? Should it only protect us from others, or should it protect us from ourselves? How and why does a collective obtain any additional authority or value than that of the individual members? Are neutral rules and processes more important than outcomes, or are the outcomes more important? To what degree should society and government encourage or inhibit "Karma" (ie, bad/stupid decisions should have correspondingly bad consequences and good/smart decisions should have correspondingly good consequences)?

Those are indeed very interesting questions, and do not admit of simple or universal answers.

The point I originally made, which led to this derailment by a certain someone, was that it is incredibly unproductive to cast inevitable differences of opinion as innately better or worse.

And yet, that does seem to be the crux of the argument. You seem to see them as mere differences of opinions, and he seems to see them as tied to a sort of "objective" social or political morality, in which case some differences are innately better or worse. Cultural relativity is a common debate in relation to morality, and this argument seems directly comparable... is politics culturally relative and mere preference of the individual or society or not?

(16-05-2014 02:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 01:52 PM)djhall Wrote:  As far as I can tell, these are the real disagreements, or at least more so than whether or not we would have faster trains or better roads or whatnot under one system or another.

It becomes relevant when one makes such claims as "my opinion is factually correct because [historical misinterpretation]".

Indeed, however, even if that argument is conclusively won, I'm not sure that actually proves anything.

One of the common defenses given for government surveillance and searches are that they make us safer. Why are we even discussing that? So what? Universal 100% surveillance and random searches of anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, would also solve a lot of crime and make us safer, but I don't really care. Safer isn't the ultimate point or value. That whole discussion is, therefore, mostly irrelevant.

Similarly, I don't know that those claims of his you refer to are really worth discussing. The real driving force behind accepting or rejecting libertarianism isn't faster trains, or better bridges, or such. You could make an absolutely perfect case for a totalitarian and centrally planned government delivering the best outcomes in terms of infrastructure quality, crime reduction, social equality, etc, and it would make any difference. That isn't their ultimate point or value. Those are just the arguments to support the foregone conclusions.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: