Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#14731 - 11/20/08 02:54 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Asmedious,

It is good to see someone understands what I am on about. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was actually listening.

 Quote:

These PERCEIVED rights, include the ability to leave my shelter (home), and knowing that I am safe to do so, and that if an individual or a group of people decide to, in some way, to hinder that right, by attacking me for some reason, I will be protected by law enforcement (in most cases).

Law enforcement, as it is now, has no real incentive to be efficient. If there were other agencies willing able and ready to snatch those 'policing' contracts should the current policing agency not live up to its obligations, good service would become a priority.
 Quote:

I simply expect that there will be roads to get to where I am going. Again, this is done through the government and its agencies.

Roads are governments universal solution to transportation, yes. So we have roads. Roads could also exist in a free market. But who is to say roads are even the best solution to transportation?
 Quote:


There are many more examples I could give, but I believe most of you get my point about what I consider to be the positive aspects of government.

The functions of government are only the functions of government because the government will not allow competition to exist. A free market will always outperform an enforced monopoly.
 Quote:

They use the power of the government to make their institutions stronger and more powerful, while making the government stronger and more powerful at the same time, since the government now works for them. The situation of control and power, at this point, takes on a snowball affect, where more power and jurisdiction over the people is desired and gained.

Yes, human nature in action. The system is tailored for people to further their own ends only, and to perpetuate itself. It is a cancer, much like organized religion; Only religion has no real power, and is a much lesser evil.
 Quote:

The snow ball affect of power and control is now unchecked, and there is no realistic way of stopping it, aside from legal means through elections and the like. However, the government and the people in power are aware of this possible Achilles heel, and it is certain that there are controls in place, that will keep the populace from making significant changes.

There are theories. I don't think the situation is so dire as to just give up and develop an acute case of Stockholm syndrome as seems to be a popular solution. I think through education, agorism and disengagement a state can actually be starved to death. There is much writing on this subject.

Diavolo,
 Quote:

The Hitler fanbase and slavery comments smell like you're getting a bit emotional Dan. You surely don't expect us to fall on our knees and embrace the gospel you present simply because you think it rocks? Hey, my gospel rocks too.

Oh, absolutely not. I used hitler as a random example. When people started to jump to his defense on a personal level I thought the example should be dropped, as it was becoming counterproductive to it's intended purpose. The comment on slavery was just an honest observation of the situation as I see it.
Why you would read emotion into that is beyond me. I could just as easily read emotion into your defense of hitler at a time when neither the example nor the discussion required it.

And although part of the reason I post this (the other being my own enjoyment) is to educate people, I do not expect anyone to swallow anything without thoroughly scrutinizing it first, especially not here on this forum. I'd be disappointed at anything less. But with this said I will always prefer an intellectually honest response over a volley from a deeply entrenched and unassailable position.

 Quote:

Would Bush be able to become leader of the USA when there wasn't the apparatus he used? Not likely no but does it really matter? What I say is that if Bush isn't going for it, Jimmy or Sue or Jack will attempt.

Well, no. If the current power structure didn't exist Jimmy or Sue wouldn't have the means to attain power over 300 million people. Nobody would. Not even Jack.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14733 - 11/20/08 03:28 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Well, no. If the current power structure didn't exist Jimmy or Sue wouldn't have the means to attain power over 300 million people. Nobody would. Not even Jack.


This might sound weird Dan but what you say there is borderlining inferiority.

Bow down before me, for I am the highest embodiment of Human Life.
I refuse to not see humans as having the potential to utterly dominate their world or transcend into an Nietzschian ‹bermensch.

D.

Top
#14735 - 11/20/08 03:52 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Weren't you the one berating me for not being realistic a few post ago?

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say when you say 'borderlining inferiority' as grammatically it makes no sense.

If you are trying to accuse me of having an inferiority complex, well that is too ridiculous to even lend a reply to, much less give one.

But I can at least sense a general tone of disapproval in your oddly chosen words. SO, why don't you humour me and describe a mechanism other than statism where one person could gain the kind of over-arching power as presented to an american president?
Without inventing something that doesn't yet exist, you will find this very difficult.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14737 - 11/20/08 04:37 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I said the argument was borderlining inferiority Dan -not you- and completely opposing the very basics of Satanism.
You seem to give so much credit to the system that a man without it, is a rather inferior creature not capable of grand acts.

Of course, none would be able to dominate the USA in 30 days but such an argument is too simplistic. The question is; is man capable of dominating his world when there are no structures for him to thrive upon?

Yes, history shows it again and again and again. Remove authority or government and you create a vacuum that someone will fill. He'll create structures, authority for one simple reason: because he can.

That's what it's all about; the will to power.

Maybe we should switch positions for a moment to make you understand my approach.

I will state that communism (as theoretically intended) is a great thing and that if everything was communistic, we'd prosper. We'd not be slaves to a government, and not to capitalism.

On what reasons would you disagree with that?

D.

Top
#14741 - 11/20/08 05:15 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I said the argument was borderlining inferiority Dan -not you- and completely opposing the very basics of Satanism.

It still makes no sense grammatically. And I still don't think you are comprehending what I am arguing for. How is stating that no one person has the means to control 300 million people 'opposing the very basics of Satanism'? That makes absolutely no sense.

Just out of curiosity, what is your native language? There is certainly a language barrier here. Because for you to reply with something like this:
 Quote:

You seem to give so much credit to the system that a man without it, is a rather inferior creature not capable of grand acts.

..Shows you aren't really grasping what I am saying, and yet again are reading your own meanings into my words. I have never once argued against power structures or human potential.

 Quote:

Yes, history shows it again and again and again. Remove authority or government and you create a vacuum that someone will fill. He'll create structures, authority for one simple reason: because he can.

Yes, and this actually re-enforces my point. In a system such as we live in, where the balance of power it tipped massively in the favor of the very few over the very many it is very easy for people with corrupt aims to grab power. To make it even easier still the masses have been convinced this is all quite legitimate. In a society that has NOT been intellectually and physically declawed, as ours has, it would be much harder to attain power. THAT is the type of scenario an ubermensch could arise from. The types of leaders and leadership we get from government serves nobody aside from those in government.
 Quote:

That's what's its all about; the will to power.

Let's not forget about the balance factor. That little bit of reality that keeps us all from taking over the universe. It's great to have grandiose dreams of megalomania, but lets not completely leave reality behind.

 Quote:

I will state that communism (as theoretically intended) is a great thing and that if everything was communistic, we'd prosper. We'd not be slaves to a government, and not to capitalism.

Communism is just another form of top down coercive statism, even in it's marxist 'workers paradise' truest form. I fail to see how this example could be relevant. If you are talking about a bunch of people that agree, willingly, to live in a state of communism then I'd be all for it(just count me out). In fact, in a stateless society I could imagine pockets of everything from hard core military type rule to communism to lawlessness. If all property is private, the land owners would be free to govern their own land as they see fit.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14742 - 11/20/08 05:22 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Oh; this is kinda comical...

The first rule of Anarchism is; you dont talk about Anarchism...

It is not a political system; it is a philosophy.
A guiding star in the desert...
The epiphany which becometh mankind in the late hours of starvation and contemplation, doing the one legged stand, on a suitable pillar in the wastelands.
(Feel free to comment my grammar.)

Your argument, dear Dan, is filled with short cuts and assumptions.
Not very impressive...

Might I ask what you, from an whatever/Anarchist point of understanding, reason when it comes to;
Monarchy?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14746 - 11/20/08 05:35 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Woland]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Your argument, dear Dan, is filled with short cuts and assumptions.

Do feel free to point them out, I'd be happy to discuss that.

 Quote:

Might I ask what you, from an whatever/Anarchist point of understanding, reason when it comes to;
Monarchy?

I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14747 - 11/20/08 05:42 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
My native language is some barbaric mixture which is even harder to explain than to pronounce. Besides that, I do speak German, English, Dutch and somewhat French. Not that I need to explain myself but I prefered to amuse us both.

 Quote:
In fact, in a stateless society I could imagine pockets of everything from hard core military type rule to communism to lawlessness. If all property is private, the land owners would be free to govern their own land as they see fit.


Seriously Dan, you don't see the problems in this? You just wanna shake the box and watch the pieces of the puzzle connect again and call that transitional stage between the shaking and formation your anarchistic ideal?

That's not political Atheism Dan, it's politheism.

D.

Top
#14752 - 11/20/08 05:51 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, no. I think you have it completely backwards. Anarchism is to statism as Atheism is to religion. The statist makes the positive claim that the state is necessary. The religionist makes this argument for 'god'.

The Atheist and anarchist do not hold that sort of faith by default.

I used to also believe, as you do, anarchism could only ever be a transitional blip. That government was a 'necessary evil'. That is, before I got educated and learned different.

Have you ever really looked at Austrian economics?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14754 - 11/20/08 05:55 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
besides doom-laden pending zombie apocalypse movies, my favorite movies and books are post-apocalyptic. i even loved waterworld and the postman.
so i am all for a stateless society, because thats exactly what would happen. dudes like me with mohawks, human ear necklaces, assless leather chaps, and crossbows. bring it on.

Top
#14757 - 11/20/08 06:00 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Have you truly read the post I linked Dan?
Did you check out game mechanics, cooperation in nature, memetics?

These aren't fuzzy theories any longer, it's science and it all perfectly demonstrates the objections I make. Evidence is on my side, sorry. It all says it can't be more than a transitional phase.

Either way, we can agree to disagree but I'm still convinced I'm more right. ;\)

D.

Top
#14759 - 11/20/08 06:07 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.


The cause of that would probably be your lack of fluency in what we ignorant & outlandish personalities tend to call "Free English", or maybe "New Speak"?

I will spell it out for you:

From your "Agorist/Anarchist" point of view:
Any deep thoughts about Monarchy as government?
Pet idea of mine you see.
Please; throw me with your acumen?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14764 - 11/20/08 06:33 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I am unsure which post you linked, or even really what you mean by that. I don't see any links to other sites in your recent posts if that's what you mean. If you are asking if I have been reading your posts thoroughly, I would have to say yes I have.

I have no idea what you mean by 'game mechanics', nor have I seen this term mentioned in our discussion thus far. Are you talking about game theory? If so I'd be interested to hear how that relates to our current discussion.

As for cooperation in nature, I assume you mean that animals usually cooperate with their own species in order to survive? As this is pretty much the cornerstone of my argument (that we don't need to be artificially coerced to function as a society) I am left wondering how this works against anything I have said.

I am also quite familiar with memetics, and am again left wondering how you think its very existence somehow proves the necessity of a state. Seems like a giant non sequitur to me.

What are you talking about?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14765 - 11/20/08 06:41 PM Re: A [Re: Woland]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada


 Quote:

From your "Agorist/Anarchist" point of view:
Any deep thoughts about Monarchy as government?
Pet idea of mine you see.
Please; throw me with your acumen?

Well, I would put it ahead of democracy anyway. One man is pretty much always smarter than a mob.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14785 - 11/21/08 11:37 AM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh I wrote game mechanics, that should have been game theory yeah, my fault.

Anyways, if you know game theory, you pretty much know that defectors are a reality in cooperation, and thus a reality in each status quo. Memetics also explains that a memeplex doesn't necessarily have the best interest of the infected in mind and that whatever idea might spread like crazy.

I don't think you can disagree with me saying that every status quo is conditional. In everything, so politics are not excluded. Communism can work if the conditions are right. Mess around with some aspects and communism fails, as we witnessed in reality.
It's the same thing with anarchism; it is conditional. I don't really think that is arguable. And that's my point.

I'm not proving states are a necessity, I state that states are a result of societal evolution. Again, nothing to argue upon I think, the fact that they are there is the evidence supporting.

All I am saying is that anarchism is conditional and that it won't work in a non-conditional setup.

So no non sequitur I think, and you should really drop the forced Latin.

D.

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.