<starts a slow clap> Well said, man. Well said.

I try to keep out of politics for this very reason: seems that most of our leaders don't really seem to want us to have control over our lives, and when we show signs of getting that control, things seem to get worse. At least they seem to.

Am I being paranoid? <shakes head> Nah. Just sayin' what I see, really. But it does lead to the point that if I vote (and at this point, that's a BIG if), it'll be for the person who just feels right. Personally, Senator Obama is showing signs of being someone the public can FINALLY put their faith for presidency on. Especially with the lowbrow tactics the other side seems to be using to achieve that goal. Again, just telling it how I see it, and from someone currently under the employ of the government (Active Army Soldier), hopefully you'll view that as something worthwhile.

But then, when you come right down to it, the only opinion that should and *does* matter is your own, just like you said. Thank YOU for standing up and saying it, knowing that thar be trolls in them thar hills and still be willing to speak your mind.

Also, the Weird Al bit at the end is priceless. I've heard that song many a time and I STILL can't say it all in one breath or even remember half the friggin' lyrics. That took time and by God, I appreciate that. <claps your shoulder>

Again, Well Said.

P.S. Pedro for President? No offense, but somehow, Aquaman just strikes me as more...awesome. *wink!*

But it does lead to the point that if I vote (and at this point, that's a BIG if), it'll be for the person who just feels right.

That is extremely funny, considering what I just said to alexreynard about this same subject. I'm not poking fun of you or anything, it's just somewhat of an amusing coincidence.

Thank you.

Like I said before, I'm not partial to any of the candidates currently lined up. But, I respect your decision to go with what you feel is right, and sincerely hope that if Obama wins, he heralds a better future for us all.

I can agree with a lot of what you're saying here, but I think there is still a practical reason why as many intelligent people as possible should vote: to keep out someone who will truly Fuck Us Up.

I did my part; casting my ballot against the Bush inquisition both times. And while I was lukewarm about Gore and kinda liked Kerry, I was mostly doing it because I knew what would happen if Bush got in office: exactly what HAS happened. Think about this: so far Bush has killed over 5000 Americans in his little Iraqi playtime. I for one believe that a whole bunch of those people would still be alive today had Gore been in office.

Then again, your point gains more validity when you consider that Bush transparently stole _both_ elections. So, sadly, voting may have become even more futile than when one's ballot actually counted...

I think I'm gonna go need to eat some ice cream to cheer myself up. ;)

I love ice cream.
I'm lactose intolerant.

Evidence is quickly mounting in favor of the theory that my body does not want me to be happy.

I have never voted in a Presidential election. I don't think it's always easy to tell exactly who will truly Fuck Us Up least, until they have the power to do so. It's sort of a "Quantum Politics" hypothesis. Sometimes you can give a perfectly decent person nearly unquestioned power over something, and for all intents and purposes it will appear as if they've become a complete dick. Whether power corrupts, or merely magnifies preexisting corruption, we may never know.

I think the corruption/power hypothesis has something to do with the fact that when someone is granted power, they often feel compelled to use it, whether or not they really should.

Heck, Kerry or Gore might well have Fucked Us Up less then George Dubbya. At this point, however, I'm more prone to believe that the only difference between candidates is which lube they use when they rape our collective asses. In that regard, if the McCain/Palin duo gets the seat, and McCain kicks the bucket, the US may experience its our first dildo assisted Presidential ass raping. That's pretty much the closest I can get to real sex, and that's terrible. (insert remark alluding to my status as an oval office intern, here)

I think I'm gonna go get some ass cream to cheer myself up.

I'm not saying don't vote, it might do some good. It's simply too much of a gamble for me, and I couldn't bear the snide remarks of people saying, "It's all your fault this country is fucked, because you voted for X when you should have voted for Y!" I, by the way, will not be one of those people. I'll say, "It's all your fault this country is fucked, because you voted!"

Honestly, though, know if the day comes when I say that, it's simply for comedic value.


The country would have been fucked regardless of whether or not you voted.

May the least sadistic, smallest dicked President win!

And, if Palin somehow does get into office, let's hope she favors smaller dildos over the Sphincter Buster Supreme.

I really do appreciate you expressing your opinion, by the way. You're a very interesting fox who occasionally broadcasts "PENIS" subliminally into my brain.

You make some valid points there, but I'll still be in the election booths this November, if for no other reason than to cancel out the vote of someone who's casting his ballot not for a person, but for some hideous idea like criminalizing abortion or preventing gays from marrying or to keep us in Iraq until we 'win'.

I happen to disagree with abortion, but also don't believe it should be criminalized. If pro-lifers really want to do some good about it, they should focus on researching better options, and funding them as well. Perhaps a fetus transplant program. All criminalizing abortion would do is encourage acts of desperation. So far as marriage rights for gays go, well, I really don't think the government should have anything to do with the practice of the religious ceremony itself. Nor do I think that the practice of the ceremony in regards to same sex couples should be forbidden, that's up to each church individually. And, so far as civil unions go, I don't think they have any reason be denied to same sex couples. Some people think that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity and tradition of marriage. Fuck that. What sanctity? Half the couples who get married divorce in two years, I wouldn't exactly call that divinely ordained. And a tradition of what? Of spousal abuse? Of extramarital affairs? Yeah, that's a really proud tradition. Some say gays shouldn't get married because they can't "be fruitful" with each other. Hell, by that reasoning, sterile folks shouldn't get married. And, dudes would need a divorce once they get a vasectomy, and women once they hit menopause.

On the Iraq war issue, I'm all for getting the hell out of there, but, frankly, I don't think either major party actually has serious plans to do that any time soon, so I hope you plan on voting for a third party candidate. Yes, I know Obama is making a big show of being anti-war. But, if he gets into office and pulls out of Iraq in the next four years, I'm going to be pleasantly surprised. At this point, I find it reasonable to expect an upcoming war with Iran as well, regardless of who wins the Presidential seat. You seem like a smart person, and I honestly hope you are right about whomever you choose to vote for. Sadly, hoping is pretty much all I can do. Good luck in November.

Your points on abortion and gay marriage are well-reasoned and, though I might disagree on a few details, quite sound.

Frankly, I've been a cynical curmudgeon for a damn long time, but Obama actually has me jazzed-up. It's not like other candidates in the past where I've supported them largely because the other choice was far worse. So far, with only the most minor of exceptions, EVERYTHING I have learned about Obama has made me like him more. And believe me, I research people before I make such judgments. He may not go as far as I'd prefer in some areas, but he practically *reeks* of common sense. That, and he speaks with intelligence and eloquence, which I know doesn't mean too much, but I actually watched and *enjoyed* his recent convention speech. I never watch OR enjoy political speeches!

And, coming back to my original point, while John McCain has revealed himself as merely a spineless worm who will go along with anything his party tells him to do, Sarah Palin's got me *terrified*. She purely embodies one of the qualities I hate most in people: being incredibly ignorant and belligerently PROUD of that fact. Even if I was only sorta mildly infatuated with Obama, I would still encourage _everyone_ to go out and vote for him simply to keep this insane blood-soaked animal-killing evolution-denying bitch as far away as possible from the most powerful position in America.

I honestly hope you are right about Obama.

The thing that most terrifies me about Palin, is the implications that she believes the war in Iraq to have some remote connection to God's Will. Whenever someone invokes God in a pro-war debate it really freaks me out. That factor somewhat diminishes my respect for what I've heard about her adherence to reduce taxes and expose corruption. It is my belief that the Public School system is pretty much screwed anyway, but her desire to teach Intelligent Design in Science class isn't any less of a strike against her, even though it probably wouldn't be the absolute worst thing Public schools have ever taught children. (If you want to learn more about my belief on the Education system, Note me, I don't feel like going into detail at the moment.)

The wolf killing could be excused as a way to increase tourism by encouraging higher moose populations, but even that is a sad excuse for the level of brutality involved. If she wanted to simply cull the predators so that they wouldn't kill so many moose, she could just issue dart guns with a sedative. After the wolf is unconscious, the hunter could then fire a second dart, filled with a sterilization drug and a small microchip. The microchip could help with scientific research, population tracking, and would make it easier to not hunt the same wolf twice. Simultaneously, it is a humane way to reduce the Wolf population, helps to better scientific understanding of wolves, and provides the hunter with a "Virtual kill" for those who are into that sort of thing. Also, the population could be more easily observed to ensure that only the necessary number of wolves are sterilized. All this is assuming the wolf population even needs to be reduced. The main problem I see is that it wouldn't have massive immediate results, and it might cost a bit more. However, the cost could be offset by whatever labs are buying the data (if any labs buy that sort of data).

And here's a second option. Moose breeding programs. You could probably hire a few furries who are into that sort of thing, give them some special applicators and tranquilizer guns and maybe an mp3 player with some Berry White.....

Heck, some furries might even pay money to do that! That would certainly offset the cost of the program to some degree. And, if they just happen across some wolves in the meantime, they might even go for a twofer.

The moose breeding program option is, of course, implied as a joke. But you gotta admit, making love instead of war certainly has a nice ring to it. And you wouldn't hear the moose or wolves complaining ...

.....because, they'd probably be unconscious.


Damn, now I feel like making a political cartoon. I'd call it, "If Furries Ruled the World" In jest, of course.

>I honestly hope you are right about Obama.

Obviously I can't know for sure, but I've known enough incredibly duplicitous people to get a good sense of when someone's full of shit. I am not getting even one iota of that vibe from him.

>That factor somewhat diminishes my respect for what I've heard about her adherence to reduce taxes and expose corruption.

WHAT!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, dude. From what I've heard, back in Alaska it's true she reduced taxes, but also *raised* other ones. and as far as corruption, she was well-known for appointing her friends to government positions regardless of qualifications. Further proof that, to conservatives, the complete opposite of the truth IS the truth!

>It is my belief that the Public School system is pretty much screwed anyway, but her desire to teach Intelligent Design in Science class isn't any less of a strike against her, even though it probably wouldn't be the absolute worst thing Public schools have ever taught children. (If you want to learn more about my belief on the Education system, Note me, I don't feel like going into detail at the moment.)

The very idea of teaching ID to kids is, in my opinion, child abuse. The logic behind ID is incredibly lazy anti-thought: "Well, I can't understand how this system works. It must have been designed by God!!" It's no different than me not understanding how a car engine works, so I insist it must be magic.

>The wolf killing could be excused as a way to increase tourism by encouraging higher moose populations, but even that is a sad excuse for the level of brutality involved. If she wanted to simply cull the predators so that they wouldn't kill so many moose, she could just issue dart guns with a sedative. After the wolf is unconscious, the hunter could then fire a second dart, filled with a sterilization drug and a small microchip. The microchip could help with scientific research, population tracking, and would make it easier to not hunt the same wolf twice. Simultaneously, it is a humane way to reduce the Wolf population, helps to better scientific understanding of wolves, and provides the hunter with a "Virtual kill" for those who are into that sort of thing. Also, the population could be more easily observed to ensure that only the necessary number of wolves are sterilized. All this is assuming the wolf population even needs to be reduced. The main problem I see is that it wouldn't have massive immediate results, and it might cost a bit more. However, the cost could be offset by whatever labs are buying the data (if any labs buy that sort of data).

I have asked hunters before why they do it, and the stunningly blunt answer one of them gave me was "It makes me feel good to kill things". All the logic in the world is not going to stop that mindset from getting what it wants, sadly.

>Damn, now I feel like making a political cartoon. I'd call it, "If Furries Ruled the World" In jest, of course.

I've thought for a looooong time what I'd do to the world if I acquired omnipotent powers to alter reality at my every whim... <humongous dark grin>

That's why i said, "From what I've heard.." I trust very few sources of information. I never said I believed she actually reduced taxes and exposed corruption. For that, I would probably have to go to Alaska, and verify it myself.

I consider Mandatory Public Education child abuse. And I agree that ID is a huge cop-out. As cool as it would be if magic were real, the concept completely undermines reason. The "It works that way because God made it that way." explanation undermines scientific progress in every field in which it is presented. "Why should we even bother doing more research? We have an answer to everything that doesn't even require us to think!"

I doubt "It makes me feel good to kill things." is the answer every hunter would give. But, I don't think I've ever asked any hunters that question, so I can't really be an authority on that. I can see how the display of skill and the power over life and death could be intoxicating, but I think taking life to achieve such a high is too steep a price. The only things I have fun killing, are the things I know aren't real. If I had to go out and kill something like a wolf or moose, I probably could, but I would probably get sick afterwards, especially if that creature was posing no active threat to me. It haunts me even to imagine taking the life of such a creature. I've only ever killed small insects, and occasionally I even find that difficult.

>That's why i said, "From what I've heard.." I trust very few sources of information. I never said I believed she actually reduced taxes and exposed corruption. For that, I would probably have to go to Alaska, and verify it myself.

I'm wary of pretty much everything in general on the internet, but am more inclined to believe a given tidbit of info if it fits in with what I already know for sure about the subject.

>I consider Mandatory Public Education child abuse. And I agree that ID is a huge cop-out. As cool as it would be if magic were real, the concept completely undermines reason. The "It works that way because God made it that way." explanation undermines scientific progress in every field in which it is presented. "Why should we even bother doing more research? We have an answer to everything that doesn't even require us to think!"

Agree totally on the undermining science point. I don't think that mandatory education *itself* is child abuse. Like, the idea itself holds merit. Since everyone should know at least the basics of language, math, social skills, history, science, etc. It's just that our system is severely broken. Just because an idea hasn't been done right doesn't mean the idea itself needs to be totally scrapped.

>I doubt "It makes me feel good to kill things." is the answer every hunter would give. But, I don't think I've ever asked any hunters that question, so I can't really be an authority on that. I can see how the display of skill and the power over life and death could be intoxicating, but I think taking life to achieve such a high is too steep a price. The only things I have fun killing, are the things I know aren't real. If I had to go out and kill something like a wolf or moose, I probably could, but I would probably get sick afterwards, especially if that creature was posing no active threat to me. It haunts me even to imagine taking the life of such a creature. I've only ever killed small insects, and occasionally I even find that difficult.

Exactly. And when I feel the need to vent my wrath (which is not uncommon...), i go kill shit in Duke Nukem or Half Life. Why can't that be enough for some people? Or sports or paintball or something?

The reason I view Mandatory Public Education as child abuse is because it is Mandatory. Basically, if a kid's parents can't pay for private school, and don't have the time or resources to teach them at home, they HAVE to send them to public school or the parents go to jail. The kids, in turn, then have to spend twelve years of their lives in an institution which they had little choice about whether or not to attend, being antagonized and in turn antagonizing fellow students, and often not learning any more then they absolutely have to. Because of Mandatory Public Schools, kids who genuinely want to learn are handicapped by those who just don't care. My second concern with Public schools is the Grades (1st grade, 5th grade, etc) They are based more off of age then scholastic achievement. I think a system of education similar to what I've experienced in college would be more conducive to learning. Students aren't categorized by age, but by knowledge and ability. Those who need to learn the basics, can learn the basics without distracting those who would rather be experimenting with more advanced applications. Also, the one teacher thirty students format is a very poor learning environment. Students who catch on quicker should be encouraged to assist those who are having trouble, possibly with credit incentives. Also, it is my belief that if you can teach a person to read, to reason, and to do arithmetic, then most of them can sort out everything else in the libraries, if they have enough incentive.

I have learned Pen and Paper RPG systems that are more complicated then some scientific principles, and I did it because I was fascinated by them. I have read 1100 page novels, cataloging the lives and deaths of hundreds of individuals. I have assimilated countless forms of data that for all intents and purposes, are almost completely useless. Millions of others do the same. The primary roadblock in the Public Education system isn't the students. The human mind can retain and process incredible amounts of data. The problem is that Mandatory Public Schools generally don't give students the option of what they learn. The best thing a teacher can do is to teach students how to teach themselves. Teach a man to fish. Teach a student to learn.

You have a ton of perfect points here that I agree with, but still, I don't think the very base *concept* of mandatory public schools is a bad one. I base this mostly on what I've seen of *some* home-schooling environments where the parents fill their kids heads with unimaginable garbage (usually of the religious sort). I don't mind home-schooling when the schools keep an eye on the parents and the kids have to measure up to the same standards as everyone else. But I know that parents are often FAR from infallible, and the idea that parents should be allowed to raise their kids any way they want does not sit well with me. I know it's an extreme example, but just take a look at those Prussian Blue kids to see why I think that. So, I'm down with the idea that there should be some standards of education everyone should be expected to try to meet, but I also acknowledge that the way our system is handling it now is FAR from how they should.

I was largely home schooled until college. My parents were pretty extreme religiously, but the real reason they didn't school me publicly was because I caught every single contagion in the classroom. One of the reasons why I'm so critical of religion is because I grew up in that environment and realized that crap didn't add up right. If I had to learn something my parents didn't know, I had to look it up myself. The parents that fill their kids' heads with garbage at home are gonna do it no matter where they go to school. Also, having mandatory public schooling opens the door for allowing the government or crappy teachers to fill the kids' heads with garbage. Regardless of where a child learns, someone]/i] is going to have the opportunity to fill that kid's head with garbage.

Yes, there should be some formal organizations that assist in childhood education. But they should be voluntary, and they shouldn't all be run by the same institution.

Do you know why so many public schooled children reject the Evolution for Creationism or Intelligent design? Probably, because most schools and textbooks do a horrible job of explaining it! When kids get evolution abridged, at least a few of them are gonna say it sounds an awful lot like magic. One site that does a really good job of explaining Evolution is: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

I guess any system is going to have its downsides. Still, Americans have this annoying tendency of rejecting any idea that has any downsides, rather than looking at all the given solutions to a problem and weighing which one is most likely to have the greatest benefits vs least drawbacks.

And as far as evolution goes, that's one of those things that just makes my blood boil. Evolution is so fucking SIMPLE!!! It's unconscionable that any teacher or textbook would be unable to explain it. And yet, in high school, my biology teacher tried to teach us that human beings would lose their widom teeth in a few generations because we no longer needed them. I stood up and contradicted her, but I really shoulda put her over my knee for a bare-assed spanking.

And as far as evolution goes, that's one of those things that just makes my blood boil. Evolution is so fucking SIMPLE!!! It's unconscionable that any teacher or textbook would be unable to explain it. And yet, in high school, my biology teacher tried to teach us that human beings would lose their widom teeth in a few generations because we no longer needed them. I stood up and contradicted her, but I really shoulda put her over my knee for a bare-assed spanking.


Yeah, I've felt like that talking to a few people. The basic premise of Evolution is very simple. Genetics change very gradually from one generation to the next, and any changes that are too much of a hindrance are eliminated through natural selection. The only traits that are eliminated through natural selection are the ones that prevent organisms from having offspring before they die. If an organism has a defect that prevents it from having offspring before it dies, its parent did not. However, the parent organism could have had a mutation just similar enough to still be able to reproduce, and that mutation could be passed on to offspring who are able to reproduce, thus creating a genetic line that is prone to defective traits, but which survives as a species by the grace of its members who do not express the defective traits. Natural selection does not so much lead to the diversity of species, as it limits diversity to what can be passed on.

When Creationists ask, "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" I'm usually too busy laughing hysterically to express a coherent reply. Any Creationist who uses that argument seriously has no grasp of what Evolution IS. There are still monkeys because being a monkey does not inhibit one from screwing and having baby monkeys. If it did, there would be no more monkeys. This is an observable fact. Monkeys can have offspring. This has never been something that Evolution has denied. The only way that argument would have a shred of validity is if Evolution claimed that all monkeys had evolved into humans within their lifetime, or if Evolution claimed that all species ate(or somehow otherwise led to the extinction of) every member of their precursor species.

The monkey question, I think, requires immediate beating. If asked out of genuine ignorance though, my usual explanation is that the monkeys that are still around today won the game. For their particular habitat, they are so well-suited that there is no more pressing need for them to become something else. Sure, they still evolve a bit here 'n there, but for the most part, they made it. Just like how crocodiles have 'remained unchanged for millions of years' and how, despite the fact that rats breed like rats, you don't see them evolving into winged, laser-firing super-rats. They're already perfect for their particular niche.

It's interesting to realize that we are the only species that has essentially stopped our own evolution in its tracks. We adapt our surroundings to suit us, instead of the other way around. and our medicine and technology allows those with genetic weaknesses to breed even when natural selection would normally knock 'em off. I'm fully aware that a caveman could tear me to shreds in seconds even if I had a baseball bat and an uzi.

Yep, we really served nature a wildcard with our big brains, abstract languages, binocular vision, and opposable thumbs.

The thing you seem to be forgetting while your ideaology seems like a decent way to live your life (even though "ruling yourself is pretty vague) is that, while you're correct in saying that it's foolish to shrug off your own responsibilities, at the end of the day, to paraphrase Truman, the buck has to stop somewhere. People need leaders as there's got to be somebody who has to take responsibility for something, whether it's somebody in a school project having to dole out who is gonna do what, to somebody having to decide what the economic policy for an entire nation is going to be.

You seemed to be scared to vote because it might go wrong.And if somebody said to me "it's your fault because you voted" I'd tell them to piss off because I made the choice to try and use my vote to make a difference. Whoever you support for whatever reasons, you can make support them and hope it'll make a difference. If it doesn't it'll suck, but at least you didn't shy away and just hope it would make it better. If it doesn't well that's something you have to shoulder. Responsibility doesn't just mean taking responsibility for the good things in your life, it also means taking responsibility for the mistakes. I'd rather try something and make a mistake then not try at all because I was too afraid of what people would think of me if I made the mistake. If I had that kind of attitude, well I wouldn't be married right now. And believe you me, people said I was making a mistake, but they were wrong. If they were right, not that I thought for a second they were, I'd just have to suck it up and admit it.

Also Obama FTW.

All I'm really saying is that you can't realistically expect someone to champion your causes for you. Your causes are exactly that, your's, and it's up to you to champion them. I'm all for having leaders, people who inspire others to be better people. The problem I have is with rulers, people who control you rather then inspire you to be better. The only thing rulers inspire is the desire to put them in control. Rulers play off your insecurities, and trick you into thinking they can do for you what you can't do for yourself. By not voting, I'm indicating that I don't buy what these candidates are selling me. People shouldn't need any rulers other then themselves. By ruling myself, if I, and I alone, screw up, I'm the only one who needs to accept responsibility for that. I don't want to accept responsibility for someone else's mistake, unless I actually had something to do with it, and then I want to accept responsibility equivalent to my part in that mistake, no more, no less.

Congratulations on your marriage, btw.

I think you're confusing a political candidate with someone who literally controls all aspects of your life, though in some cases I can see why. And look at it this way, you could be living in Zimbabwe.

You also seem to be confusing a ruler with a leader. By the way you describe it, Ghandi was a ruler.

Buh? I know a political candidate isn't someone who controls all aspects of your life, but most officials who exercise their authority over others certainly try to. I'm not even indicating these are bad people, just that I don't think they, or anyone, should be given that caliber of authority over other human beings. Yes, it could certainly be worse, I could be living in Zimbabwe. But, just because I don't live in the worst place on Earth, does not mean I shouldn't explain why I'm dissatisfied with the place I live. Accepting something as okay just because it could be worse is like saying, "Being shot in the foot is okay, because at least I wasn't shot in the stomach." Yes, I'm thankful that I live in perhaps the freest modern civilization. But, if I see something that I think isn't working, or that could be improved, I'm gonna point it out. Perhaps a am a bit cynical in this regard, I'll admit.

Perhaps I should define my interpretation of "Leader" and "Ruler" more clearly.

I believe a Leader is someone who inspires others by example, one who, essentially, practices what they preach. A leader is a person of integrity, who, doesn't order you to do anything, but simply leads such an endearing and moral life, that it makes others want to follow their example.

I believe a Ruler is someone who orders others to do things, often tasks which they themselves would rather not have to do, or that would put others into peril for the Ruler's own personal gain. A Ruler is someone who commands you to do something because they say so, or to avoid the threat of unpleasantness.

Essentially, when I say, "Rule yourself." What I'm implying is that you should be the only target of your personal domination, and therefore, if it comes to it, the sole casualty. I encourage you to Rule no one else, and allow no one else to Rule you. Now, while me even saying, "Rule yourself." might be interpreted as a command, and therefore an act of Ruling, interpreting it as a command would make it somewhat of an oxymoron, and impossible to follow or dismiss without creating a paradox. It is, consequently, useless as a command, and more of a suggestion.

Please, explain how my definition of a Ruler included Ghandi, I'd be very interesting in hearing that one.

I said that because you were not making a distinction, you only did so when I questioned it. It makes more sense in that way, but needs more work.

You say a ruler is someone who orders people to do something they'd rather not do, and a leader is someone of moral integrity. Taking an example from Britain, you could say Neville Chamberlain was a leader because he actively tried to avoid war with Hitler, even signing an treaty, making him a person of moral integrity since hell, war is bad right? You could then say Winston Churchilll was a ruler because he declared war, which is something he would have avoided if possible. Who do you think the Brits respect more?

Personally it just sounds like you don't want anyone ruling you, which is fine and all, but without people in some place of authority, well, the world would probably go to hell very quickly. You ever studied Anarchism? Sounds like your ideal political ideology, but it doesn't really work very well in practice.

(Sorry about the double post, I meant to submit the other one as a reply.)

I said that because you were not making a distinction, you only did so when I questioned it.

Yes I did, I made it here I'm all for having leaders, people who inspire others to be better people. The problem I have is with rulers, people who control you rather then inspire you to be better. The only thing rulers inspire is the desire to put them in control. Rulers play off your insecurities, and trick you into thinking they can do for you what you can't do for yourself.[b/] in my previous response to your comment. Although, I admit, it was only roughly defined.

Taking an example from Britain, you could say Neville Chamberlain was a leader because he actively tried to avoid war with Hitler, even signing an treaty, making him a person of moral integrity since hell, war is bad right? You could then say Winston Churchilll was a ruler because he declared war, which is something he would have avoided if possible. Who do you think the Brits respect more?

Frankly, I don't know enough about Chamberlain to know whether or not I would agree or disagree with him. Now, I would probably consider both of them Rulers. However, being a Ruler does not mean someone cannot be a Leader, also. There may have been many instances where both of them led by example, I don't know. Also, from what I've heard, Churchill's war declaration actually fouled up plans to assassinate Hitler before WWII started in earnest.

Personally it just sounds like you don't want anyone ruling you, which is fine and all, but without people in some place of authority, well, the world would probably go to hell very quickly. You ever studied Anarchism? Sounds like your ideal political ideology, but it doesn't really work very well in practice.

Wow, you've found me out. My political philosophy, though perhaps not so conventionally defined, would perhaps be best described as Anarcho-Capitalism. I believe individuals create their own order, independent of any governing body, and that this natural order unites individuals with common purpose. I believe the internet is proof that Anarchy can work. The internet flourishes because of how little the government has regulated it.

I believe that chaos is an illusion. We perceive chaos because we do not see or comprehend all factors, all variables. When all variables are known, chaos vanishes, and everything is clear.

Here is the wikipedia article on Anarcho-Capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Many people confuse Anarchy with Omniarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniarchy

It is my belief that if Anarchy cannot possibly work, then no government will ever work, because the biggest potential flaw of Anarchy is human nature, and human nature is constant regardless of what government you have.

Essentially, I believe this because I don't see how mankind can't be doomed any other way. Well, short of some sort of miracle, and I don't believe in miracles.

Anarcho-Capitalism just wouldn't work though. It's the merging of two completely different political ideals. It's like crossing Communism and Fascism, which worked out really well for Russia (Stalinism). Or Capitalism and Communism, which is what China has going (communist government, capitalist economy and all the problems there of). Economy wise they;redoing OK, it's just that they have constant struggles with people over civil rights. Also something like 60-90% of their people are in poverty.

As for the internet proving that Anarchy works, well yeah, it works on the internet, but that is no proof it would work in real life. Anarchism is a complete lack of government in all forms, if I recall correctly, and the internet can be censored (china again) by the government and quite frankly, if it works on the internet doesn;t mean it will work in real life, for example, 4chan. Don't think many people would take kindly to somebody putting up a billboard of a dead baby.

Capitalism is not at odds with Anarchy, it is a natural extension of it. Coercion and fraud are at odds with anarchy, consenting trade between persons is not. Anarchy does not mean that people cannot have agreements with each other, and trade is simply a form of agreement. Anarcho-Capitalism means you can own objects, but the only person you can own is yourself.

Communism and Fascism are essentially the same thing, the only difference being that in Fascism the government has absolute power over business and industry, and in Communism the government owns everything. Both Fascism and Communism are like two brands of the same coercive institution, and both ultimately lead to tyranny and economic ruin. Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed? Heck, the only reason why it lasted as long as it did is because it had economic support from other countries. China has a few capitalistic elements, yes, and that has probably been what has kept them afloat this long.

As I said before, the internet would not be what it is today if it had been more heavily regulated by the state. Imagine how much utility of the internet is lost for the Chinese. Though the internet as a whole is not Anarchy, there are portions of it that come pretty darn close. If a person does not agree with the terms of using a given website, they can find another one or make their own.

As for the 4chan thing, there are dicks no matter which political system you have. Anarchy just makes it that much more difficult for dicks to gain centralized seats of authority. If seeing a billboard of a dead baby is the worst thing that happens in Anarchy, I think it would be well worth it.

Many people don't take much note of this, but, Hitler was elected. Those in Germany who defied him were opposing a government decision.

The main proof I have that Anarchy will work in real life is the fact that mankind hasn't already cracked open their collective skulls and devoured the sweet gooeyness inside. How much influence does the government really have in your day to day decisions not to destroy your fellow human beings? Spontaneous Order, or Natural Order, is the only plausible explanation why society has not universally collapsed. Natural Order is one of the basic founding principles of Anarchy. Humankind does not need a ruler, because human nature rules itself.

The strongest arguments I've heard against Anarchy are things that would sabotage everything else just as much, if not worse. Anarchy can be undermined by ignorant human greed, well whoopdie-freaking-do, so can everything else. At least in Anarchy the damage greed causes is limited to what people can do with their own person and property. One dick in the white house can cause more grief then hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dicks in an Anarchy.

You've got your definition of communism wrong. What you are describing there is Stalinism, which is Communism that has been mutated from it's true source. Karl Marx and Lenin would not be happy with this form of Communism.That said it does go to proove that the original idea of Coimmunism is flawed somewhat.

The dead baby thing is just a random example, but I think anarchy just wouldn't work in real life. Basically all the bastards and people who want power (who are in general, bastards) would just float to the top, as always, but at least in a democracy there's some steps to try and stop them(elections).

Oh and to say Hitler was elected shows a slight bit of ignorance, he was yes, but not completely fairly. Whenever his party (well he) disagreed with anything in a government, he ordered the party to exit the parliament. He did this constantly as every time he did it, it forced a new election, which combined with the propaganda, threats of violence, and general exacerbation of the situation caused his party's influence to grow a little bit each time. So he was elected, but he manipulated the system (and now the German government and others have steps in place to stop this happening again)

I also think you're getting me confused with someone who says the government should control everything, which I'm not saying. Personally I think the best form of government is democracy we have, not perfect at all, but at least you can have a say in it. Beats the alternatives.

But one of the main problems with Anarchy is that it causes arguments within itself anyway. Hell there's even arguments over owning yourself as you put it, versus collectivism within it. There's no underlying moral system as all can be accepted, which is good in many ways, but causes internal fighting. It also doesn't say that violence can't be used for political means as there isn't a consensus on if it's valid or not. Actually that's pretty much the main problem with it. no real consensus on the majority of issues as. As a way of life I could see it working, but as a political system for running a country it just wouldn't work.

You've got your definition of communism wrong. What you are describing there is Stalinism, which is Communism that has been mutated from it's true source. Karl Marx and Lenin would not be happy with this form of Communism.That said it does go to proove that the original idea of Coimmunism is flawed somewhat.

I admit, my definition of communism was somewhat poorly composed. The thing about most communistic regimes that have been implemented is that they function on the assumption that someone has to be in charge. Therefore, you simply create a new class of overlords. Anarchy does not function on the principal that somebody has to be in charge, therefore, if anyone tries to grab more power than others are comfortable with them possessing, they can be freely and lawfully opposed. The bastards who want more power will have to contend with everyone else who doesn't want them to have power. When people are not obligated by law to be ruled by others, then it's a lot harder for them to be lorded over.

Oh and to say Hitler was elected shows a slight bit of ignorance, he was yes, but not completely fairly. Whenever his party (well he) disagreed with anything in a government, he ordered the party to exit the parliament. He did this constantly as every time he did it, it forced a new election, which combined with the propaganda, threats of violence, and general exacerbation of the situation caused his party's influence to grow a little bit each time. So he was elected, but he manipulated the system (and now the German government and others have steps in place to stop this happening again)

And this has obviously never been done in the History of US democracy...

I'm not confusing you with someone who thinks that the government should control everything. I simply think you are mistaken in your belief that the government should control anything.

But one of the main problems with Anarchy is that it causes arguments within itself anyway. Hell there's even arguments over owning yourself as you put it, versus collectivism within it. There's no underlying moral system as all can be accepted, which is good in many ways, but causes internal fighting. It also doesn't say that violence can't be used for political means as there isn't a consensus on if it's valid or not. Actually that's pretty much the main problem with it. no real consensus on the majority of issues as. As a way of life I could see it working, but as a political system for running a country it just wouldn't work.

And we've never had any of those problems with any other political system....

If you're confused about the options of dealing with violent aggressors in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

I don't agree with all of it, but it does a pretty good job of explaining it. Keep in mind, no political system has ever reached a perfect consensus on how what laws should be enforced (Well, so long as you rule out all forms of government dominated by a single authority with unquestioningly loyal and capable subjects. So basically, yeah, no perfect consensus.)

I restate my observation that almost every single complaint you've had against Anarchy is something that undermines ANY political system, and often much worse then it undermines Anarchy.

However, that doesn't mean that it makes Anarchy better. The problem with your observation is (as far as I am aware anyway) there's never been a successful or failed example of an Anarchist government. I will say one thing, opposing fascism is one of the great things of anarchy, but for everything else, well, kind of lacking.

You seem to be excusing my criticisms of Anarchism by saying "well everyone does it" which seems to harm your case more than your realise.

The problem with your observation is (as far as I am aware anyway) there's never been a successful or failed example of an Anarchist government.

Which is why it needs to be tested. Unfortunately, the majority of people are too afraid to try it. Certainly, a project this massive should be met with an appropriate level of skepticism. But, just because you are skeptical of something doesn't make it true or false. I'm basing my willingness to entertain the possibility that it might work, on what I know about the systems that don't.

I'm not saying, "Everyone does that" so much as I'm pointing out how outrageous it is to imply that Anarchy would have any greater difficulties then any other system. Which, since you're also saying there has never been a truly Anarchist society, is an implication that cannot be evidentially supported. What I'm saying is that, if these problems do occur in a stateless system, that's simply because they can't not occur. Also, I'm not just boasting Anarchy in general here. I just want to clarify, what I'm advocating is a form of Anarcho-Capitalism. Also, Anarcho-Capitalists have a decent level of consensus on what they like to believe is Amoral and illegal. Any method of Coercion or Fraud is considered Amoral and illegal. Aggression against another person is seen as a form of Coercion, and is therefore illegal.

It is my belief that a state free system would require a higher critical mass of "bastards" in order to express the same kind of corruption that a state run system would. Anarchy works on the principle that corruption is self defeating, and that the harder it is for the corrupt to act as parasites on the rest of society, the quicker the corrupt entities will collapse. Every state run system opens a huge opportunity for the corrupt to prosper with very little effort and just a few connections.

When something happens due to corruption in a democracy, politicians can blame a particular demographic for voting that way, whether or not that actually had anything to do with the decision. Essentially, all a politician has to do to get away with criminal acts is convince the population that their neighbors are the real ones to blame or that they are somehow doing it to protect them. Because their authority is the norm in a state run system, even if people question the genuineness of a politicians words and actions, the major consensus is that they must ultimately follow some official figure of authority, or else they will have *gasp* Anarchy! *faint*

States have gotten people so afraid of their neighbors that they place their faith in individuals who are often simply well connected criminals. The best places for someone to repeatedly steal obscene amounts of property from lots of people is in religion and in politics. Most other places have too much liability, and not enough naive followers.

Think about this. In US democracy, you can be taxed without representation. Wait, say what? Yep. Someone, I never voted for, can decide to take my money, without asking me for it. Hopefully, at the very least you could agree with a pure representative democratic Miniarchy (not sure what the official name for it is). It's a system where, instead of voting for a candidate who will later make decisions in office, you lend your vote to a representative, and can revoke that vote from them at any time. Essentially, you can select someone, anyone to represent you, or heck, you could cast your own vote, if you don't trust anyone else to do it. That way, we at least wouldn't have a politician who was voted in by slim majority, holding authority for four years over all those who didn't vote for them. In such a system if McCain ends up getting the majority vote, he can only represent those who actually voted for him, and if he did anything to piss them off, they could take their votes away from him at any time. Politicians would want to make a habit of knowing what their supporters really wanted, and would have to be genuinely concerned with their opinions. Any representative who isn't in touch with their voters is not gonna have many votes to cast. In a similar manner, the only government organizations that could legally take your money are the ones that you give it to voluntarily.

So far we seem to be at a major impasse in this discussion. Without a collection of independently verified Anarcho-Capitalist experiments, neither of us will likely persuade the other. So let's just find some middle ground, before our comments block the intertubes.

Seems to me you have a major trust issue, though with some politicians I can see why, yet you seem to think everyone is like that. And quite frankly you seem really paranoid. I'm certainly not afraid of my neighbours. Anarcho-Capitalism just seems like a vaguely "acceptable" version of Anarchy, and I can see the lack of a police system being quite the problem, plus I doubt a lot of goods and services can be delivered without at least some government over-seeing, plus I think a lot of people won't be happy without some government guarantee of civil liberties, or you know, government protection of their money in the case of banks collapsing (hey look, relevancy), plus a bevy of other issues I can't be arsed going in to.

Though I think we can agree that the electoral college is bullshit. The UK parliament system seems so much fairer and a truer version of democracy.

I can trust people, I just think giving anyone that much power over me goes a little beyond trust, and little more along the lines of blind faith. Plus, I don't like the idea of having to constantly trust people that I really have no way of knowing personally, who are constantly making choices which oppose my personal beliefs. In my opinion, masochism belongs in the bedroom and should stay out of my political beliefs.

I guess some people need a government to feel safe, just like some people need to be choked in order to experience a climax.

A lot of people probably disagree with Anarchy because Natural Law can be observed without being recognized. I think you would be amazed at what people are capable of without government intervention, but you would probably still never attribute their good to Anarchy.

We've gotten to the point of simply bickering. There's nothing really to add to this discussion.

However, I would be interested in hearing more about the UK parliament system. So if you could outline it, or maybe point me to the source of a brief summary, I would be most appreciative.

"I guess some people need a government to feel safe, just like some people need to be choked in order to experience a climax."

Ok...doesn't really make sense in the context, but I guess you're not the first person to use hyperbole when they can't really address a point.

The way it work's in the UK is like this. You have your parliament, which is made up of Members of Parliament (MP's) which represent their regions in the UK, called constituencies. The three major parties are Labour (currently in power and spelt with the British U), Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats, but there are others such as the Green Party, Legalised Cannabis Alliance, and Monster Raving Looney (yes, real) and so on. Basically, when the election is called, people go and vote for the person who they want to run represent their constituency. When all the votes have been counted, the party that has won the most constituencies forms the government and has their leader become the leader become the Prime Minister. If you're constituency voted for someone who isn't a member of the winning party, they are still an MP and part of the government and are still in charge of your constituency. It's a kind of "first past the post" system where the overall majority rules and is fairer than the electoral college. Got it's problems, like people tending to pay more attention to the national stage rather than the person who is best suited to run their region, but overall much fairer and makes more sense.

And in case you're wondering, the monarchy have no say in the running of the country. They just sign the papers that become laws and do nothing. Though technically the queen has the power to disband parliament if she so chooses, but this has never happened and if it did, it'd end with the government abolishing the monarchy.

"I guess some people need a government to feel safe, just like some people need to be choked in order to experience a climax."

I was pretty sure that wouldn't make sense to you, but I felt like saying it anyway.



Interesting. I'm actually a little surprised the monarchy even does that much.

Hehe, Legalised Cannabis Alliance. For some reason whenever I think of the Monster Raving Loony party, I imagine a bunch of politicians with glow sticks at a rave, dressed as loony toon characters and B movie horror stars.

"I guess some people need a government to feel safe, just like some people need to be choked in order to experience a climax."

Oh I understand what you're saying, it just makes very little contextual sense since the two situations have very little to do with each other.

I said that because you were not making a distinction, you only did so when I questioned it.

Yes I did, I made it here I'm all for having leaders, people who inspire others to be better people. The problem I have is with rulers, people who control you rather then inspire you to be better. The only thing rulers inspire is the desire to put them in control. Rulers play off your insecurities, and trick you into thinking they can do for you what you can't do for yourself.[b/] in my previous response to your comment. Although, I admit, it was only roughly defined.

Taking an example from Britain, you could say Neville Chamberlain was a leader because he actively tried to avoid war with Hitler, even signing an treaty, making him a person of moral integrity since hell, war is bad right? You could then say Winston Churchilll was a ruler because he declared war, which is something he would have avoided if possible. Who do you think the Brits respect more?

Frankly, I don't know enough about Chamberlain to know whether or not I would agree or disagree with him. Now, I would probably consider both of them Rulers. However, being a Ruler does not mean someone cannot be a Leader, also. There may have been many instances where both of them led by example, I don't know. Also, from what I've heard, Churchill's war declaration actually fouled up plans to assassinate Hitler before WWII started in earnest.

Personally it just sounds like you don't want anyone ruling you, which is fine and all, but without people in some place of authority, well, the world would probably go to hell very quickly. You ever studied Anarchism? Sounds like your ideal political ideology, but it doesn't really work very well in practice.

Wow, you've found me out. My political philosophy, though perhaps not so conventionally defined, would perhaps be best described as Anarcho-Capitalism. I believe individuals create their own order, independent of any governing body, and that this natural order unites individuals with common purpose. I believe the internet is proof that Anarchy can work. The internet flourishes because of how little the government has regulated it.

I believe that chaos is an illusion. We perceive chaos because we do not see or comprehend all factors, all variables. When all variables are known, chaos vanishes, and everything is clear.

Here is the wikipedia article on Anarcho-Capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Many people confuse Anarchy with Omniarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniarchy

It is my belief that if Anarchy cannot possibly work, then no government will ever work, because the biggest potential flaw of Anarchy is human nature, and human nature is constant regardless of what government you have.

Essentially, I believe this because I don't see how mankind can't be doomed any other way. Well, short of some sort of miracle, and I don't believe in miracles.