FA+
Shop
437
Views
Views
4
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Wallpaper / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1024 x 768
File Size 231.9 kB
Report this content
More from Silkeyn
Wheeee this was a fun idea.
The black lines was a bit overkill, which I regret now.
In case it wasn't obvious, it's an anarchist parody of Obama's slogan. Emphasizing what his message should have meant, that WE, the people, are quite capable on our own, and we don't need institutionalized force.
Whada you say? Are you ready for CHANGE? XD
The black lines was a bit overkill, which I regret now.
In case it wasn't obvious, it's an anarchist parody of Obama's slogan. Emphasizing what his message should have meant, that WE, the people, are quite capable on our own, and we don't need institutionalized force.
Whada you say? Are you ready for CHANGE? XD
Category Wallpaper / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1024 x 768px
File Size 231.9 kB
No they aren't. They are highly principled individuals who recognize that government is a cult based on secular fantasies (i.e. Governmetn exists as a mass delusion or phantasm). The only thing against them (and what separates the anarcholibertarians from a minarcholibertarians) is the practical benefits that basic central planning of infrastructure provides. To put it another way, anarcholibertarians are ethical deontologists, while minarcholibertarians are consequentialists. Anarchists hate consequentialism because fundamentally is means "The ends justify the means." However, minarcholibertarians would cling to a type of consequentialism, not in terms of highest average happiness as in traditional utilitarianism, but in terms of highest average freedom, leaving the responsibility of happiness in the hands of the individual, not the State.
So, no, they aren't silly. The controversy is to complex to just write them off like that.
So, no, they aren't silly. The controversy is to complex to just write them off like that.
you want anarchy. go to some parts of Mexico where there are no governments or police available and everything is dealt with their own hands.
lets say someone accuses you of stealing one thing, but you didn't. if there are enough votes, they kill you right then and there, the whole town jumps in.
lets say, the usa falls to anarchy, those who were on that will want control.
its how it is.
that's how every country got to where it is now. rebelling against the mother land then making their own country.
lets say someone accuses you of stealing one thing, but you didn't. if there are enough votes, they kill you right then and there, the whole town jumps in.
lets say, the usa falls to anarchy, those who were on that will want control.
its how it is.
that's how every country got to where it is now. rebelling against the mother land then making their own country.
Oh, so you like to pick the worst places in the world and call it Anarchy, eh? Nice cherry picking places that slipped into chaos because the state failed. No place in the world has Anarchy ever been tried where a government deliberately dismantled itself into a voluntary system.
BTW, I was only showing the rational for anarchy. It isn't my fault you haven't taken the time to understand its philosophy.
Funny that this subject came up, though, because there is a pretty good debate going on between a statist and an anarcholibertarian that just got posted on YouTube tonight. LordTHawkeye does a pretty good job deconstruction your argument and many others like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qct9DfGH7d8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_kvnkcevyU
BTW, I was only showing the rational for anarchy. It isn't my fault you haven't taken the time to understand its philosophy.
Funny that this subject came up, though, because there is a pretty good debate going on between a statist and an anarcholibertarian that just got posted on YouTube tonight. LordTHawkeye does a pretty good job deconstruction your argument and many others like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qct9DfGH7d8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_kvnkcevyU
i stand by my opinion. i love my country and its government even if it sucks ass. go answer the comment that has more of debate than mine. the one underneath this.
also, like the comment said. using pretty big vovab but failing at spelling it only makes you seem delusional.
also, like the comment said. using pretty big vovab but failing at spelling it only makes you seem delusional.
i stand by my opinion. i love my country and its government even if it sucks ass.
Opinions don't count for anything in philosophical and scientific debates, so it is of no value to me or even to you, even if you find it a comfort. If you love your country even though it "sucks ass", then you sound like somebody who can't let go of a backwards religion, or perhaps somebody with battered wife syndrome. If it sucks ass, what's the point? It is because you are afraid? Afraid of what? Its too easy to point to a failed state that became chaotic and say that anarchy doesn't work, but doing so only sticks a label onto something that isn't anarchy.
go answer the comment that has more of debate than mine. the one underneath this.
Already done.
also, like the comment said. using pretty big vovab but failing at spelling it only makes you seem delusional.
No, that just makes me dyslexic. Having an unfounded opinion, or having an opinion in direct contradiction to the evidence makes one delusional. If your only basis in writting me off is dyxlexia, then you obviously didn't come here to think.
Opinions don't count for anything in philosophical and scientific debates, so it is of no value to me or even to you, even if you find it a comfort. If you love your country even though it "sucks ass", then you sound like somebody who can't let go of a backwards religion, or perhaps somebody with battered wife syndrome. If it sucks ass, what's the point? It is because you are afraid? Afraid of what? Its too easy to point to a failed state that became chaotic and say that anarchy doesn't work, but doing so only sticks a label onto something that isn't anarchy.
go answer the comment that has more of debate than mine. the one underneath this.
Already done.
also, like the comment said. using pretty big vovab but failing at spelling it only makes you seem delusional.
No, that just makes me dyslexic. Having an unfounded opinion, or having an opinion in direct contradiction to the evidence makes one delusional. If your only basis in writting me off is dyxlexia, then you obviously didn't come here to think.
ok, first of all, anarchy is a horrid idea, no government is a horrid idea, the only way no government would work is in a village, then another village would attack yours and you would end up forming some kind of government and military to defend yourself. if there was no government, there would be no law, there would be no money, and everyone would be stealing and killing. if you could form a village of people who all have level heads on an island somewhere so no one could attack them and they had a natural large food and fresh water supply then and only then could this pathetic concept of anarch actually work. Communism could last longer then anarch and communism is one of the worst forms of government.
as far as "highly principled" goes, every time i see an anarchist, they're usually doing drunks, getting drunk, stealing, and then complaining about everything. yah pretty intelligent people they are :P
as far as "highly principled" goes, every time i see an anarchist, they're usually doing drunks, getting drunk, stealing, and then complaining about everything. yah pretty intelligent people they are :P
as far as "highly principled" goes, every time i see an anarchist, they're usually doing drunks, getting drunk, stealing, and then complaining about everything. yah pretty intelligent people they are :P
With an ad hominem like that, I can't even take your opinion seriously.
With an ad hominem like that, I can't even take your opinion seriously.
Their are those who would make serious attempts to "live off the grid", but it is very difficult to do and still not be under the influence of The State. Even if you rally a community together for your own independence, you'll be crushed like a bug. Your best bet is to leave the planet.
You're using big words to feign intelligence. Stop it. It looks stupid when your spelling is so full of errors.
Highly principled? Please. You do realize that anarchy is most simply defined as a disorderly lack of any superior rule whatsoever, right? People are stupid, mindless sheep. All people. True anarchy would be chaotic and violent. Forget not that government is responsible for keeping people like serial killers and rapists imprisoned. With these people able to do as they please, I'm sure the world would not be the wonderful place you imagine it would be. Remember that most people aren't fully aware of, or even care about, any sort of "greater good". People by instinct are selfish, and the true nature of the animal that humans are would shine through. People would be stealing, killing, raping, etc.
Oh, by the way. True anarchy could NEVER EXIST for the simple fact that the people who start the movement, and support it, are already practically LEADING the others.
Highly principled? Please. You do realize that anarchy is most simply defined as a disorderly lack of any superior rule whatsoever, right? People are stupid, mindless sheep. All people. True anarchy would be chaotic and violent. Forget not that government is responsible for keeping people like serial killers and rapists imprisoned. With these people able to do as they please, I'm sure the world would not be the wonderful place you imagine it would be. Remember that most people aren't fully aware of, or even care about, any sort of "greater good". People by instinct are selfish, and the true nature of the animal that humans are would shine through. People would be stealing, killing, raping, etc.
Oh, by the way. True anarchy could NEVER EXIST for the simple fact that the people who start the movement, and support it, are already practically LEADING the others.
You're using big words to feign intelligence. Stop it. It looks stupid when your spelling is so full of errors.
What does my dyslexia have to do with anything?
Highly principled? Please. You do realize that anarchy is most simply defined as a disorderly lack of any superior rule whatsoever, right?
No, Anarchy is the rejection of the state, since it hasn't been able to create the utopia it promised for the past 5000 years or so.
People are stupid, mindless sheep. All people.
If you admit you are a stupid, mindless sheep, why should I listen to you? You just self destructed your argument for the state.
True anarchy would be chaotic and violent.
According to what evidence? Sure, when a state fails you always have chaos, but that's because their wasn't a transition period. TRUE Anarchy has never been tried where the state dismantled itself and intentionally transitioned to a voluntary system gradually.
Forget not that government is responsible for keeping people like serial killers and rapists imprisoned. With these people able to do as they please, I'm sure the world would not be the wonderful place you imagine it would be.
How is this any different then what the government does already? You might think you have rights and liberties protected, but you really don't. The state can pretty much find almost any reason it wans to bust down your doors and charge you with something, and then sell your property and collect your assets via civil forfeiture laws without even bringing you to trial, and its all considered legal in the united states. Not to mention the number of lives ruined, the people dead and the expenses paid for in the name of drug prohibition. And lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MKULTRA and the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Native Americans. So far, that's just a small list of US atrocities, not even mentioning the ones committed by other nations. The greatest evils ever committed in world history were done by states. You say that we need states to lock up serial killers, but who locks up the state when the state commits mass murder and other atrocities? The state has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to wage war.
Remember that most people aren't fully aware of, or even care about, any sort of "greater good".
It would be more apt to say that most people can't agree on what the "greater good" actually is, or even if it actually exists. If you take the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, everybody is the author of their own character and the supreme moral authority of their own existence. This stands in option to consequentialist ethics, which says that the "greater good" is of primary importance, ergo, the ends justify the means. Under Kantian ethics, every individual is an end, rather then a means to an end.
People by instinct are selfish, and the true nature of the animal that humans are would shine through. People would be stealing, killing, raping, etc.
Actually, you find that most social species in existence would not survive if they didn't have certain natural morals guiding them, built into there genes. You might want to watch the Horizon documentary with Richard Dawkins called "Nice Guys Finish First". It details many of the mechanisms that discourage bad behaviors and encourage nice behaviors that already exist. Evolution simply does not favor people who cheat the system.
BTW, if the natural state of humanity is to rape a pillage what isn't theres, why would you ever want them in charge? They sound like horrible people to put into leadership rolls.
Oh, by the way. True anarchy could NEVER EXIST for the simple fact that the people who start the movement, and support it, are already practically LEADING the others.
Leading people into a voluntary system... Now there's an idea!
What does my dyslexia have to do with anything?
Highly principled? Please. You do realize that anarchy is most simply defined as a disorderly lack of any superior rule whatsoever, right?
No, Anarchy is the rejection of the state, since it hasn't been able to create the utopia it promised for the past 5000 years or so.
People are stupid, mindless sheep. All people.
If you admit you are a stupid, mindless sheep, why should I listen to you? You just self destructed your argument for the state.
True anarchy would be chaotic and violent.
According to what evidence? Sure, when a state fails you always have chaos, but that's because their wasn't a transition period. TRUE Anarchy has never been tried where the state dismantled itself and intentionally transitioned to a voluntary system gradually.
Forget not that government is responsible for keeping people like serial killers and rapists imprisoned. With these people able to do as they please, I'm sure the world would not be the wonderful place you imagine it would be.
How is this any different then what the government does already? You might think you have rights and liberties protected, but you really don't. The state can pretty much find almost any reason it wans to bust down your doors and charge you with something, and then sell your property and collect your assets via civil forfeiture laws without even bringing you to trial, and its all considered legal in the united states. Not to mention the number of lives ruined, the people dead and the expenses paid for in the name of drug prohibition. And lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MKULTRA and the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Native Americans. So far, that's just a small list of US atrocities, not even mentioning the ones committed by other nations. The greatest evils ever committed in world history were done by states. You say that we need states to lock up serial killers, but who locks up the state when the state commits mass murder and other atrocities? The state has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to wage war.
Remember that most people aren't fully aware of, or even care about, any sort of "greater good".
It would be more apt to say that most people can't agree on what the "greater good" actually is, or even if it actually exists. If you take the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, everybody is the author of their own character and the supreme moral authority of their own existence. This stands in option to consequentialist ethics, which says that the "greater good" is of primary importance, ergo, the ends justify the means. Under Kantian ethics, every individual is an end, rather then a means to an end.
People by instinct are selfish, and the true nature of the animal that humans are would shine through. People would be stealing, killing, raping, etc.
Actually, you find that most social species in existence would not survive if they didn't have certain natural morals guiding them, built into there genes. You might want to watch the Horizon documentary with Richard Dawkins called "Nice Guys Finish First". It details many of the mechanisms that discourage bad behaviors and encourage nice behaviors that already exist. Evolution simply does not favor people who cheat the system.
BTW, if the natural state of humanity is to rape a pillage what isn't theres, why would you ever want them in charge? They sound like horrible people to put into leadership rolls.
Oh, by the way. True anarchy could NEVER EXIST for the simple fact that the people who start the movement, and support it, are already practically LEADING the others.
Leading people into a voluntary system... Now there's an idea!
Master bater...while I appreciate your support, you might need some understanding on why people say these things.
People lash out, not because they are stupid, but because what you say is threatening. I am of the firm belief that people think society must be managed with violence and coercion because the same was done to them as children. It's what they grew up with, and really all they can think of as a solution.
People lash out, not because they are stupid, but because what you say is threatening. I am of the firm belief that people think society must be managed with violence and coercion because the same was done to them as children. It's what they grew up with, and really all they can think of as a solution.
Oh, I understand why people lash out like that very well, though my take on it is different then yours. I deal mostly with what I call "statheists", combining the words "state" and "Atheists" because of how ironic it is to confront the liberal atheists' tendency to replace gods with secular government. They apply skepticism to everything, but when it comes to government, suddenly they become dogmatists. Its quite frustrating and infuriating!
When you challenge people's deeply held beliefs and convictions, you force them to rethink and question that which they latched on to as sacred. That isn't just uncomfortable, it is a downright painful process to go through. It is difficult convincing someone to give up a comforting delusion, much like it is convincing a teenager to give up a security blanket when he knows he is too old to have one. In order to move on, we need to give up our baggage of injurious memes.
I fully expect that a meme as pernicious and entrenched as government to have developed many defense mechanisms, just like religion has created for itself. It all goes back to our tribal nature and need for unity. Anybody who questions the central idea that unifies the group, could actually destroy a working village's cohesion. But we don't live in the age of villages where everybody must unify over the same set of delusions. We live in a complex ecosystem of businesses and ideas that compete for dominance. Society has developed into a completely self managing system far too complex for a governing body to keep track of. We simply don't need the cultural baggage of our fore bearers slowing us down and stopping the culture from progressing into something better.
When you challenge people's deeply held beliefs and convictions, you force them to rethink and question that which they latched on to as sacred. That isn't just uncomfortable, it is a downright painful process to go through. It is difficult convincing someone to give up a comforting delusion, much like it is convincing a teenager to give up a security blanket when he knows he is too old to have one. In order to move on, we need to give up our baggage of injurious memes.
I fully expect that a meme as pernicious and entrenched as government to have developed many defense mechanisms, just like religion has created for itself. It all goes back to our tribal nature and need for unity. Anybody who questions the central idea that unifies the group, could actually destroy a working village's cohesion. But we don't live in the age of villages where everybody must unify over the same set of delusions. We live in a complex ecosystem of businesses and ideas that compete for dominance. Society has developed into a completely self managing system far too complex for a governing body to keep track of. We simply don't need the cultural baggage of our fore bearers slowing us down and stopping the culture from progressing into something better.
"I fully expect that a meme as pernicious and entrenched as government to have developed many defense mechanisms, just like religion has created for itself."
However, the issues that underlie a tendency for irrational beliefs is left unmentioned. To lose your temper like this is like swinging a lead pipe at someone and hoping you cured his high blood pressure.
Or, it's like the fable of the sun and wind: When the wind blows, the traveler clutches his cloak tighter. But when the sun warms up, the traveler takes it off by his own choice.
However, the issues that underlie a tendency for irrational beliefs is left unmentioned. To lose your temper like this is like swinging a lead pipe at someone and hoping you cured his high blood pressure.
Or, it's like the fable of the sun and wind: When the wind blows, the traveler clutches his cloak tighter. But when the sun warms up, the traveler takes it off by his own choice.
What does my dyslexia have to do with anything?
No comment.
No, Anarchy is the rejection of the state, since it hasn't been able to create the utopia it promised for the past 5000 years or so.
Utopia? As if it's some sort of guarantee that every living being is going to be happy? Get real.
If you admit you are a stupid, mindless sheep, why should I listen to you? You just self destructed your argument for the state.
My argument for government as a whole is irrelevant and in no way impeded by the natural need for people to have a leader. Many animals have "alphas", humans are no exception.
According to what evidence? Sure, when a state fails you always have chaos, but that's because their wasn't a transition period. TRUE Anarchy has never been tried where the state dismantled itself and intentionally transitioned to a voluntary system gradually.
If we were meant to be lawless, we would have been a long time ago.
How is this any different then what the government does already? You might think you have rights and liberties protected, but you really don't. The state can pretty much find almost any reason it wans to bust down your doors and charge you with something, and then sell your property and collect your assets via civil forfeiture laws without even bringing you to trial, and its all considered legal in the united states. Not to mention the number of lives ruined, the people dead and the expenses paid for in the name of drug prohibition. And lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MKULTRA and the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Native Americans. So far, that's just a small list of US atrocities, not even mentioning the ones committed by other nations. The greatest evils ever committed in world history were done by states. You say that we need states to lock up serial killers, but who locks up the state when the state commits mass murder and other atrocities? The state has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to wage war.
I'm not arguing for the US, I'm arguing for government in general. Why did you waste your time and effort typing that? I know the US has committed a shitload of hypocritical crimes and such. And yeah, it's wrong. Hell no, I don't agree with the way they do things here, or in many other places.
It would be more apt to say that most people can't agree on what the "greater good" actually is, or even if it actually exists. If you take the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, everybody is the author of their own character and the supreme moral authority of their own existence. This stands in option to consequentialist ethics, which says that the "greater good" is of primary importance, ergo, the ends justify the means. Under Kantian ethics, every individual is an end, rather then a means to an end.
I acknowledge your statement as more true than my own. However, this goes back to what I said before, about people being selfish. Some (not all) people would take more than their fair share of the utopian pie.
Actually, you find that most social species in existence would not survive if they didn't have certain natural morals guiding them, built into there genes. You might want to watch the Horizon documentary with Richard Dawkins called "Nice Guys Finish First". It details many of the mechanisms that discourage bad behaviors and encourage nice behaviors that already exist. Evolution simply does not favor people who cheat the system.
Yes, but a FEW members of any species fail to comprehend or apply the morals or social norms that most individuals do. THESE would be the rapists, murderers, etc. NOT everyone, like you seem to think I implied.
Leading people into a voluntary system... Now there's an idea!
I'll say it again. If we didn't need government, we wouldn't have it. Natural selection and evolution would have stricken it from us long ago. Much like our genetic cousins the gorillas, we have an alpha simply because the lesser individuals need someone to follow. And no, I'm not saying the government members are in any way elite or superior. That bit is definitely questionable. I'm just saying, we have always had leaders for a reason.
No comment.
No, Anarchy is the rejection of the state, since it hasn't been able to create the utopia it promised for the past 5000 years or so.
Utopia? As if it's some sort of guarantee that every living being is going to be happy? Get real.
If you admit you are a stupid, mindless sheep, why should I listen to you? You just self destructed your argument for the state.
My argument for government as a whole is irrelevant and in no way impeded by the natural need for people to have a leader. Many animals have "alphas", humans are no exception.
According to what evidence? Sure, when a state fails you always have chaos, but that's because their wasn't a transition period. TRUE Anarchy has never been tried where the state dismantled itself and intentionally transitioned to a voluntary system gradually.
If we were meant to be lawless, we would have been a long time ago.
How is this any different then what the government does already? You might think you have rights and liberties protected, but you really don't. The state can pretty much find almost any reason it wans to bust down your doors and charge you with something, and then sell your property and collect your assets via civil forfeiture laws without even bringing you to trial, and its all considered legal in the united states. Not to mention the number of lives ruined, the people dead and the expenses paid for in the name of drug prohibition. And lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, MKULTRA and the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Native Americans. So far, that's just a small list of US atrocities, not even mentioning the ones committed by other nations. The greatest evils ever committed in world history were done by states. You say that we need states to lock up serial killers, but who locks up the state when the state commits mass murder and other atrocities? The state has the power to tax, and the power to tax is the power to wage war.
I'm not arguing for the US, I'm arguing for government in general. Why did you waste your time and effort typing that? I know the US has committed a shitload of hypocritical crimes and such. And yeah, it's wrong. Hell no, I don't agree with the way they do things here, or in many other places.
It would be more apt to say that most people can't agree on what the "greater good" actually is, or even if it actually exists. If you take the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, everybody is the author of their own character and the supreme moral authority of their own existence. This stands in option to consequentialist ethics, which says that the "greater good" is of primary importance, ergo, the ends justify the means. Under Kantian ethics, every individual is an end, rather then a means to an end.
I acknowledge your statement as more true than my own. However, this goes back to what I said before, about people being selfish. Some (not all) people would take more than their fair share of the utopian pie.
Actually, you find that most social species in existence would not survive if they didn't have certain natural morals guiding them, built into there genes. You might want to watch the Horizon documentary with Richard Dawkins called "Nice Guys Finish First". It details many of the mechanisms that discourage bad behaviors and encourage nice behaviors that already exist. Evolution simply does not favor people who cheat the system.
Yes, but a FEW members of any species fail to comprehend or apply the morals or social norms that most individuals do. THESE would be the rapists, murderers, etc. NOT everyone, like you seem to think I implied.
Leading people into a voluntary system... Now there's an idea!
I'll say it again. If we didn't need government, we wouldn't have it. Natural selection and evolution would have stricken it from us long ago. Much like our genetic cousins the gorillas, we have an alpha simply because the lesser individuals need someone to follow. And no, I'm not saying the government members are in any way elite or superior. That bit is definitely questionable. I'm just saying, we have always had leaders for a reason.
Utopia? As if it's some sort of guarantee that every living being is going to be happy? Get real.
Politicians and political leaders always make grandiose promises about the future. That's how they win support and get votes. I don't know what planet are you from, but you obviously know nothing about how politics works in actual practice. If they aren't promising you 70 virgins or golden crowns in heaven, they are promising you a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage, not to mention and success in winning the war on drugs, etc.
If we were meant to be lawless, we would have been a long time ago.
"If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings!" Shut up, you idiot. Normally, I'm nicer to people then this, but your reasoning is just to dogmatic and so outright stupid, I just can't let it go. Can you even comprehend just how Luddite your opinion is? Just because things have been done a certain way does not mean we need to keep doing things that way. Would you expect all animals to stop evolving just because you think they should have evolved to different form sooner if they were going to at all? Or maybe, you think the same way about alternative energy. Why, if solar power was such a good idea, why aren't we all using it? Your glib answer to my demands for evidence oversimplifies your argument into a humorous stupor. Please stop thinking before you hurt yourself.
I'm not arguing for the US, I'm arguing for government in general. Why did you waste your time and effort typing that? I know the US has committed a shitload of hypocritical crimes and such. And yeah, it's wrong. Hell no, I don't agree with the way they do things here, or in many other places.
I didn't just focus on the US, but governments in general. I even stated that other nations have been known for atrocities, so my. In fact, my whole point was that atrocities are the rule, not the exception, of government. I only mentioned the atrocities committed by the United States because it is advertised as the nation with the greatest and most well protected freedoms in the history of the world, and I know it better then any other. I could just as easily mentioned a whole host of dictators, and other global leaders all throughout history who had done some very evil things in the name of governance.
I acknowledge your statement as more true than my own. However, this goes back to what I said before, about people being selfish. Some (not all) people would take more than their fair share of the utopian pie.
It saddens me that I find people this ignorant of economics all over the internet these days. One of the goals of a businessman is to create wealth where wealth did not exist before. You make it sound as if their is this finite pie of wealth, and that's all the world ever has. That simply isn't true. When two people mutually agree to make an exchange, they both profit from it every time (with maybe the exception of gambling, unless you make the case that casinos sell excitement, not piss poor chances at easy money). In ancient times, the ultimate supply energy was the sun and work was primarily done by men and beasts of burden. When men use that energy by eating food, to create and build things of value, wealth is created. By selling these goods for the things they need to people who need what they created, both parties profit and gain wealth. Today, this system has been boosted by the abundant energy produced from fossil fuels being put to work to create more of the stuff people want and need, and with any luck, we'll get our fossil fules replaced with cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
Here is a YouTube video that explains the process in more detail. Its got lots of pictures, so it should be pretty easy for you to understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
BTW, who the fuck are you to dictate what is or isn't a "fair share" of the infinite pie? In a free society, you get what you earn because all are free to create wealth any way they can. Lets say I invest in capital, such as solar panels. Suddenly, I don't have to pay a power bill anymore. Once I've had my solar panels long enough to save what they cost in power, all the energy they generate is a net gain after that. Suddenly, I'm more wealth then I was before, yet all I did was spend money to some rich solar panel company. That should mean I gave them some of my pie, yet I'm getting richer after the transaction! But if the pie is finite, how can this be? Obviously, the pie is not finite, because to say otherwise would violate basic math.
Once more, you completely forget that those "selfish people" will make every attempt to penetrate the government power structure and use it to their personal gain, much like they do today. You are terrified that a business will act greedily, yet you also think the government should have a monopoly on that greed. Anarchism assumes that everybody is selfish, which is why it would distribute selfishness evenly throughout the population.
Yes, but a FEW members of any species fail to comprehend or apply the morals or social norms that most individuals do. THESE would be the rapists, murderers, etc. NOT everyone, like you seem to think I implied.
Its not like the Government of the United States AND OTHERS
Politicians and political leaders always make grandiose promises about the future. That's how they win support and get votes. I don't know what planet are you from, but you obviously know nothing about how politics works in actual practice. If they aren't promising you 70 virgins or golden crowns in heaven, they are promising you a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage, not to mention and success in winning the war on drugs, etc.
If we were meant to be lawless, we would have been a long time ago.
"If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings!" Shut up, you idiot. Normally, I'm nicer to people then this, but your reasoning is just to dogmatic and so outright stupid, I just can't let it go. Can you even comprehend just how Luddite your opinion is? Just because things have been done a certain way does not mean we need to keep doing things that way. Would you expect all animals to stop evolving just because you think they should have evolved to different form sooner if they were going to at all? Or maybe, you think the same way about alternative energy. Why, if solar power was such a good idea, why aren't we all using it? Your glib answer to my demands for evidence oversimplifies your argument into a humorous stupor. Please stop thinking before you hurt yourself.
I'm not arguing for the US, I'm arguing for government in general. Why did you waste your time and effort typing that? I know the US has committed a shitload of hypocritical crimes and such. And yeah, it's wrong. Hell no, I don't agree with the way they do things here, or in many other places.
I didn't just focus on the US, but governments in general. I even stated that other nations have been known for atrocities, so my. In fact, my whole point was that atrocities are the rule, not the exception, of government. I only mentioned the atrocities committed by the United States because it is advertised as the nation with the greatest and most well protected freedoms in the history of the world, and I know it better then any other. I could just as easily mentioned a whole host of dictators, and other global leaders all throughout history who had done some very evil things in the name of governance.
I acknowledge your statement as more true than my own. However, this goes back to what I said before, about people being selfish. Some (not all) people would take more than their fair share of the utopian pie.
It saddens me that I find people this ignorant of economics all over the internet these days. One of the goals of a businessman is to create wealth where wealth did not exist before. You make it sound as if their is this finite pie of wealth, and that's all the world ever has. That simply isn't true. When two people mutually agree to make an exchange, they both profit from it every time (with maybe the exception of gambling, unless you make the case that casinos sell excitement, not piss poor chances at easy money). In ancient times, the ultimate supply energy was the sun and work was primarily done by men and beasts of burden. When men use that energy by eating food, to create and build things of value, wealth is created. By selling these goods for the things they need to people who need what they created, both parties profit and gain wealth. Today, this system has been boosted by the abundant energy produced from fossil fuels being put to work to create more of the stuff people want and need, and with any luck, we'll get our fossil fules replaced with cleaner and cheaper alternatives.
Here is a YouTube video that explains the process in more detail. Its got lots of pictures, so it should be pretty easy for you to understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
BTW, who the fuck are you to dictate what is or isn't a "fair share" of the infinite pie? In a free society, you get what you earn because all are free to create wealth any way they can. Lets say I invest in capital, such as solar panels. Suddenly, I don't have to pay a power bill anymore. Once I've had my solar panels long enough to save what they cost in power, all the energy they generate is a net gain after that. Suddenly, I'm more wealth then I was before, yet all I did was spend money to some rich solar panel company. That should mean I gave them some of my pie, yet I'm getting richer after the transaction! But if the pie is finite, how can this be? Obviously, the pie is not finite, because to say otherwise would violate basic math.
Once more, you completely forget that those "selfish people" will make every attempt to penetrate the government power structure and use it to their personal gain, much like they do today. You are terrified that a business will act greedily, yet you also think the government should have a monopoly on that greed. Anarchism assumes that everybody is selfish, which is why it would distribute selfishness evenly throughout the population.
Yes, but a FEW members of any species fail to comprehend or apply the morals or social norms that most individuals do. THESE would be the rapists, murderers, etc. NOT everyone, like you seem to think I implied.
Its not like the Government of the United States AND OTHERS
... haven't committed atrocities like the crimes you mentioned. I'd rather deal with a bad person I can defend against then a government that I cannot.
I'll say it again. If we didn't need government, we wouldn't have it. Natural selection and evolution would have stricken it from us long ago.
You could say the exact same thing about religion. Government isn't under the control of biological natural selection because it is a meme, not a gene. It exists because people believe it does. Or rather, it appears to exist because people have faith in it.
Much like our genetic cousins the gorillas, we have an alpha simply because the lesser individuals need someone to follow.
Wow, you are one arrogant son of a bitch. My God, what the hell is your problem? Alphas controlling lesser individuals. Wow, just wow.... Could your advocacy for violence and savagery be any more naked? Frankly, you sound evil to me now and I question the prospect of you even being somebody that one could reason with.
And no, I'm not saying the government members are in any way elite or superior.
Actually, you kind of did, and now you are backtracking.
That bit is definitely questionable.
Oh, maybe just a little bit....
I'm just saying, we have always had leaders for a reason.
We have leaders because we've been duped out of our independence, not because we need them. These aren't managers we've employed to run our business, you know. People in power hang on to their power greedily, and will not easily give it up. Other then waving at some vague notion of humans needing leaders with government power, these guys really don't do much of anything, and if they actually manage to fix something it is through undoing the mistakes of a predecessor. I'd point out to you that it takes a molecule to calculate one molecule. To think for a single moment that a single individual or even a group of l33t3 politicians can have the forsight and planning skills to manage and take care of a system as complex as the nation is delusional at best and fucking insane at worse.
Human beings seem stupid and foolish to you because they are a product of their environment. They simply do not need to be all that smart or clever in order to survive, because so much is already taken care of for them, so they never develop those skills. In an anarchic society, skepticism and reasons are essential life skills, so it favors people adapting their minds to becoming smarter and paying attention to things more important then People Magazine.
I'll say it again. If we didn't need government, we wouldn't have it. Natural selection and evolution would have stricken it from us long ago.
You could say the exact same thing about religion. Government isn't under the control of biological natural selection because it is a meme, not a gene. It exists because people believe it does. Or rather, it appears to exist because people have faith in it.
Much like our genetic cousins the gorillas, we have an alpha simply because the lesser individuals need someone to follow.
Wow, you are one arrogant son of a bitch. My God, what the hell is your problem? Alphas controlling lesser individuals. Wow, just wow.... Could your advocacy for violence and savagery be any more naked? Frankly, you sound evil to me now and I question the prospect of you even being somebody that one could reason with.
And no, I'm not saying the government members are in any way elite or superior.
Actually, you kind of did, and now you are backtracking.
That bit is definitely questionable.
Oh, maybe just a little bit....
I'm just saying, we have always had leaders for a reason.
We have leaders because we've been duped out of our independence, not because we need them. These aren't managers we've employed to run our business, you know. People in power hang on to their power greedily, and will not easily give it up. Other then waving at some vague notion of humans needing leaders with government power, these guys really don't do much of anything, and if they actually manage to fix something it is through undoing the mistakes of a predecessor. I'd point out to you that it takes a molecule to calculate one molecule. To think for a single moment that a single individual or even a group of l33t3 politicians can have the forsight and planning skills to manage and take care of a system as complex as the nation is delusional at best and fucking insane at worse.
Human beings seem stupid and foolish to you because they are a product of their environment. They simply do not need to be all that smart or clever in order to survive, because so much is already taken care of for them, so they never develop those skills. In an anarchic society, skepticism and reasons are essential life skills, so it favors people adapting their minds to becoming smarter and paying attention to things more important then People Magazine.
"If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings!" Shut up, you idiot. Normally, I'm nicer to people then this, but your reasoning is just to dogmatic and so outright stupid, I just can't let it go. Can you even comprehend just how Luddite your opinion is? Just because things have been done a certain way does not mean we need to keep doing things that way. Would you expect all animals to stop evolving just because you think they should have evolved to different form sooner if they were going to at all? Or maybe, you think the same way about alternative energy. Why, if solar power was such a good idea, why aren't we all using it? Your glib answer to my demands for evidence oversimplifies your argument into a humorous stupor. Please stop thinking before you hurt yourself.
Logical fallacy Ad-hominem has been used. I'm done wasting my time with you.
Logical fallacy Ad-hominem has been used. I'm done wasting my time with you.
An ad hominem fallacy is when one attempts to invalidate a premise of an argument by linking it to characteristics of the arguer. Pointing out that you said something beyond stupid and then calling you stupid for saying it is not an ad hominem, you retard.
Its so typical of little chicken shits like you to back out of an argument you are losing so badly by crying about ad hominems, when you were really just being insulted for being an idiot in the first place. I never said your argument was invalid because you were a dumb ass. I said you are a dumb ass because your argument is invalid. Do you see the distinction between them?
Lets make it a little easier for you.
Ad Hominem
Arguer Y is a dumb ass, therefor argument X is invalid.
Valid Argument
Argument X is invalid, therefore arguer Y is a dumb ass.
An ad hominem fallacy is when one attempts to invalidate a premise of an argument by linking it to characteristics of the arguer. Pointing out that you said something beyond stupid and then calling you stupid for saying it is not an ad hominem, you retard.
Its so typical of little chicken shits like you to back out of an argument you are losing so badly by crying about ad hominems, when you were really just being insulted for being an idiot in the first place. I never said your argument was invalid because you were a dumb ass. I said you are a dumb ass because your argument is invalid. Do you see the distinction between them?
Lets make it a little easier for you.
Ad Hominem
Arguer Y is a dumb ass, therefor argument X is invalid.
Valid Argument
Argument X is invalid, therefore arguer Y is a dumb ass.
"Its so typical of little chicken shits like you to back out of an argument you are losing so badly by crying about ad hominems, when you were really just being insulted for being an idiot in the first place. I never said your argument was invalid because you were a dumb ass. I said you are a dumb ass because your argument is invalid. Do you see the distinction between them?"
O.O
...
...
...
O.O
...
...
...
It cannot. If you choose to peacefully disobey the state, they will initiate force against you. If you choose not to give them the money they coerce from you, they will initiate force against you (the definition of theft is "the taking of another person's property without thier freely given consent" and most people I argue with agree that they wouldn't pay taxes if they wouldn't be arrested for it).
In this way, governments not only use violence, but can only exist through violence. For it to stop using violence is for it to become a voluntary organization.
This video might help you understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
In this way, governments not only use violence, but can only exist through violence. For it to stop using violence is for it to become a voluntary organization.
This video might help you understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
No, unless the violence was provoked for a prolonged time by the non-violent party.
Congratulations, you are now an anarchist.
If you don't understand why I'm saying this, I'll be very disappointed. Think really hard about what it means to only attack in self defense and how that relates to, say, the paying of taxes...
Government cannot exist without taxes, and a government can't collect taxes with out at least threats of violence and the coconuts and guns to enforce those threats.
Violence is such a wonderful way to enforce the secular cult of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
You are worse then a slave, my friend. They not only have your life, but your soul as well. It is a pity that neither you nor the masses are able to see it.
Congratulations, you are now an anarchist.
If you don't understand why I'm saying this, I'll be very disappointed. Think really hard about what it means to only attack in self defense and how that relates to, say, the paying of taxes...
Government cannot exist without taxes, and a government can't collect taxes with out at least threats of violence and the coconuts and guns to enforce those threats.
Violence is such a wonderful way to enforce the secular cult of the state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
You are worse then a slave, my friend. They not only have your life, but your soul as well. It is a pity that neither you nor the masses are able to see it.
Violence? How is that relevant? All I said was people have government for a reason. Never did I say I support government through violence.
And yes, I'm human enough to realize that I'm the same as everyone else, a small cog in the very large and complex clockwork that is society.
Tell me this. Why would we have government now, if it's better for us not to? Wouldn't natural selection have killed it off long ago if we didn't really -need- some sort of leaders or guides to follow? No, I don't agree with -most- of the violent methods of law enforcement. But it's all we have, and it works. Why fix what isn't broken, for the sake of a few people who think we'd be better off without it?
And yes, I'm human enough to realize that I'm the same as everyone else, a small cog in the very large and complex clockwork that is society.
Tell me this. Why would we have government now, if it's better for us not to? Wouldn't natural selection have killed it off long ago if we didn't really -need- some sort of leaders or guides to follow? No, I don't agree with -most- of the violent methods of law enforcement. But it's all we have, and it works. Why fix what isn't broken, for the sake of a few people who think we'd be better off without it?
Is this the comment addressed to me? With all this (unknown to me) activity on the art's comment page, I have no idea what comment this is in response to.
Human beings are adaptive. Violent human beings come from violent upbringings, because the violence tells the genes that the society is violent and that violent people will thrive in it.
Have you ever heard of epigenetics? For so long we've been split between nature vs nurture, but the latest science is that there are genes that can be toggled on and off based on the environment.
I really do recommend you check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM
It's called "The Bomb in the Brain", and it covers quite well the biology of how violent tendencies are cultivated in people in the first place.
And finally, thanks for joining the discussion :).
Human beings are adaptive. Violent human beings come from violent upbringings, because the violence tells the genes that the society is violent and that violent people will thrive in it.
Have you ever heard of epigenetics? For so long we've been split between nature vs nurture, but the latest science is that there are genes that can be toggled on and off based on the environment.
I really do recommend you check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM
It's called "The Bomb in the Brain", and it covers quite well the biology of how violent tendencies are cultivated in people in the first place.
And finally, thanks for joining the discussion :).
I agree and acknowledge that society has a tendency to breed violence within people, but violence in and of itself is a symptom of emotions that are human... In fact, humans are much less violent in many ways than most species; we don't (usually) gore one another for the sake of sex.
And I am sure that if people are in fact naturally violent, it would not be a good idea to have an institution at the center of our society where violent and evil people can commit evil without consequence, right?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by violence and it's naturalness in humans.
Humans have many emotions that are perfectly valid (anger and hate are perfectly valid emotions; anger protects you from being a doormat, and hate is a naturally response to people with opposing moral rules).
Now, the way people are raised can raised these to be expressed in an unhealthy way (in a false self way, which is more concerned with the manipulation of people than the acknowledgement of truth), but the emotions themselves serve a valuable purpose.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by violence and it's naturalness in humans.
Humans have many emotions that are perfectly valid (anger and hate are perfectly valid emotions; anger protects you from being a doormat, and hate is a naturally response to people with opposing moral rules).
Now, the way people are raised can raised these to be expressed in an unhealthy way (in a false self way, which is more concerned with the manipulation of people than the acknowledgement of truth), but the emotions themselves serve a valuable purpose.
Utopia is a strange and somewhat scary concept if you ask me
Possibly because it is impossible. Life and growth are defined by pain and struggle. Perfection is little more than an abstraction that describes something to move towards, but can't ever be actually obtained because it is indeed just an abstraction.
No pain, no gain, as that cliché goes.
A world without suffering is fundamentally a world without LIFE, a ghost city frozen in time at the height of it's glory.
Maybe it's like the uncanny valley; it looks nice, but there is something fundamentally wrong with it that you can't quite put your finger on. It is too good, and thus may be a trick.
In the real world, there is imperfection and pain, and those are things we should at some degree be thankful for.
Possibly because it is impossible. Life and growth are defined by pain and struggle. Perfection is little more than an abstraction that describes something to move towards, but can't ever be actually obtained because it is indeed just an abstraction.
No pain, no gain, as that cliché goes.
A world without suffering is fundamentally a world without LIFE, a ghost city frozen in time at the height of it's glory.
Maybe it's like the uncanny valley; it looks nice, but there is something fundamentally wrong with it that you can't quite put your finger on. It is too good, and thus may be a trick.
In the real world, there is imperfection and pain, and those are things we should at some degree be thankful for.
Lol controversy. I happen to be an anarchist too XD. Have you already been to www.freedomainradio.com? It's a really good site.
Also...traceur? You wouldn't happen to be into parkour, would you?
My email is Ejoyt_silk[at]yahoo.com if you'd like to talk :3.
Also...traceur? You wouldn't happen to be into parkour, would you?
My email is Ejoyt_silk[at]yahoo.com if you'd like to talk :3.
I'm anarchist and I'm proud! I don't need stupid, greedy politicians and CEO's taking away our freedom, discriminating certain groups of people, taking our jobs overseas, etc. To those saying that anarchy means doing whatever you want, you're wrong. Gandhi was anarchist and against governmental rule, but he spoke of nonviolence and world peace. You don't need to be a troublemaker to be anarchist. Screw democracy!
I think Ghandi was a communist; he was just opposed to the British government. I can't really back that up though.
If you are interested in anarcho-capitalism, I highly recommend checking out www.freedomainradio.com.
I also have a few email addresses and a Second Life account if you would like a conversation.
If you are interested in anarcho-capitalism, I highly recommend checking out www.freedomainradio.com.
I also have a few email addresses and a Second Life account if you would like a conversation.
Comments