Anarchism Versus Nationalism

[FreeBornAngel]

Perhaps I should be more well read before confronting an entrenched philosophy, but all the combined efforts of all the greatest philosophers have failed to change a dang thing, we still live at the mercy of those willing to veil themselves in concepts unrelated to the reality of rule by force. If you have the biggest club, you collect the tax.

When all are confronted with the truth that it is wrong to do to somebody else what is wrong to do to yourself,…if it’s wrong for me to take X% of your wage, it’s wrong for anybody to take my wages. Period.

All conflict will cease when I can no longer rule you by force, you do what you want to do, that doesn’t mean that you can take things from others in order to minimize labor, you have to do for you, but neither can they take from you.

As for the steak, who grew the cow, who butchered the cow, and who cooked the cow? All have some investment of time, and should all be included in the eating.

Either nothing arbitrates (in which case violence is the bottom line, as ever) or something arbitrates, in which case you’ve contradicted your own principle

The only arbitration you get is the arbitration you make, if it devolves into violence, I’m sorry that ya’ll couldn’t come to a more civilized conclusion, but it doesn’t affect me, and if it did, I’d do what I had to do to survive, or I’d perish.

you preventing me from exercising my freedom to oppress you is actually an oppressive act by you against my freedom

You don’t have the freedom to take one instant from my life, if you do, it is my responsibility to fight, and/or die, to stop you from taking away from my life. Maybe I’ll team up with some neighbors, and we’ll just hang you from a tree, maybe I’ll die, and you will go on to do whatever, crap happens, there isn’t anything you can do to change it once it does, you can only make your way the best you can. Perfection is not a likely outcome of any human endeavor.

you’ve got rid of all institutions of authority then you cannot uphold any kind of order.

I am the authority, you are the authority, we(the indidviduals involved) are the authority. There is no guarantee that ‘good’ prevails, in fact, by looking at the recent history of the US, one could conclude that evil wins quite often. (When the head of the secret police gets elected vice-supreme ruler, then supreme ruler, then loses by the force of one person’s personality, then gets his son elected twice, something is amiss. This next election should prove telling.)

If this freedom was inherent (and inherently valuable, as you contend) then you have to have had it from day 1.

You did have it at birth, your folks just traded it for their help, without your consent, I might add. Just because I can’t live without some help doesn’t make you my god, I still own my life, it is not for you to take away in whole, or in part, sorry.

You’d rather whinge about the things you cannot do (for whatever reason) than celebrate the things you can do.

I’m ‘whining’ about having nanoseconds(and more) taken from my life so that Uncles George and Tony can live in posh estates. I live my life fully, I do what strikes my fancy, when it strikes my fancy, unless I haven’t managed to attain that goal as yet, but I don’t let the government stop me from doing whatever.

individual = good and society=bad

Yes, where the individual does not force me against my will, and the society does, if the society we lived in respected my right to pollute my mind in any manner that didn’t interfere with others I would, of course. be pro- society, but since this society thinks that I must join them or suffer, I say they can jump in a lake.

Don’t be silly, crime will never disappear.

Yes, I suspect that there will always be mental defectives that harm others.

Just because you cannot fight doesn’t mean I have the right to do whatever I like. Thankyou for admitting this. Clearly you are starting to realise that my freedom isn’t as inherent and sovereign as you make out.

So, the powermongers ARE wrong?

You are an idiot or a lunatic if you think that.

Thanks for pointing out that my ideas are not mainstream, and that the mainstream labels all things non-mainstream with derogatory terms.

If nothing is stopping me from commandeering a few nuclear ICBMs and setting up my own country (I’ve always fancied a chunk of Mexico, or possibly an island in the mediterranean) then nothing would stop me from doing that. And I’m not the only one.

So, absent dad’s spanking hand you’d raid his stash? What kind of person does that make you? Mainstream, is what I’d call it,…they accept violence as a means.

Thanks for taking the time,…

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear anarchistangel

@anarchistangel

Perhaps I should be more well read before confronting an entrenched philosophy, but all the combined efforts of all the greatest philosophers have failed to change a dang thing, we still live at the mercy of those willing to veil themselves in concepts unrelated to the reality of rule by force. If you have the biggest club, you collect the tax.

True, but consider the following joke:

laughlab.co.uk/complexity.html
A scientist and a philosopher were being chased by a hungry lion. The scientist made some quick calculations, he said “its no good trying to outrun it, its catching up”. The philosopher kept a little ahead and replied " I am not trying to outrun the lion, I am trying to out run you"!

When all are confronted with the truth that it is wrong to do to somebody else what is wrong to do to yourself,…if it’s wrong for me to take X% of your wage, it’s wrong for anybody to take my wages. Period.

Even if they give you something for it, such as sex or food?

All conflict will cease when I can no longer rule you by force, you do what you want to do, that doesn’t mean that you can take things from others in order to minimize labor, you have to do for you, but neither can they take from you.

I don’t see how conflict will cease if there’s nothing stopping me from chasing you and covering you in silly string

As for the steak, who grew the cow, who butchered the cow, and who cooked the cow? All have some investment of time, and should all be included in the eating.

Unless offered some renumeration for said cow, time, effort.

Either nothing arbitrates (in which case violence is the bottom line, as ever) or something arbitrates, in which case you’ve contradicted your own principle

The only arbitration you get is the arbitration you make, if it devolves into violence, I’m sorry that ya’ll couldn’t come to a more civilized conclusion, but it doesn’t affect me, and if it did, I’d do what I had to do to survive, or I’d perish.

So how will ‘all conflict cease’?

you preventing me from exercising my freedom to oppress you is actually an oppressive act by you against my freedom

You don’t have the freedom to take one instant from my life, if you do, it is my responsibility to fight, and/or die, to stop you from taking away from my life. Maybe I’ll team up with some neighbors, and we’ll just hang you from a tree, maybe I’ll die, and you will go on to do whatever, crap happens, there isn’t anything you can do to change it once it does, you can only make your way the best you can. Perfection is not a likely outcome of any human endeavor.

Again, so how will ‘all conflict cease’?

you’ve got rid of all institutions of authority then you cannot uphold any kind of order.

I am the authority, you are the authority, we(the indidviduals involved) are the authority. There is no guarantee that ‘good’ prevails, in fact, by looking at the recent history of the US, one could conclude that evil wins quite often. (When the head of the secret police gets elected vice-supreme ruler, then supreme ruler, then loses by the force of one person’s personality, then gets his son elected twice, something is amiss. This next election should prove telling.)

America is the perfect example a modern democracy - the majority spend so much time arguing amongst themselves in the name of individual freedom that the ruling classes can just get on with it.

If this freedom was inherent (and inherently valuable, as you contend) then you have to have had it from day 1.

You did have it at birth, your folks just traded it for their help, without your consent, I might add. Just because I can’t live without some help doesn’t make you my god, I still own my life, it is not for you to take away in whole, or in part, sorry.

Right, so your parents could take it away without your consent yet you still believe that it’s inherent and sovereign?

You’d rather whinge about the things you cannot do (for whatever reason) than celebrate the things you can do.

I’m ‘whining’ about having nanoseconds(and more) taken from my life so that Uncles George and Tony can live in posh estates. I live my life fully, I do what strikes my fancy, when it strikes my fancy, unless I haven’t managed to attain that goal as yet, but I don’t let the government stop me from doing whatever.

Right, so if they aren’t stopping you doing… whatever then how are you oppressed?

individual = good and society=bad

Yes, where the individual does not force me against my will, and the society does, if the society we lived in respected my right to pollute my mind in any manner that didn’t interfere with others I would, of course. be pro- society, but since this society thinks that I must join them or suffer, I say they can jump in a lake.

All society is ‘join us or suffer’. All unity between individuals necessitates compromise and sacrifice. Basically what you’ve said it ‘I’ll only respect other people and what I share with them if it suits my purpose’. Do you know how selfish and narrowminded that makes you look?

Don’t be silly, crime will never disappear.

Yes, I suspect that there will always be mental defectives that harm others.

There’ll always be a reason.

Just because you cannot fight doesn’t mean I have the right to do whatever I like. Thankyou for admitting this. Clearly you are starting to realise that my freedom isn’t as inherent and sovereign as you make out.

So, the powermongers ARE wrong?

Usually. But not per se.

You are an idiot or a lunatic if you think that.

Thanks for pointing out that my ideas are not mainstream, and that the mainstream labels all things non-mainstream with derogatory terms.

That’s it, retreat into ‘I’m a misunderstood rebel and you are mainstream’. Well, let’s see: you believe individual desire is the benchmark of justice, just like the mainstream individualist culture. I don’t.

You are simply going down the easy, populist rebellion route of anarchism because you lack the imagination to come up with a glorious dictatorship.

If nothing is stopping me from commandeering a few nuclear ICBMs and setting up my own country (I’ve always fancied a chunk of Mexico, or possibly an island in the mediterranean) then nothing would stop me from doing that. And I’m not the only one.

So, absent dad’s spanking hand you’d raid his stash? What kind of person does that make you? Mainstream, is what I’d call it,…they accept violence as a means.

You accept violence as a mean, you said so above. Listen, if you’ve got nothing better to add to this conversation apart from hypocrisy, weak arguments and ironically false claims to radicalism then I’m outta here.

Thanks for taking the time,…

I hope that you can come up with something less contradictory next time.

[FreeBornAngel]

Even if they give you something for it, such as sex or food?

That would be a trade, it only becomes a problem when one decides the trade isn’t fair, and isn’t allowed to opt out.

I don’t see how conflict will cease if there’s nothing stopping me from chasing you and covering you in silly string

I guess you don’t recognize my right to live free from acknowledging your existence. This is your primary flaw.

So how will ‘all conflict cease’?

Conflict arises when one tries to force an issue, no force, no conflict.

America is the perfect example a modern democracy - the majority spend so much time arguing amongst themselves in the name of individual freedom that the ruling classes can just get on with it.

Yes, the sheeple are well indoctrinated. They are only allowed approved knowledge at the approved schools, they are socialized to reject certain ideas.

Right, so your parents could take it away without your consent yet you still believe that it’s inherent and sovereign?

My freedom is inherent, as is the taking of it by the taller ones(They don’t know better, they are sheeple).

I am sovereign, or would be if not overpowered by those that rule by force.

then how are you oppressed?

If they knew, they’d stop me, it’s the broken window theory of law enforcement, I just stay under the radar. I don’t harm others, but I would like to pop firecrackers year round. I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, and I would like to drive faster on the highway.

you lack the imagination to come up with a glorious dictatorship.

I have one in mind where no one person dictates for all, you dictate for you, I dictate for me, where there is a conflict, sovereignty over my own life rules. You can’t force me to do what I don’t want to do.

You accept violence as a means

Only as a means of self-defense.

That’s it, retreat into ‘I’m a misunderstood rebel and you are mainstream’. Well, let’s see: you believe individual desire is the benchmark of justice, just like the mainstream individualist culture. I don’t.

So, what do you believe, that all should bow to you?

You are simply going down the easy, populist rebellion route of anarchism

I wish my ideas were popular, then I wouldn’t have to suffer the interuptions to my tranquillity to fend off those that can’t control their compulsions to lash out.

But, much as the older dog does with the puppy, I suffer it until I lash out, too. (I’m the product of the sheeple university, too.)

[matmilne]

condor

to answer your original post.

Neither, both are forms of fascism.

Anarchists seek to enforce their way of life upon others by destroying the state. Nationalists turn to a dictatorial police state as a means of enforcing their way of life upon their own people. Since both are pure evil, in my eyes neither are good and probably should be denied any rights to form political movements. they can live their own way of life in their own home, but they cannot force it upon others. Best solution to dealing with all fundamentalists, religion included.

[aspacia]

@condor

Anarchism and Nationalism are two ideals on opposite sides of the spectrum. I believe that both ideologies are as dangerous as one another. Anarchy leads to chaos and Nationalism leads to the state being placed before the indiviual, hence Fascism.Which one is the lesser of these two evils?

Ah, a black and white question, remember there is a middle ground. There are many ways to go and many alternatives. This is a fallacious question. There are other alternatives, a middle-ground.

[aspacia]

@anarchistangel

In order to live in anarchy, all must agree to peacefully coexist. Anarchy doesn’t lead to chaos, violence as a means results in chaos.

Anarchy and chaos are not synonymous, despite current misuse of the word.

Totalitarianism is the result when groups decide to live at the expense of others.

Anarchy is the result of all agreeing to live in freedom.

[.quote]

Do you really believe that after a rule of law with rights an anarchy will be a natural law with all agreeing to peace and freedom. I sure do not. Even with the controlled freedoms we now have, there are animals who prey on the weak.

The amerikan west was populated by those seeking to free themselves from the constraints of rule by force. Anarchy was the result. It lasted until well into '30’s. It was killed off by the ever increasing reach of those willing to sacrifice honor for power.

Nope, those, seeking freedom imposed strick pilgrim and puritanical law upon the citizens. These were not anarchist societies big time.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear anarchistangel

@anarchistangel

Even if they give you something for it, such as sex or food?

That would be a trade, it only becomes a problem when one decides the trade isn’t fair, and isn’t allowed to opt out.

It’s hardly an agreement if any side can opt out at a moments notice. That’s the problem. You could argue the same about peace treaties. If there’s nothing to stop me from breaking the treat by launching a missile at, say, Columbia then how is it an effective peace treaty?

I don’t see how conflict will cease if there’s nothing stopping me from chasing you and covering you in silly string

I guess you don’t recognize my right to live free from acknowledging your existence. This is your primary flaw.

Doesn’t answer the question. Also, your so called right is nonsense - you didn’t have it when you were born and you’ve said it isn’t something granted by civil society so what exactly is it?

So how will ‘all conflict cease’?

Conflict arises when one tries to force an issue, no force, no conflict.

If I’m not free to force the issue I’m not free, therefore your system has failed me. Therefore it isn’t living up to it’s own promise of freedom.

America is the perfect example a modern democracy - the majority spend so much time arguing amongst themselves in the name of individual freedom that the ruling classes can just get on with it.

Yes, the sheeple are well indoctrinated. They are only allowed approved knowledge at the approved schools, they are socialized to reject certain ideas.

That’s got fuck all to do with it. It’s the fact that the masses will never unite because they conceive of themselves an individuals. It’s the problem trade unions have had since their inception. Funny how so few people have realised this. Most people think of the notion of individual freedom as somehow liberating, so few see how it cripples them.

Right, so your parents could take it away without your consent yet you still believe that it’s inherent and sovereign?

My freedom is inherent, as is the taking of it by the taller ones(They don’t know better, they are sheeple).

How is it inherent if it can be taken away at the drop of a hat?

I am sovereign, or would be if not overpowered by those that rule by force.

Right, so your freedom is partial, non-absolute, not inherent and is entirely dependent on the actions of others. Thanks for admitting that, though it’s taken a long time.

then how are you oppressed?

If they knew, they’d stop me, it’s the broken window theory of law enforcement, I just stay under the radar. I don’t harm others, but I would like to pop firecrackers year round. I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, and I would like to drive faster on the highway.
[/quote]
So how are you oppressed?

you lack the imagination to come up with a glorious dictatorship.

I have one in mind where no one person dictates for all, you dictate for you, I dictate for me, where there is a conflict, sovereignty over my own life rules. You can’t force me to do what I don’t want to do.

Nor can you force me to do what I want to do. Hang on, what happens when what I want to do and what you want to do are in conflict?

You still don’t get it, do you? You claim a sovereign freedom which you’ve subsequently admitted is a lie, you want to do whatever you like but claim that you don’t want to be a dictator, you have no answer to the most obvious questions…

You accept violence as a means

Only as a means of self-defense.

Who defines ‘self-defence’? If I define it as self-defence to bomb columbia (remember, I’m presently ruling a small section of Mexico) then I’m allowed to use violence?

That’s it, retreat into ‘I’m a misunderstood rebel and you are mainstream’. Well, let’s see: you believe individual desire is the benchmark of justice, just like the mainstream individualist culture. I don’t.

So, what do you believe, that all should bow to you?

Then I really would have the freedom to do as I pleased.

You are simply going down the easy, populist rebellion route of anarchism

I wish my ideas were popular, then I wouldn’t have to suffer the interuptions to my tranquillity to fend off those that can’t control their compulsions to lash out.

But, much as the older dog does with the puppy, I suffer it until I lash out, too. (I’m the product of the sheeple university, too.)

You are enslaved to notions of individual freedom. Pity.

[matmilne]

I guess you don’t recognize my right to live free from acknowledging your existence. This is your primary flaw.

wrong this is the primary flaw with anarchism.

why should everyone aknowledge your existence? If you take away government you take away the system that tells people how to behave.

If you fight back you are using force to opress others. Even if it means that you will be destroyed by those wishing to use force, tough the founding principle of anarchism is that there should be no state, so there’s no state to protect you. And you cannot behave like one. If someone fights you you just have to stay there and take it cause if you don’t then you are using force to impose your will which is dictatorship not anarchism. If you are killed by it, tough, anarchism is seriously flawed. It’s the same as having a world with no weapons. Once a person makes a gun, that person will have control over all the others. They can’t fight back because their law is “no weapons.”

You can’t fight back because to do so would violate your own principles. A person who violates their own principles to have power sounds like a politician to me.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear mm

@matmilne

I guess you don’t recognize my right to live free from acknowledging your existence. This is your primary flaw.

wrong this is the primary flaw with anarchism.

why should everyone aknowledge your existence?

The irony of a person who claims to be seeking freedom but can only speak in hypotheticals and imperatives.

If you take away government you take away the system that tells people how to behave.

There are other means, but sure, how does the anarchist protect their anarchic state? I’ve proposed one answer to this in my present novel - a strong military that is solely for the purpose of defence that upholds the border of the anarchic state, with compulsory service for all.

Kinda fascist, but anarchic nonetheless.

If you fight back you are using force to oppress others.

Less than that - even an objection to someone oppressing you counts as an oppression of their freedom by you if we take ‘freedom’ as literally as anarchistangel does. That’s why bringing a potentially sound ethical principle to the negotiating table of politcs (which is firmly in the realm of means and not ends in themselves) ruins any possibility of progress. There simply isn’t a world that would satisfy the demands of fundamentalist anarchists.

As little state as possible - sure, if we can find ways to remain peaceful that don’t entail a state government then great, I’m all for that. But that requires a serious effort of imagination, I’ve not seen any great blueprint for utopia recently.

Even if it means that you will be destroyed by those wishing to use force, tough the founding principle of anarchism is that there should be no state, so there’s no state to protect you. And you cannot behave like one. If someone fights you you just have to stay there and take it cause if you don’t then you are using force to impose your will which is dictatorship not anarchism.

I tried this one with anarchistangel, and her response was to bat the same ball back, saying that anyone who tries to use force is breaking the boundary of her sovereign freedom. What she seems to be saying is that her freedom is sovereign, but other people’s isn’t. Sounds more like fascism to me, or possibly a monarchy.

If you are killed by it, tough, anarchism is seriously flawed. It’s the same as having a world with no weapons. Once a person makes a gun, that person will have control over all the others. They can’t fight back because their law is “no weapons.”

Why pacifists have never won a war. Again, pacifism is utterly valid in the realm of ends, but not in the realm of means. If we could all live in harmony and peace then yes, it would be better. I don’t question that at all. Is it possible to bring about changes to make such a situation manifest? No, of course it bloody isn’t.

You can’t fight back because to do so would violate your own principles. A person who violates their own principles to have power sounds like a politician to me.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.” —Groucho Marx

[FreeBornAngel]

ILP sucks, I spent two hours on a post, and it just ate it,…

[FreeBornAngel]

So, I’ll try again,…

There are other means, but sure, how does the anarchist protect their anarchic state?

The anarchist relies on the good faith of his neighbors and his own abilities.

Only when every person makes the rules can every person be ruled equally.

When you aggress against me it is my duty to repel that aggression, if I do that by calling my buddy Guido(or the Pinkertons), good for me. If I do that by decreeing that all will pay a ‘protection tax’ and bow to the flashy cars and badges,…

even an objection to someone oppressing you counts as an oppression of their freedom by you if we take ‘freedom’ as literally as anarchistangel does

Your freedom does not extend to aggressing against my freedom. If you bring conflict into being you are the aggressor, if I force you to acknowledge my existence, I am the aggressor.

But that requires a serious effort of imagination, I’ve not seen any great blueprint for utopia recently.

This belies that statement, one only has to follow this maxim.

For a more refined version one can take scientology’s ‘Cause nothing that is difficult for another to expierience’.

What she seems to be saying is that her freedom is sovereign, but other people’s isn’t. Sounds more like fascism to me, or possibly a monarchy.

What I am saying is that you currently occupy X amount of space, you have a house, and a car. You should be secure from aggression in that space. Me, too. If you come into my space and cause conflict it is my duty to meet that conflict, if I don’t, then you get the status quo, ruled and rulers. Your freedom to aggress stops at the edge of your space, as does everybody else’s. You can rationalize from there, but the fact remains.

Is it possible to bring about changes to make such a situation manifest? No, of course it bloody isn’t.

Of course it is possible. One only has to change the educational premise. Once chaos is not in the best interests of the state, it makes sense to decry hip hop’s gangsta. When a well educated population is in the ruler’s best interest, well educated subjects will be the result. As long as chaos in the streets gets more police to vote republican, then damn the masses, there are elections to manipulate!
Until then, let doublespeak rule!

It’s hardly an agreement if any side can opt out at a moments notice. That’s the problem. You could argue the same about peace treaties. If there’s nothing to stop me from breaking the treat by launching a missile at, say, Columbia then how is it an effective peace treaty?

The problem is not in the treaty, it’s in your aggression.

mm,

why should everyone aknowledge your existence?

You miss interpreted me, I want you to live free of the knowledge of my existence, especially if my kind make you irritable. I don’t want acknowledgement from any not willingly giving it.

If I missed something, please repeat the question, I don’t want this one getting ate as well.

[matmilne]

What I am saying is that you currently occupy X amount of space, you have a house, and a car. You should be secure from aggression in that space. Me, too. If you come into my space and cause conflict it is my duty to meet that conflict, if I don’t, then you get the status quo, ruled and rulers. Your freedom to aggress stops at the edge of your space, as does everybody else’s. You can rationalize from there, but the fact remains.

you’re talking about personal statesmanship NOT anarchism. Anarchism is a lack of state,period.

Don’t try to defend something that is illogical and plain idiocy because it’s exactly how “the state” began in the first place. Everyone owned their own land an cave. One person wanted it all and made a weapon. The people who owned the caves and land couldn’t defend themselves so they lost their property. In other places, a group of people wanted the land and banded together to overthrow the landowners.
If all the landowners hadn’t banded together in a government wich taxed its population to pay for defence from these marauders, everyone would be ruled by this small group of people instead of relatively free with the right to choose their government.

If i don’t aknowledge your existence there’s no need for me to aknowledge your right to exist.
You can try to defend yourself, but if i have a big tank out the front and you don’t who’s gonna defend you? Afterall anarchism means you have no state with a population and no state to collect taxes, so no mass army with weapons to defend your property. If i have more power than you I can do as i please and stroll in and rule you all. Rules are irrelivent, if they’re going to work, i’ve got to be willing to follow them and if i’m not you’re scr*wed

Do you really want to repeat the last 15,000 years of human society, cause that’s what’s going to happen if you cause everything to revert back to the way it was before states existed. Utopia means NO PLACE, so your ideology can only exist in your imagination. Practically speaking, it’s a contradiction in terms so is not viable in the waking world.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear aa

@anarchistangel

So, I’ll try again,…

There are other means, but sure, how does the anarchist protect their anarchic state?

The anarchist relies on the good faith of his neighbors and his own abilities.

‘good faith’ - you mean like Rousseau’s ‘belief in the general Good’?

No offence but the vast majority of history demonstrates that this isn’t going to happen. Perfect in principle, but never going to happen.

Only when every person makes the rules can every person be ruled equally.

Who is doing the ruling in your anarchist utopia?

When you aggress against me it is my duty to repel that aggression, if I do that by calling my buddy Guido(or the Pinkertons), good for me. If I do that by decreeing that all will pay a ‘protection tax’ and bow to the flashy cars and badges,…

Who arbitrates in cases where it is contested as to who was the aggressor?

even an objection to someone oppressing you counts as an oppression of their freedom by you if we take ‘freedom’ as literally as anarchistangel does

Your freedom does not extend to aggressing against my freedom. If you bring conflict into being you are the aggressor, if I force you to acknowledge my existence, I am the aggressor.

Who arbitrates when it is contested as to who was the aggressor? Who decides whether it was you limiting my freedom or me limiting your freedom? Bear in mind that any answer you give constitutes a contradiction of my sovereign freedom.

But that requires a serious effort of imagination, I’ve not seen any great blueprint for utopia recently.

This belies that statement, one only has to follow this maxim.

For a more refined version one can take scientology’s ‘Cause nothing that is difficult for another to expierience’.

1. Scientology is fashionable nonsense designed to make money out of disillusioned celebrities. Unless you are marrying Tom Cruise I suggest that you are somewhat naive.

2. Who enforces the principle and what happens to those that flaunt it? Bear in mind any answer you give constitutes a limit on people’s freedom and therefore contradicts the principle you’ve offered.

What she seems to be saying is that her freedom is sovereign, but other people’s isn’t. Sounds more like fascism to me, or possibly a monarchy.

What I am saying is that you currently occupy X amount of space, you have a house, and a car. You should be secure from aggression in that space. Me, too. If you come into my space and cause conflict it is my duty to meet that conflict, if I don’t, then you get the status quo, ruled and rulers. Your freedom to aggress stops at the edge of your space, as does everybody else’s. You can rationalize from there, but the fact remains.

What about public space, where the vast majority of conflicts take place?

All you are talking about is the whole ‘you can shoot someone if they trespass on your land’ thing, which is absurd as it values the right to property above the right to life.

Is it possible to bring about changes to make such a situation manifest? No, of course it bloody isn’t.

Of course it is possible. One only has to change the educational premise. Once chaos is not in the best interests of the state, it makes sense to decry hip hop’s gangsta. When a well educated population is in the ruler’s best interest, well educated subjects will be the result. As long as chaos in the streets gets more police to vote republican, then damn the masses, there are elections to manipulate!

Thus speaketh the true entryist. But not the anarchist.

Until then, let doublespeak rule!

It’s hardly an agreement if any side can opt out at a moments notice. That’s the problem. You could argue the same about peace treaties. If there’s nothing to stop me from breaking the treat by launching a missile at, say, Columbia then how is it an effective peace treaty?

The problem is not in the treaty, it’s in your aggression.

Who defines whether the problem is in the treaty or is my aggression? Bear in mind that any answer you give constitutes a violation of my sovereign freedom.

[FreeBornAngel]

MM,

One person wanted it all and made a weapon. The people who owned the caves and land couldn’t defend themselves so they lost their property. In other places, a group of people wanted the land and banded together to overthrow the landowners.

So, the problem here can be laid at the feet of the aggressor, be that the greedy land owner who wanted too many of the fruits of the labor, or the one that wanted to use violence instead of a plow, neither of which are acceptable in what should be a polite society.

Practically speaking, it’s a contradiction in terms so is not viable in the waking world.

So, because those that would rule by force are gonna win anyway they should just be given what they want, right?

Those that band together to rule by force over others are the problem, as are those that appease them.

Do you disagree?

Someone,

Yes, every day 94% of the population gets up and does right, 3% do something deserving of prison, the other 3% are in prison. As long as having criminals is in the best interests of those that rule, we will continue to have rising crime rates.

It remains to be seen if utopia is gonna break out all over the world, never before has communications allowed sooo much freedom, ideas move much faster now. Once all realize that rule by force is wrong, we’ll have peace.

Who arbitrates in cases where it is contested as to who was the aggressor?

Give me your example of this delimma, please.

Scientology is fashionable nonsense,…

I dont deny that I am somewhat naive, but when I see something that makes sense, and balance that against the motives involved, I think Ron did pretty well, despite the scarlet A of having to live at sea for a while because the chaos merchants were a little upset by his success at thumbing his nose at them.

Public places should be a place of respect, those that would have sex in them will be shunned by those that are uptight about watching folks have sex. They’ll change the channel once they get enough of it, as the business owners will run them off when they hassle the customers.

I’m sure my utopia would contain lands that allowed for the full gamut of freedoms, going there would be a choice made by the individual.

which is absurd as it values the right to property above the right to life.

The value is in the right to live unmolested, if you take from me by force, the hours spent in acquiring my property are being taken, if you are willing to take hours of my life from me, then yes, my property is more important than your life. Property is not just stuff, it is the time, sweat, and blood I put into getting it that you are depriving me off, not just some trinket.

Who defines whether the problem is in the treaty or is my aggression?

You are forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do, that is a problem, were it me personally, I would have to meet your aggression. If you are not causing me to do something I don’t want to do, we don’t have a conflict.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear anarchistangel,

@anarchistangel

Someone,

Yes, every day 94% of the population gets up and does right, 3% do something deserving of prison, the other 3% are in prison. As long as having criminals is in the best interests of those that rule, we will continue to have rising crime rates.

No, as long as more and more people commit crimes we’ll have rising crime rates…

It remains to be seen if utopia is gonna break out all over the world, never before has communications allowed sooo much freedom, ideas move much faster now. Once all realize that rule by force is wrong, we’ll have peace.

How do you maintain peace? How do the peaceful protect themselves?

Who arbitrates in cases where it is contested as to who was the aggressor?

Give me your example of this delimma, please.

A barroom brawl.

Scientology is fashionable nonsense,…

I dont deny that I am somewhat naive, but when I see something that makes sense, and balance that against the motives involved, I think Ron did pretty well, despite the scarlet A of having to live at sea for a while because the chaos merchants were a little upset by his success at thumbing his nose at them.

Nonetheless it’s fashionable nonsense. Like psychotherapy, it’s just a racket so the Jews can cash in (not my sentiments, someone else’s I thought I’d repeat)

Public places should be a place of respect, those that would have sex in them will be shunned by those that are uptight about watching folks have sex. They’ll change the channel once they get enough of it, as the business owners will run them off when they hassle the customers.

And what gives the business owner the right to tell other people what to do? The nudists and doggers have their sovereign freedom, the business owner is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do, which by your principles is wrong…

Do you get it yet, or should I explain why this notion of freedom fucks your whole argument once more?

I’m sure my utopia would contain lands that allowed for the full gamut of freedoms, going there would be a choice made by the individual.

There are no individuals. It’s just a pseudoconcept.

which is absurd as it values the right to property above the right to life.

The value is in the right to live unmolested, if you take from me by force, the hours spent in acquiring my property are being taken, if you are willing to take hours of my life from me, then yes, my property is more important than your life. Property is not just stuff, it is the time, sweat, and blood I put into getting it that you are depriving me off, not just some trinket.

So you value property more than life? Terrific. You’d rather kill someone than admit that property just isn’t that important. No offence, but you are a total hypocrite.

Who defines whether the problem is in the treaty or is my aggression?

You are forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do, that is a problem, were it me personally, I would have to meet your aggression. If you are not causing me to do something I don’t want to do, we don’t have a conflict.

This is last time I’m explaining this because either you don’t want to understand it OR you are too stupid to understand it. If I want to do something and you stop me then you are forcing me to do something I don’t want to do, even if the thing I want to do is to force you to do something. If my freedom is limited even in a just manner it is still limited and therefore the limiting contradicts your whole ‘freedom is sovereign and the aim of anarchism’ schtick. Either I am free to do what I like (no matter how absurd, dangerous, stupid or violent) or I am not. Either you are or you are not. You cannot have it both ways without being a hypocrite.

[FreeBornAngel]

No, as long as more and more people commit crimes we’ll have rising crime rates…

Very astute,…deep thoughts,…

How do you maintain peace? How do the peaceful protect themselves?

Don’t start problems, don’t have problems,…protect themselves from what, exactly?

A barroom brawl.

Somebody is the aggressor, you’ll need a better example.

Nonetheless it’s fashionable nonsense.

You’ve read it, or was that somebody else’s thoughts, too?

And what gives the business owner the right to tell other people what to do? The nudists and doggers have their sovereign freedom, the business owner is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do, which by your principles is wrong…

Do you get it yet, or should I explain why this notion of freedom fucks your whole argument once more?

Yes, I do get it.
Private property rights, the bane of all violent anarchists, are very important in my utopia, without them I could rape you with impunity.
Hardly a utopic concept.

There are no individuals. It’s just a pseudoconcept.

So, I’m just another Borg?

So you value property more than life? Terrific. You’d rather kill someone than admit that property just isn’t that important. No offence, but you are a total hypocrite.

I wouldn’t be killing someone for my property, I would be killing them for their lack of respect towards my right to live free of their parasitical existence.
I explained that property is not just some trinkets, but hours of my existence that I have to repeat because of their willingness to live at my expense.

As long as you think that you can involve me, against my will, in your plan, you are the one that is too stupid to coexist peacefully.

I want you to be happy, but not to the detriment of my own happiness.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear aa,

@anarchistangel

No, as long as more and more people commit crimes we’ll have rising crime rates…

Very astute,…deep thoughts,…

Thanks. On a more serious note the benefits from defining certain behaviour as deviant and criminal are not the ONLY reasons why crime exists and augments.

How do you maintain peace? How do the peaceful protect themselves?

Don’t start problems, don’t have problems,…protect themselves from what, exactly?

From anyone who consciously or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise causes a problem.

One cannot reset the history of man’s violence against man. If you try to convince the Palestinians that if they are peaceful that everything will work out for the good then you’ll get nowhere. Conflict remains because conflict has existed.

A barroom brawl.

Somebody is the aggressor, you’ll need a better example.

Sure, but who determines the guilty party, the aggressor?

Nonetheless it’s fashionable nonsense.

You’ve read it, or was that somebody else’s thoughts, too?

At what are you driving?

And what gives the business owner the right to tell other people what to do? The nudists and doggers have their sovereign freedom, the business owner is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do, which by your principles is wrong…

Do you get it yet, or should I explain why this notion of freedom fucks your whole argument once more?

Yes, I do get it.
Private property rights, the bane of all violent anarchists, are very important in my utopia, without them I could rape you with impunity.
Hardly a utopic concept.

Doesn’t answer the question.

I’m starting to think you are an anarchist in name only, that you associate yourself with the ideas of Rousseau (ha!) and conceive of yourself as an anarchist because of this.

There are no individuals. It’s just a pseudoconcept.

So, I’m just another Borg?

You aren’t ‘just’ anything, least of all an ‘individual’ in some neo-Cartesian sense as most people mean it.

So you value property more than life? Terrific. You’d rather kill someone than admit that property just isn’t that important. No offence, but you are a total hypocrite.

I wouldn’t be killing someone for my property, I would be killing them for their lack of respect towards my right to live free of their parasitical existence.
I explained that property is not just some trinkets, but hours of my existence that I have to repeat because of their willingness to live at my expense.

There’s no necessary connection between your toil and your present ownership of property.

As long as you think that you can involve me, against my will, in your plan, you are the one that is too stupid to coexist peacefully.

In other words ‘contradict me and suffer’

I want you to be happy, but not to the detriment of my own happiness.

In other words you are a benevolent fascist, rather than an anarchist. You still believe that you are the final arbiter when push comes to shove.

[FreeBornAngel]

Sorry for the delay,…

anarchistangel wrote:
Quote:
No, as long as more and more people commit crimes we’ll have rising crime rates…

Very astute,…deep thoughts,…

Thanks. On a more serious note the benefits from defining certain behaviour as deviant and criminal are not the ONLY reasons why crime exists and augments.

Yes, anybody that forces themselves, or their ideals, on another would need to be interupted. However, in a world where Descartes’(?) ‘invisible hand’ is working hard, why would any sane person cause trouble in a trouble free world?

If nobody is forced to do something they don’t want to do, there is no possiblity of conflict, not to say that there are not unpleasant things one must do to survive(work menial labor, etc), and there would be consequences to not meeting these survival needs, ie, homelessness, poverty, etc,…but one shouldn’t be forced to ‘pay tax’, ‘toe the line’, whatever,…

Once this maxim is universally accepted, the Palistinians will find positive rewards in interacting positively with their former opponents.

Any party of the dispute would have to decide for themselves the grievance, the aggriever, and the aggrievie. Any unasked for outside interference will only muddy the waters. I would think that channels would develop for those that need protection from aggressors.

Nonetheless it’s fashionable nonsense.

You’ve read it, or was that somebody else’s thoughts, too?

At what are you driving?

I guess my question was if you’d actually read the material, or just took somebody else’s word for it.

I would think that once the novelty of ‘freaking out the squares’ wears off, most folks will put on clothes. I doubt one would find too many sane people running around forcing others to acknowledge their existence. So, I’m saying that the demonstrators wouldn’t want to alienate the business owner. He just wants to be left alone to mind his business.

Do you see how acting ‘unconventionally’, or outside the norm, with this new found freedom would soon end as nobody really wants to see that? My anarchism derives from not wanting men with guns pushing unconventional folks around, outside a direct physical attack. So, while advocating total freedom, I wouldn’t act without restraint myself, but I see the proper role of those who do, ie, prime examples of certain behaviors’ results, when folks are free to smoke crack to excess, the ravages of such behavior readily exhibit themselves and serve to show others that can learn from seeing that behavior.

The only thing I remember of Rousseau is that he told of a priest’s advice to a young man that he would live a happier life if he didn’t trouble himself with such matters.

I hold with no ‘schools of thought’ outside my own. None of them have delivered what I have, ie,…world peace in 20 words or less. Why would I devote myself to a failed philosophy? Absent the bits and pieces, they are worth less than the electrons devoted to them.

There’s no necessary connection between your toil and your present ownership of property.

If I trade my toil for a space recognized by my neighbors as my refuge, then that value will be recognized in order to validate their own status. To violate that agreement is to threaten the stability of the region, which is not in the residents’ best interests.

In other words ‘contradict me and suffer’

What should I do to someone that wrongs me? I wouldn’t have approached you.

Yes, I decide when I push back, but I’m no facist, too many rules.

Thanks for your time.

[aspacia]

AA, hum, play the game, earn big bucks, then purchase your own land, perhaps an island, and create an anarachy. I wonder how long you will last. Marx had the same problem, he did not understand human nature.

If you dislike where you live, you are free do leave, very simple.

[FreeBornAngel]

Why is it always leave if you want freedom? I thought this was the land of the free.
If it’s a free country why am I not free to be left alone? To drive without interference. to pop firecrackers everyday, to own a machine gun and some hand grenades in case the religous fanatic next door decides he’s the messiah?
Because it isn’t a free country, never has been, and those that benefit from it won’t give up rule by force willingly.

How about a system that resolves issues with means other than men with guns pushing folks around?

And I will leave just as soon as my money is right.