Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Travis Retriever

Pages: 1 ... 395 396 [397]
5941
Uhh... there's a lot.
*Sighs*

@Shane, Virgil0211 and the other more capitalistic members: Would I be more able to elicit some thoughts on their points if I just provided a summary containing the main arguments DeflocculatedDentist (especially him) and GypsyJamFest threw out?

5942
I just skimmed through it

what you could do is when you post super long debates like this you can make the Me, DeflocculatedDentist, GypsyJamFest
Bolded and underlined to make it easier to read an follow like what I just did.

Just a suggestion.
Did it.

So can I get any feedback on the points presented?

5943
(Note how he talks about the schools teaching Boycotting, while calling them statist, as if trying to imply indoctrination...can you say hypocritical?)

Anyways that was all of it with the Anarcho-capitalist.  He was nice.
Can't say the same for the Anarcho-Communist though.

DeflocculatedDentist:  "Those criticisms actually did not apply to me. I feel lame "debating" someone who has no idea what my position is. Maybe you should just ask me questions that actually get down to the fucking point and stop recommending TAA videos (as if he is some sort of political genius).

I recommend a 2 hour documentary available on google video called "The Evilness of Power." There's some cool psychology stuff in there.

I also recommend books:
Anarchism (theory and practice) by Daniel Guerin
Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker [pretty boring]
Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell [fantastic]
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn
Mutual Aid (a factor in evolution) by Peter Kropotkin
Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky"

Me:  "...OK. I am NOT watching something that long on something that doesn't already interest me. So basically just by the title "power = evil".
Documentaries are among the least reliable as far as science goes, so I'm not interested.
It sounds like anti-capitalistic/anti-establishment propaganda to me.
Same goes for the books, I'm not going to read something I feel is shit.
Give me a summary of the main points of the movie, and of the books, if not, piss off."

Me:  "About Europe, capitalism, etc
(re: the other message. Yeah, I figured I'd reply to both in one message).
To make one last point, you are wrong about the "redistribution" stuff.
Capitalism isn't a redistribution method, it just means economic freedom.
Whether a rich man gives his money to a poor man, or vise versa, it's still capitalism, not socialism, if said exchanges are done through their own free will.
Conversely, if the government forces a rich man to give his money to the poor, or vise versa, it's socialism, not capitalism. It's that simple.
You are missing the difference between philanthropy and state-enforced wealth redistribution. (note the RE, as in first from the people who earned it, to the people who didn't).
As for the Europe having a better standard of living, that's bullshit.
"The Swedish Myth Debunked"
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/libertarian/115408
(google the title if this article doesn't have all of it)
"The Swedish Institute of Trade compiled statistics comparing the US to Sweden, and came to the conclusion that, with 'fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data', 'the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households'. It also found that Sweden had inferior productivity."
"The international accounting and consulting firm KPMG found that when disposable income was adjusted for cost of living, Scandinavians were the poorest in Western Europe. Norway and Sweden were second and third-lowest for adjusted income. Spain and Portugal, which are amongst the freest European economies, more capitalist, were first and second."
Also, 'Sweden: Poorer Than You Think':

'The study used "fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data," and found that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." Furthermore, the study points out that Swedish productivity has fallen rapidly relative to per capital productivity in the USA.'
And:

"For many years, Sweden, like its European counterparts, has been eating its capital stock instead of replenishing it. Some high-profile Swedish companies like Volvo have been able to remain well capitalized, but even those companies are now finding it more attractive to locate in other nations, where their profits are not so readily confiscated."
These same arguments can be applied to many European countries.

From what I understand, the Netherlands was rich before. The only reason they are even OK now is because of this.
Socialism hasn't helped them.

There's my good points there.
*Sighs*
I'm done with you.
You may have the last word if you like.
I've given you long enough to present a point for Anarchism other than just "IS NOT!!!!111oneone nuu! We won't have those evil things (cities, wealth, incentives to work and EARN your keep in OUR backwards societies that were long evolved out of existence by modern day civilization even though those places couldn't possibly work as a world superpower today, or solve the problems we bitch about! YOU DUN UNDERSTAND MEH!! GO READ THOSE BOOKS AND WATCH THOSE 2 HOUR DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT WHY THINGS LIKE POWER, THE FREE MARKET IS EBIL, EVEN THOUGH EVOLUTION ITSELF WORKS JUST LIKE THE FREE MARKET AS SKEPTIC MICHAEL SHERMER DEMONSTRATES!!!!"

Stop stalking me, and kindly gtfo, you anarchist, anti-freedom, deluded cultist."

DeflocculatedDentist:  ""...OK. I am NOT watching something that long on something that doesn't already interest me. So basically just by the title "power = evil"."
The whole "evil" idea i think takes away from the content. However, the content itself is pretty great. It talks a lot about the Stanford prison experiment and the psychological ramifications that go with positions of hierarchy. Good stuff.

"Documentaries are among the least reliable as far as science goes, so I'm not interested."
Are you serious? It all depends on sources, dude.
"It sounds like anti-capitalistic/anti-establishment propaganda to me.
Same goes for the books, I'm not going to read something I feel is shit.
Give me a summary of the main points of the movie, and of the books, if not, piss off."
Calm the fuck down.
I didn't expect you to read them, really. I figured you might bother to look at a review, but whatever.
The main point of the movie is that power structures inevitably lead to sorts of "immoral" or whatever behavior. Anarchism by Daniel Guerin is pretty much a review of the anarchist movement as a whole, and would actually be a really good book for you to read before you start talking shit about something which you have no knowledge of. :-) The george orwell book is an account of when he fought with the POUM and anarchists during the spanish revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is a book that heavily details anarchist economic and socio-political theory, along with tactics and stuff (it would be really boring for you). Ishmael is a really weird book about industrial civilization. Daniel Quinn isn't a good writer but it was interesting. Mutual Aid is by zoologist peter kropotkin; it's essential a long scientific argument refuting social darwinism. It also shows the evolutionary foundation of morality, society, economies, etc. Manufacturing Consent is by MIT professor of linguistics Noam Chomsky. It's about how governments in US-like supposed free markets (I think it's pretty obvious that the United States isn't really a free market if you're a libertarian) use the media to their advantage.
"To make one last point, you are wrong about the "redistribution" stuff.
Capitalism isn't a redistribution method, it just means economic freedom.
Whether a rich man gives his money to a poor man, or vise versa, it's still capitalism, not socialism, if said exchanges are done through their own free will."
I didn't say anything about free will. If someone wants to live in a socialist society by their own free will, does that make it capitalism?

(probably one of the more offensive things this guy stated...)

The way capitalism ACTUALLY works is by redistribution of wealth from the working class to the owning class. The wealth is redistributed from the worker's labor-power to the boss. That is how profit is made. It's a very simple concept and I don't understand why you don't get it.
"Conversely, if the government forces a rich man to give his money to the poor, or vise versa, it's socialism, not capitalism. It's that simple."
The definition of socialism is "workers' control of the means of production." You learned that in your high school world history class. I don't believe in government at all, but i'm still a socialist, because I believe in a workplace democracy rather than an institutional workplace hierarchy. Cuba, the USSR, etc. were not socialist.

"You are missing the difference between philanthropy and state-enforced wealth redistribution. (note the RE, as in first from the people who earned it, to the people who didn't)."
It's as if you aren't even reading what I'm saying. I'm an anarchist, meaning that I don't believe in the state. I don't argue for state-enforced wealth distribution, as i said in my last fucking message.
I actually have a friend who lives in Norway. Both of his parents work on this huge fishing both and are considered in the lower-middle class. His parents each make 60,000 dollars a year. I think the difference between now and the ninetees might be huge, but either way it really doesn't matter to me because I'm not arguing for a Scandinavian-type society.

You know, you could actually read my points when I make them.
It's seriously as if you base your shit off of nothing, and have not read a single word that I have said. I should have been done with you way before, because you really seem to not be able to think for yourself. You really need to work on yourself, dude. Your us vs. them, i'm right and you're wrong mentality is such garbage. I have immense respect for actual free market advocates like Adam Smith. God, I seriously don't even know what to say if all you're going to do is make assumptions, close in the points I make on the side, and not fucking read my actual points. YOU actually HAVEN'T made a fucking point in the entire conversation. You just say, "no the amazing atheist makes a good point" even though I already addressed it. ughh you're fucking frustrating. I guess you can't help close minded fucktards. :-)

Have a nice life." (flips the bird to him)

DeflocculatedDentist:  ""Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled."

"Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable."

"Anarchist communism advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy through which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs."
In a capitalism society, wealth is redistributed from the worker to the owner. I'll use simple math to try and make it so you'll understand, but some people just don't WANT to understand points from us anti-freedom cultists (yay Ad hominem attacks that serve no purpose).

The owner of a business makes products pays his worker $10 an hour (most workers in american factories make way more than this, i'm just using small numbers). The worker makes 5 products, each worth $10, an hour. Therefore, the owner takes the other 80% ($40) of his labor-power for that hour so that he can make a profit.
This isn't anti-capitalist propaganda, it's just fact. The ACTUAL capitalist argument is that if it's done by free association, it's ok (which is actually arguable). Your position is "NUH UH!!! THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM!!" In a capitalist society, that is the only way for someone of the owning class to make a profit. I hope that you understand now, but I doubt you will, since you lack the ability to read."

I did later apologize for the outburst and he accepted, granted, I still have a place in my heart that hates this asshole with a passion.

5944
DeflocculatedDentist:  That got rather confusing.

Me:  "Indeed.
Well, back to the show:

"Laws have to be enFORCED. Therefore, they are inherently based on violence."
Non sequitor.

"enforce
/ɛnˈfɔrs, -ˈfoʊrs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-fawrs, -fohrs] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -forced, -forc⋅ing.
1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: He enforced his argument by adding details."
Nothing in there about violence.


"Laws do not fix problems, they just threaten that problem with violence. The economy is directly related to crime. Maybe creating better economic situations would do a bit better in stopping crime than threatening those who commit them with violence w/o fixing anything."
Hence why I'm for the free market: It helps with crime (e.g. legalization of drugs to get the money out of criminal gangs and into the white market).
Also, this goes back to a point I made before.
According to the CATO institute, a non-partisan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.; ingredients for the economic growth (and prosperity) you speak of include property rights, sound money and rule of law.
Granted those are just the foundations.
Small government, low taxes, etc are also helpful.
Also, If you're talking about redistribution (I doubt you are, but just in case), it doesn't work.
It didn't for California, the former USSR, and it's hurting Europe."

DeflocculatedDentist:  " "enforce
/ɛnˈfɔrs, -ˈfoʊrs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-fawrs, -fohrs] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -forced, -forc⋅ing.
1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: He enforced his argument by adding details."
Nothing in there about violence. "

Didn't everything there imply violence? Thing about the way the government works, please.
What happens if you go to a grocery store and take an apple to eat without giving someone money for that apple? They call a guy with a gun. What happens when you stop paying your rent? They call a guy with a gun.

Of course, calling a guy with a gun is certainly justified when someone is getting raped or murdered or having their human rights trampled upon. However, violent institutions tend to trample upon human rights more than they protect them. It is much more rational to think that the people themselves could protect their rights. Imposing a group of people with the ability to fuck your rights in the ass to protect your rights is also like fucking for virginity.

"Hence why I'm for the free market: It helps with crime (e.g. legalization of drugs to get the money out of criminal gangs and into the white market)."
It also makes crime inevitable. The vast majority of crimes are caused by the economy. Think about the crime-ridden areas of every town and city, and think of the general income of people in that area. ...I imagine that its blatantly obvious. Drugs and gangs aren't the only things killing the ghetto, and I'm sure you understand that.

"Also, this goes back to a point I made before.
According to the CATO institute, a non-partisan libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.; ingredients for the economic growth (and prosperity) you speak of include property rights, sound money and rule of law.
Granted those are just the foundations."
I don't speak of growth or prosperity.

"Small government, low taxes, etc are also helpful."
But not the type of world I would personally like to live in.

"Also, If you're talking about redistribution (I doubt you are, but just in case), it doesn't work."
You have yet to make a point and it's really bothering me.
Redistribution in a capitalist (so-called "free" market) economy goes from the bottom up, not vice-versa. A factory owner owns machines, which the worker uses to make products. The owner expropriates profits from the labor of the worker by paying him less money than what his work produced. Otherwise the bourgeoisie wouldn't exist at all.

"It didn't for California, the former USSR, and it's hurting Europe."
But it apparently does work for the United States and all the other capitalist countries. I'm not advocating redistribution, but you are.

And, actually, Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, and I think that all the Scandinavian countries are in the top 20.

Norway is typically classified as socialist, even though the workers do not have control over the means of production. It also has the most woman in government, and the highest amount of atheist and agnostics. Fun stuff."

OK, after this, I linked    DeflocculatedDentist and GypsyJamFest to two videos by TheAmazingAtheist regarding Anarchy.  I'm not going to link them here, but I will summarize them (the video is called "ANARCHY" for the record).  Basically, TJ states that he'd like to become an Anarchist it if were feasible.  But there are two problems with it.
1.  How to build roads, infrastructure, etc.
2.  The murder paradox (If a person wants to kill another, do you arrest/stop that one person, thereby killing off the purpose of your own ideology, or do you make murder illegal for everyone, thus destroying the point entirely)
After which, GypsyJamFest responds back with this:

GypsyJamFest:  "most of the problems stated by tj have been answered by anarchists
1. the 1st pt. he had about murder how making ppl consent to not murdering goes against the philosophy and this is a paradox however the 2 main philosophies behind market anarchy is 1. owning private property 2. non initiation of force the consenting part just fits in and branches off this pt. if someone kills someone they broke one of the tenants therefore we can defend ourselves from this person during and after the killing thats wat preventing murder and prosecuting murderers is defense not denying consent the person being murdered didn't consent to being murdered his arguement makes little to 0 sense
2. how to build roads: an anarchist group if they so choose may pool their money together and hire a company to build and maintain roads
3. how to create infostructure: a system of written contracts and aggreements achieved voluntarily breaking the contracts harms reputation and reputation is very important in this system
4. how to protect the environment: if a anarchist or group of anarchists so chooses to help and protect the environment they can send money to or create an organization that helps the environment thru a number of means
when it comes to companies being irresponsible and dumping waste in rivers lets say if the anarchist don't approve of this they boycott the company and the company dies other companies will see this and be careful with how they manage their waste/how much the pollute to stay affloat
these are all very brief answers and i'm sure u have many more questions/pts. i hope tho u gained a basic knowledge of how the system can work"

To which I responded with:
Me:  "1. Then it isn't by definition, Anarchy, from what I understand.
People are still enforcing a law/rule.
How is this any different from government?
So one social institution (government) shouldn't be allowed to do this, but individuals can, if they aren't a member of said institution?
That doesn't make any sense.

2. The size of the USA Economy is about 13 trillion dollars (GDP).
If what TJ says is true, nearly all (or some unhealthy portion) of that will be just on buying the land for roads, building and maintaining said roads.

3. OK, but how does that work, and what evidence do you have to back even that up?
Even if it does and you do, I don't see how that's any different from Government.
It's still a form of enforcement by definition:
"en⋅force
/ɛnˈfɔrs, -ˈfoʊrs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-fawrs, -fohrs] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -forced, -forc⋅ing.
1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced.
2. to obtain (payment, obedience, etc.) by force or compulsion.
3. to impose (a course of action) upon a person: The doctor enforced a strict dietary regimen.
4. to support (a demand, claim, etc.) by force: to enforce one's rights as a citizen.
5. to impress or urge (an argument, contention, etc.) forcibly; lay stress upon: He enforced his argument by adding details. " (From Dictionary.com)

It's still involuntary enforcement, and it's still something done.
How is just bad reputation going to prevent crime?
Even if a person, corporation, group, etc has a bad rep, odds are, they'll just use the resources they nabbed, and have to deny it, just like we have now.

4. But not everyone will, as we see in the real world.
Just look at WalMart, or most others.
Such that there is no reason to believe the companies will just "die" out, unless they can't compete in terms of prices."

GypsyJamFest replied back to this with:
GypsyJamFest:  "1. in the vid u sent me tj flat out says anarchy is not lawlessness and if u think that u have been mislead how is it different from government? the main difference is the government enforces some of the dumbest shit on the planet anti drug laws, anti prostitution laws, etc. many many victimless crimes and we the tax payers are forced to pay for the enforcement them whether or not we agree with the law (and yes this is very different than tj's murder example that falls under the initation of force catagory therefore that cannont be except in society) and very rarely throughout history do governments relinquish power on things such as this and when they do it's b/c it's in the governments best interest not the ppl's i have yet to find any real anarchist who's ok w/ the concept of legalized murder especially b/c many anarchist like myself are pacifists and hope to spread the principle of peace to others in society voluntarily
2. the U.S. economy is way to big for it's own good we have a supercharged economy the main reason being fiat currency created by the government, this gives the government near total control over the economy, creates artificial inflation, etc. this wouldn't be a problem if we went back to a standard and stabilized the economy besides the arguement of were will we get roads from? makes no sense a huge chunk of our paychecks goes to the government they get the money to build roads from us obviously then we can afford to do this more efficiently by ourselves, also we have way too many roads in my opinion, also the government also has money left over to fund police, firefighters, etc. so apparently it won't cost every cent we make to have roads and to me personally u may disagree and thats fine i'd rather walk or take public transit if it means i can finally have true freedom if that's the cost i'll pay it
3. ppl are willing to vote in office ppl who will protect and cleanup the environment if there is no elected official to handle this for us ppl who truly care about it will join organizations who can go out with permission and clean up polluted lakes, plant trees, etc. ppl already do this but with all the extra cash they will now have at their disposal b/c they don't have to pay taxes ppl could afford to help fund bigger projects in this way
and how is this government? how is charity government? how is volunteering government? i have a hard time following ur logic on this one the government by definition is the monopolization of force they forcely extract currency to fund these projects ppl aren't doing it out of free will in an anarchistic society ppl can do this if they want to and not do it if they don't want to nobody is forcefully making ppl do this if a certain land owner doesn't want there property cleaned for free they don't have to let ppl clean it, even if collectively ppl of a community decide to make something public like a park or something if it's public ppl can go and clean it w/o any form of intrusion and on an industrial lvl were the big pollution comes from boycotting and customer feed back can make them change, anarchy has a huge emphasis on understanding the economy instead of historical governmental propoganda being shoved down our kids throats they can learn skills that actually make a damn difference like boycotting
4. bad reputation i didn't mean this will prevent crimes i mean on a lvl like that such as ebay, ebay has no enforcement yet it works great based on reputation that statement was geared more toward business arrangements i apologize for not making that clear, on the lvl of corporations, companies, etc. that u brought up this can have tremendous effects on the company credit rate goes down, other companies won't do business with you, customers loose faith in you and seek there good/service somewhere else, etc., it's not like the party that was done wrong by dishonest dealings will keep this secret
getting into law enforcement will take 4ever and i highly doubt u give a shit to be honest so if u want learn how that will work check out anarchist videos on how this can be done alot of the anarchists who make vids here on youtube also are a hell of alot smarter than me and they'd do a better job at answering ur questions
5. now with statist education we don't teach ppl about boycotts, etc. it also saddens me we have the culture of i don't care if a company is being unjust i just want my product all these things could change with changes in education and how we raise our children
in my opinion these back and forwards are pointless endeavours for both sides of the arguement if u want to learn more about anarchy there are tons of videos on the subject check those out i however don't see the pt in doing this anymore it will just continue until you find one question i don't have the answer for then you'll declare "see anarchy doesn't work"
so i hope you take it easy and have a good one"
(con later)

5945
I had a while back.  I can't say I'm very proud of this, but it still irks me to this day.
If you don't mind, I'm going to post it here.
Warning in advance, this is very very long.
I was originally going to put it in the comments of your video about the free market (the latest at the time of this posting), but soon realized doing so would flood the comment section.  And quite frankly, one of the last things I want now is to be banned from your channel.
This debate was between me, DeflocculatedDentist (Anarcho-Communist) and GypsyJamFest (Anarcho-Capitalist).
(Shane, if you don't want this hear, I apologize in advance, but I wanted to put this hear so you and the other members could maybe dissect it; especially the stuff near the end):

Me:  Anarchism = epic fail

DeflocculatedDentist:  You = (more than likely) epically clueless (about anarchist political theory)

Have much time have you put into learning about the subject?

Me: Enough to know that it doesn't work.
I go by something called evidence, not desires.
I like my theories to make correct predictions and to work in the real world.
I'm funny that way.

DeflocculatedDentist:  What evidence is that, exactly?
Have you ever read up on anarchist Catalonia, Whiteway Colony, etc.? I think all the historical examples of anarchist societies would completely disagree with your so-called evidence.

The three million years of human tribal societies before civilization would largely disagree with you as well.

Me: Says the person who doesn't provide any sources. :P
But seriously, there are a few problems with Anarchism that in TJ's video weren't figured out.
1. If a person wants to kill another person (say a Blood or a Crip in his example), in an Anarchist society they could do that. TJ (TheAmazingAtheist) explains it in greater detail in his video "ANARCHY"
2. (this is more for the Anarcho-Capitalists, but I think it still applies). Road cost trillions (con)

1. How are activities illegal in an Anarchist system?
2. Fair enough.


GypsyJamFest:  1. anarchy is based on the non-aggression principle any intiation of force would be illegal and how this would be enforced depends upon which anarchist camp u subscribe to and wat ur personal opinions are
2. roads existed b4 governments supplied them, governments get their money from us ultimately so apparently we can afford it, and anything the gov. does is extremely expensive if done privately it's often cheaper and of better quality walk down the street if it looks like shit 9/10 it's public
wel DeflocculatedDentist gave the anarcho-communitst theory i personally prefer free market anarchism the best theory i've found is the DRO system it's an orginazation that works alot like an insurance company u pay monthly or whatever for protection those employed by the DRO are peace keepers they are trained professionals who can use their skills in their defense or the defense of others but they can't initiate force they basicly help defend u from attack continued....
they have no power or authority over anyone unless u give it to them so if someone wanted to hire me as a protection force they could it's just a shitty idea b/c i'm not a pro same w/ investigating crimes, etc. initiation of force will be illegal regardless whether or not a group adopts a sadist philosophy just b/c the majority wants something doesn't mean they can oppress a minority i think we all agree the holocaust was a bad thing

Me: Interesting idea.
But prices might be a bitch.
Insurance is expansive.

GypsyJamFest:  so are taxes i hope it in effect becomes a wash and besides like i said things funded privately tend to be cheaper but no one can really know for sure how expensive this may be unless we put it into practice



DeflocculatedDentist:  idk if this comment was directed to me or not...
(1) Um, no. This problem is only a problem for anarcho-capitalist theory. The legal system would be replaced with the community's (a) trying to solve the problems so that the crimes don't occur in the first place and (b) maintaining egalitarianism. What would stop a community from stopping a person who is rampantly fucking the rights of others in the ass (like murdering, raping, etc.)?
(2) Mass transit is better; i really don't see a problem

Me: The one from GypsyJamFest, or from me?

1. OK, how would this be done in huge complex social systems like cities?

2. So basically you're suggesting Anarcho-Communism/Social correct?
If so, how do we go from a society with no property rights, or economic freedom to one that has total economic freedom?
That makes no sense.
(If not, disregard that point).


DeflocculatedDentist:  From you, but after I read the next one i understood what you were doing. It only tells me I have one comment.

(1) Cities are divided up into smaller communities. However, I want them to disappear (eventually) anyway. That's mostly for the communities themselves to figure out, but they can come together just as easily as, if not more easily than, people in rural or small communities.
(2) What do you mean by economic freedom? I believe in economic democracy. You should probably msg me...


DeflocculatedDentist:  Oh I see how these are working ok. Private property wouldn't exist, they could do whatever they want with the land. You REALLY haven't read anything on anarchism; I can see that now.

Laws are a group or rules enforced by an institution. Tribes have general agreed upon rules. Most tribes operate in an egalitarian manner similar to anarchist theory.

Me: Pretty much.

It's a shame they aren't the norm today. :P
I guess somewhere along the line, the system of society became too complicated for them.
Again, look at TheAmazingAtheist's video of "Social (so called) darwinism" for a debunk that we need laws.

DeflocculatedDentist:  I am in no way advocating Social Darwinism. I am not sure if you were saying that I was or wasn't, but I don't feel like watching the entire video to find out.

Me:  I never said you were.
I'm just saying that your point is discredited in that video. Also, going back from our social institutions today (Despite how far we've advanced socially, economically, etc) to the days when it was considered ok to rape woman to keep them as war booty sure sounds like SD'ism to me.

We need law and institution, however little (I'm a Libertarian, for the record), for the sake of honest court systems, sound money and property rights for the economy.

DeflocculatedDentist:  I highly doubt it was. My point was that an egalitarian-based "legal" system would suffice.  I actually specifically said that the maintenance of egalitarianism would inevitably call for the stopping of rape. Do you actually read what I say? This would be a lot easier via messaging.

DeflocculatedDentist:  Laws have to be enFORCED. Therefore, they are inherently based on violence.

Laws do not fix problems, they just threaten that problem with violence. The economy is directly related to crime. Maybe creating better economic situations would do a bit better in stopping crime than threatening those who commit them with violence w/o fixing anything.

Me:  Also, I looked onto Wikipedia and read about those societies.
They only lasted a few years at most.
Some system.

DeflocculatedDentist:  Whiteway Colony still exists, though not explicitly anarchist, and was founded in the late 1800s; anarchist Catalonia was defending itself from Franco, the nazis, AND the USSR from the inside. The USA and Britain were also providing aid to the fascists. Yeah, it actual WAS some system since they managed to hold them off for that long, better than the fucking monarchy could have done. I seriously recommend reading "homage to catalonia" by george orwell. That book is fantastic.
 
Also, please remember that, at one time, everything modern society is (supposedly) based upon was viewed the same way anarchism is now. The problem with democracy was that it was supposedly lawless and chaotic, because power being in the hands of the people would mean that the people would do whatever they want. That is the exact same critique as the critique of anarchism, which IS democracy.

Me:  Interesting.
Thanks, but I don't read crap. :P
This concludes the first part of the debate.
The rest was via the PM system.
I'll post that as a reply to this comment.

5946
Episode 2: Creationism / Re: Online evolution demo
« on: April 14, 2009, 03:04:29 PM »
I was a Christian at the time. Had been all my life.
Conservative Christian, I take it?

I didn't have a hardened heart.
The Bible does not make sense. Deal with it.
Ain't that the truth. XD
It's not us atheists' fault the bible is so poorly written.  :P

5947
Another bogus argument defending the stupidly high taxes of the EU nations made by an "anarchist":
(In response to saying that capitalism is about free will and socialism is about government coercion):
"Then if I live their and pay my taxes out of my own free choice, Sweden is a capitalist nation."
*facepalm*

5948
Yeah.
I can't remember exactly what the justification was (I posted it on your profile, along with ACCURATE definitions of what capitalism and socialism are).
Basically the claim is that because the means of production (capital) is controlled by the rich (or higher class than said workers), the Soviet Union was, in fact, capitalist.
Which is really just saying that because the people in control were granted desired, unavoidable social status, that the USSR is capitalist.
<sarcasm>And Stalin was both a good man and an evil man.</sarcasm>

Another strange claim I would get from the Anarchists (bless their *little* bogus brains), is that when an Anarchist society coersises a person out of them, or when the first human hunter-gather soceities (which they claim to be Anarchist) would establish rules and punish those who didn't follow them, it WASN'T the same as government (yah, rite).
As the picture says:  It's not fascism when WE do it. :P

5949
A common lie told is that the USSR was "capitalist" because of who was controlling the means of production (the bosses, or government, instead of by the workers).
This is inspired by the comments on the CATO Institute's video about Obama's UHC plan by some guy who I'd swear leaked more Bogosity than all of Congress, less substance than Michael Moore, and more insults than...someone who does huge amounts of insults.

What are the thoughts about this?

I'm tired of these bogus commies and Anarcho-closet commies using the no true Scotsman fallacy to prove their point.

Pages: 1 ... 395 396 [397]