(July 8, 2013 at 8:57 pm)genkaus Wrote: Secondly, eBay is not an independent, anarchist community, but is subject to laws of the land.

Well, by that definition of what constitutes as 'anarchism' - then eBay is not anarchist, as it is subject to government laws. Everything is subject to government laws though, because if you don't comply then you get forcefully thrown in a cage. Anyone who works outside the law would either be in complete secret to the point where I wouldn't be able to quote them or that their operations are stopped and put in a cage.

And then you criticize me for not showing a working example of a successful anarchist society when it is violently and directly stopped by the government from reaching any large or successful scale.

It's like holding a bird down with your foot and saying "See! birds can't fly" Maybe take your god damn foot off and then we shall see.

Also, the definition of Anarchism you got wrong, it is rules but no rulers. So if you going to lecture me, I would appreciate you actually knowing what you are talking about.

(July 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm)catfish Wrote: I seriously would like to know where this came from? I was liking your posts until this curveball...

Koolay and I are apparently playing the "I'm going to quote you, but not actually respond to what I quoted" game.

bennyboy: "False syllogism again: Government lies, therefore liars are government. Take away the government, and you'll still have people lying and killing. They just will no longer be able to build roads together, or to maintain large-scale projects like the internet."
Koolay (quoting bennyboy): "So you are saying we need a group of people called the government to initiate force upon people to protect those people from groups that would initiate force on them?"

Read his sentence carefully, and tell me that he's not just using my post as an excuse to rant more, rather than responding to any part of what he's looking at. He's debating my words in the same way that I'm having sex with women in magazines: I'm using the existence of those images as a cue to pleasure myself, without actually interacting with the people behind them.

(July 8, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well, by that definition of what constitutes as 'anarchism' - then eBay is not anarchist, as it is subject to government laws. Everything is subject to government laws though, because if you don't comply then you get forcefully thrown in a cage. Anyone who works outside the law would either be in complete secret to the point where I wouldn't be able to quote them or that their operations are stopped and put in a cage.

And then you criticize me for not showing a working example of a successful anarchist society when it is violently and directly stopped by the government from reaching any large or successful scale.

It's like holding a bird down with your foot and saying "See! birds can't fly" Maybe take your god damn foot off and then we shall see.

Also, the definition of Anarchism you got wrong, it is rules but no rulers. So if you going to lecture me, I would appreciate you actually knowing what you are talking about.

But don't you see, that is why anarchism simply cannot succeed at a large scale. It will always be at the mercy of the first person with a gun who decides to take charge.

As for everything being under government law, please learn how to google. There are many anarchist societies, past and present, out there.

(July 8, 2013 at 10:11 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 9:20 pm)Koolay Wrote: Well, by that definition of what constitutes as 'anarchism' - then eBay is not anarchist, as it is subject to government laws. Everything is subject to government laws though, because if you don't comply then you get forcefully thrown in a cage. Anyone who works outside the law would either be in complete secret to the point where I wouldn't be able to quote them or that their operations are stopped and put in a cage.

And then you criticize me for not showing a working example of a successful anarchist society when it is violently and directly stopped by the government from reaching any large or successful scale.

It's like holding a bird down with your foot and saying "See! birds can't fly" Maybe take your god damn foot off and then we shall see.

Also, the definition of Anarchism you got wrong, it is rules but no rulers. So if you going to lecture me, I would appreciate you actually knowing what you are talking about.

But don't you see, that is why anarchism simply cannot succeed at a large scale. It will always be at the mercy of the first person with a gun who decides to take charge.

So you are saying we need a government to initiate violence upon people to protect those people from potential initiators of violence?

(July 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm)Koolay Wrote: So you are saying we need a government to initiate violence upon people to protect those people from potential initiators of violence?

No, I'm saying that we need a government to retaliate violence upon the actual initiators of violence.

(July 8, 2013 at 10:22 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm)Koolay Wrote: So you are saying we need a government to initiate violence upon people to protect those people from potential initiators of violence?

No, I'm saying that we need a government to retaliate violence upon the actual initiators of violence.

Okay, we are going in circles so I will end this conversation.

(July 8, 2013 at 10:32 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 10:22 pm)genkaus Wrote: No, I'm saying that we need a government to retaliate violence upon the actual initiators of violence.

Okay, we are going in circles so I will end this conversation.

Oh, I see now that we are going in circles.

You keep asking "Are you saying we need government to initiate violence upon others?"

And I reply "No, we need it to retaliate violence".

And then you ask the same thing again.

I guess we will keep going in circles if you keep ignoring my replies.

(July 8, 2013 at 10:01 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm)catfish Wrote: I seriously would like to know where this came from? I was liking your posts until this curveball...

Koolay and I are apparently playing the "I'm going to quote you, but not actually respond to what I quoted" game.

bennyboy: "False syllogism again: Government lies, therefore liars are government. Take away the government, and you'll still have people lying and killing. They just will no longer be able to build roads together, or to maintain large-scale projects like the internet."
Koolay (quoting bennyboy): "So you are saying we need a group of people called the government to initiate force upon people to protect those people from groups that would initiate force on them?"

Read his sentence carefully, and tell me that he's not just using my post as an excuse to rant more, rather than responding to any part of what he's looking at. He's debating my words in the same way that I'm having sex with women in magazines: I'm using the existence of those images as a cue to pleasure myself, without actually interacting with the people behind them.

Yeah, I know exactly which game he's playing... but I saw it as a game from the get-go, so there.

(July 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(July 8, 2013 at 10:11 pm)genkaus Wrote: But don't you see, that is why anarchism simply cannot succeed at a large scale. It will always be at the mercy of the first person with a gun who decides to take charge.

So you are saying we need a government to initiate violence upon people to protect those people from potential initiators of violence?

No, he's saying that government is an unavoidable feature of society.

A large premise in the reason people have governments in the first place is that they believe (for the most part, rightly) that the system will safeguard the freedoms they (we) deem most important by restricting those we do not.

If you don't think that is the case, you would seem to be endorsing something along the lines of Rousseau's "noble savage", which I find utterly unconvincing.