Anarchism

[Whateverist]

Also, I was recently told by an Ohioan for Obama: "Your parents took care of you when you were a helpless child." What the fuck?! So, because my parents made a decision, took responsibility for heir actions & expected no one else to do it for them, that somehow negates my point that people should depend only on themselves & those willing to help them in a time of need? This person is clearly a fucking moron, too & again, sadly, this is a common situation that's brought up, time & time again. I really don't think these idiots think about what it is they're actually spewing forth.

Someone isn't thinking through the crap they are spewing forth alright. What you fail to acknowledge is that your parents were no more islands than you are. They made use of the same common infrastructure that you do and, like you, were born within the sovereign borders of a state with established laws that have evolved over the years to reflect the ongoing will of its citizens. If you want to secede you will either have to do it elsewhere or band together with enough like minded morons to successfully carve off some territory of your own. Good luck.

[JefferyHale]

---

Therefore, as Nietzsche said: "There are no facts, only interpretations."

"No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -Mark Twain (1866 )

"Go ahead and missuse my quotes to dishonestly underline your political views!"

Hubugugugu Bombubububu Bababababubububu; King of Mars (2445)

A lot of you are extrapolating on a pragmatic stance, where as I am coming from a philosophical point of view. The very definition of theft is to take from someone without their consent & to do with that in which has been stolen as the thief (in this case government) sees fit. As the first video stated, I never signed this social contract allowing the fruits of my labors to be sold against my will. That in which I make is my property & those that take my property without my consent are committing theft. Now, we, as a society like to dress it up & make it something different when it's the government/state, but that does not lend any credence to the argument that I somehow reap benefits from the money that's stolen from me. It doesn't hold water & can easily be negated by a plethora of scenarios, which I will elaborate on more at a later time.

The goverment steals from me? The taxes I pay guarantee me a social security siystem wich is designed as a net, in case i drop out of work, it will catch me up and help me make a new start.
It also (in my case) provides health insurance.
It provides an executive to inforce the laws of the nation and to protect me
It provides a pention for people who`s private pention funds might have gone lost due to crime or financial speculation.
It provides a army to protect my borders.

What do your policies provide? Nothing exept for the recent financial crisis and the current economic meltdown.

Integrity & sincerity are ancient tomes in the dust bins of history. The oppressive nature that is this country sickens me. Everyone is fighting for some common good, yet the common good is only for those whom are weak, incompetent & lazy.

weak, incompetent and lazy?

And I guess your the kind of person who screams "NAZI!" when someone would call all anarchists and\or liberterians selfish, cold, opportunist and irresponsible.

The down-trodden have been enthroned & the virtuous dethroned.

Back that up with facts!

We reward failure & chastise those who do well.

Back that up with facts! .......and who is "we"?

We have made it a character flaw to be wealthy & to be successful.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

We have substituted lending a hand to duty.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

Somewhere along the way, we became weak.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

We became a nation riddled with helpless leaches & psychic vampires.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

We are no longer a nation of strong, hard working, individuals.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

We are now a nation of selflessness, handouts & the collective.

Back that up with facts! .....and who is "we"?

I will make it my goal to one day be "off the grid" & away from your repressive state-of-mind(s).

My repressive state of mind?! Who the fuck do you think you are to make such kind of a judgement about me!
I am almoust certain that the same statement is repeated by religious celots all over this planet.
I choose to support and invest into my goverment and the services it provides not because I dont work, are lazy or dont want to be what ever the fuck you think "free" is. But because it is a institution wich has proven in the past to be efficent in the handling of crisises and in the support of those in need.
Would I intrust someone like you or your commrades with such tasks? What guarantees do I have that you or your commrades wont simply let me die when I need cancer operation and cant affoard that?

You're building a hell, where the slaves are kings & the individuals are slaves. You've turned criminals into victims & victims into criminals. This is the world you have wanted for a long time. I no longer seek to be a part of it. Much like my brother (dearest friend & fellow anarchist), Brett, I look forward to the days where I pursue only my happiness & help only those I wish to help. While you & the slaves take from everyone, give nothing in return & then wonder why everything is collapsing around you, I will be enjoying that in which I have produced, that in which I have labored for & dare anyone to try & take what is rightfully mine.

Enought! I`m not going to get into this further.
Are you realy here to debate!
Do you know what debating means!!!!!
You are just posting something, which is like a campain speech - only without any, not eaven a single fact to back any of your pathetic rants up!
I have already met enought conspiracy freaks and other who called it "debating" when they repeatedly muttered delusional phrases like:
"Your living in a dream world and must wake up."
"You are being lied to all the time by everyone."
"Once you acknowlege the truth you will agree."

Political debate, means presenting FACTS, these are then evaluated, the problems are analysed and through rational process the blueprints for solutions are created and proposed, then through a democratic process chosen for execution.

This all may sound heated, but rest assured, the majority of it is being written with a smirk. And, when I say (you), this is a general statement (as I'm sure most of you picked up on).

You should have writen this at the beginning of your brainfart.
Then people can avoid this factless
"I KNOW HOW THE WORLD WORKS! YOU ARE WRONG! AND I CAN LEAD THE WORLD!"
rant.

The questions I pose to anyone saying the voters of this nation do not wish to control others are: Why are you voting? What do you hope to gain from voting? Both questions will quickly explain one's intention(s). In knowing what I'm trying to achieve from asking said question, they may try & twist it around & make it a convoluted mess, but there's no escaping the real reasons why one follows the democratic process.

I vote because change of leadership is the only legitemate way of assuring "progress" within a sociaty.
Ideologies which proclaim to bring "progress" will mostly be historcist, meaning; seeing sociaty as a path with a beginning and a desteny as a perfect status.
I reject the idea of a sociaty with "perfect" status, since it is totalitarian, and rather vote for changeing or not changing the way current problems are solved. Ideologies my fight "civil war" during election and propose their programmes on how to solve current problems, but they should not stand above the guaranteed "change of leadership" wich provides the tools nececrey to end a ideologies grip to constant power.
Your antidemocracy, historicist views belong into the same trashbin together with marxism, fashism, theocratic theories on rule, Plato and Robes Pieres "inforcement into freedom".

They're fine with imposing their moral codes on the populous.

We, They. These words?!
We as if sociaty was one monolythic block missing any kind of individual.

They! I can only say that I cant stand people who use this term without being specific on whom they mean!
with this use of rethoric you crash your ideological train into the trashbin of conspiracy theories yourself!

This, to me, is no different than the petty thief who takes from me. I was recently given the typical response of "I disagree with the quote because it's not stealing since everyone still benefits in at least some ways from the government." This has to be one of the stupidest answers I've been given & usually, it's quite typical out of a statist. My response: What you're saying is, that if a thief steals from me, uses the money towards something I may in the future use it's not considered theft?

Also, I was recently told by an Ohioan for Obama: "Your parents took care of you when you were a helpless child." What the fuck?! So, because my parents made a decision, took responsibility for their actions & expected no one else to do it for them, that somehow negates my point that people should depend only on themselves & those willing to help them in a time of need? This person is clearly a fucking moron, too & again, sadly, this is a common situation that's brought up, time & time again. I really don't think these idiots think about what it is they're actually spewing forth. They can never answer my questions as to why volunteerism is bad & why the collective good & stealing from their neighbor isn't.

These fucksticks are tools, used by the government, spewing forth their rhetoric & idly sitting by thinking they're patriots & heroes. Where I come from heroes don't ask others to steal for them. At least the common thief does his crime himself. At least the hooker on the corner is bartering with that in which is rightfully hers. I doubt we'll ever get through to the collective, because they view individualism as some sort of disease.

I am looking forward to sitting on my slice of earth & indulging in the fruits of my labor. I enjoy knowing that those close to me don't expect anything from me & vice versa. As I mentioned the other night over dinner with a dear friend of mine, this is why friendships & relationships fail miserably. People are under the impression they're always owed something. Where as he & I are friends & spend quality time with one another because we want to, we expect nothing in return & it's completely due to our morals & convictions that we're friends. The sheep will always follow, that's how it's always been & how it will always be. Luckily we've managed to scrape the psyche clean, not fall victim to the lies that have been indoctrinated in us & realize that no one owns us & that the chains that bind most men should be eradicated. But, much like Brett, I am not concerned with breaking the chains for my fellow man. He has the same opportunities as I do to see what a crock of shit this whole system is & if he decides to follow along, then he too is my mortal enemy.

I have ended ripping this appart one by one!
You dont present one single fact on how to solve current issues!
What you write can be summerised as a desperate attempt to gain peoples support through convincing them to repeat talking points wich cant be backed up by facts.

If you cant present facts, what is the point of debating your "theories on sociaty".
One may enter a parlament with such talking points as a member of a political party - but you reject democracy. Therefor I will in futur simply give you the same treatment which I would give to marxists, theocrats and fashists.

---

Ripping it apart? Hardly. Grammatically speaking, that was a hard read. I presented one basic resolution & that is the abolition of the state/government. Gain people's support? You obviously didn't read my words closely enough. As far as facts are concerned, I can & will provide them at a later time, when I have more time.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've been there before Mr. Hale (lacking states or government), things don't appear to have been any better then. In fact, they appear to have been much, much worse. Note, mind you, that I'm not a huge fan of our current government (not just it's roster). Not that anarchy wouldn't provide me with opportunity either, I'm a farmer with military experience (and lots of seeds and ammo laying around)...lol. It seems to be a case ( to me) that government is an improvement over anarchy and that even from the standpoint of personal freedom or liberty or opportunity I have better options(note the above....I have options either way) available from within the framework of a governed society than I would outside of that framework.

[Faith No More]

I find it disturbingly ironic that many of those that rail against the oppressive power of the government see fit to set up a system that simply hand the reins of oppression over to private corporations.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You guys have to realize with anarcho-capitalists, they don't really care about whether their system leads to better prosperity, they only care about rigidly preserving two individual rights that we supposedly have: right to self, and right to property. In their minds, they think it will lead to greater prosperity and happiness but even if you convinced them it would lead to hell on earth, they'd still be behind it because at least it would be a "free" hell.

[Something completely different]

Really? I think that what deregulation there was, was a sham. There are regulations that restrict what business/industry X can do, there are regulations that give business/industry X benefits, and there are regulations that restrict what business/industry Y can do, which has benefits for business/industry X.

There were no regulations what soever on what transactions with capital should be legal and wich should not. Mainly as a result of the neoliberalist movements (which you would call liberterian) which gained momentum in western europe in the 90s and had been exported to here from the Fatcher (UK), Reagan (USA) administrations, and were taken over by Kohl (D) and Chirak (F).
We have a term in German economics which is called "Realwirtschaft" meaning in translation "real economy" - of which I dont know if it exists in the US political vocabulary. This term is used to describe industries and buisnesses which produce "actual" products or "real existing products". A car company, software devolpment firm, chemical industry for example would be called "real economy".
But if for example a financial firm would buy up a company - load it with dept - cash in bonuses - and then bankrupt and sell of that company.
Does this actual produce a real existing product?!
The deregulations of the 90s in Europe made it easier for companies which didn`t deal with "real" products to do buisness. Before - and after 2008 today - it was always seen as essential that the "real" economy had to be bigger and make more profit than the part of the economy which actualy didn`t produce products - and that this "non-real" part of the economy shouldn`t harm the "real" part.
If you take a look at the current crisis in Spain, during the 90s regulations on building and control of consumer-producer exchange was cut.
As a result estates were built all arround Spain, more than actualy could ever be sold - and therefor were worthless. This bubble of usless, worthless capital in Spain and Portugal in the 90s, is one of the prime examples of how a deregulated market can have catastrophic consequences.
I will not deny that there are catastrophic counterexamples, like greece.
But to simply say that the deregulations didn`t play a role in the recent financial crisis because those deregulations were a "sham" - is simply like the ignorant communist who keeps saying that the Udssr is not a example of failed communism because "real communism" was never achieved.

And I think the point of his rant is not that 'he could rule the world', rather, it is that no-one should.

was trying to make a german joke, not knowing that most probably wont understand it.
A person who holds a speech in wich he setts himself above democratic principles, disregards opposition, brings forward no facts and simply tries to theatricaly stage himself and\or his views, is called by some of my friends and me a: führer\bunker - speech.

Ripping it apart? Hardly. Grammatically speaking, that was a hard read.

Well at least I had the interest and will to learn a language which isn`t my mothertounge, if you want to debate in german your welcome.
If not I see this statement as a pittyfull excuse for not having an actual argument.

I presented one basic resolution & that is the abolition of the state/government.

You presented no resolution and not a single factual statement which could back up why such a thing be good.
In short, you simply repeated on and on, how great your views were without proving how great they actauly are.
And worst of all - you reject democracy.

From the first phrases in Karl Poppers book; The Open Sociaty and it`s enemies:

It is widely believed that a truly scientific or philosophical attitude towards politics, and a deeper understanding of social life in general, must be based upon a contemplation and interpretation of human history. .......

......He (social scientist or philosopher) sees the individual as a pawn, a somewhat insignificant instrument in the general development of mankind. And he finds that the realy importent actors on the stage of History are eighter the great Nations and their Great Leaders, or perhaps the great classes, or the Great Ideas......

....,he (social scientist or philosopher) will try to understand the development of historical development. If he succeeds in this, he will of course, be able to predict future developments. He might then put politics upon a solid basis, and give us practical advice by telling us which political actions are likely to succeed or fail. this is a brief description of an attitude which I call historicism

Karl Popper, The Open Sociaty and it`s Enemies; first published 1945, reprinted second edition (2007) published by Routleg Classic; page 3-4.

Your views are historicist, you reject the proposition of constantly possible political change being the fundermental tool for progress within a sociaty, and claim a totalitarian standard to be the solution of sociaties problems, as they will lead it to a "perfect" desteny.

Gain people's support? You obviously didn't read my words closely enough.

I indeed stopped at a certain part, if I want to whatch bad adds I turn on midday TV. What else as a theatrical attempt to stage yourself and your views can this here be called:

Integrity & sincerity are ancient tomes in the dust bins of history. The oppressive nature that is this country sickens me. Everyone is fighting for some common good, yet the common good is only for those whom are weak, incompetent & lazy. The down-trodden have been enthroned & the virtuous dethroned. We reward failure & chastise those who do well. We have made it a character flaw to be wealthy & to be successful. We have substituted lending a hand to duty. Somewhere along the way, we became weak. We became a nation riddled with helpless leaches & psychic vampires. We are no longer a nation of strong, hard working, individuals. We are now a nation of selflessness, handouts & the collective.

pathetic that someone would actualy call something like that an "argument".

As far as facts are concerned, I can & will provide them at a later time, when I have more time.

when is later? When you will stop posting your views because you acknowlege that they are totalitarian and dont stand the test of democracy.

If you bring factual arguments wich also ensure a logisticaly and logical solution to current political problems, which can be used within the constraints of a democracy, from a liberterian party view, I am willing to read and think through those and if convinced eaven accept those as a pragmatic individual and citizen of a republic.

But if you continue to bring forward totalitarian nonsence, and believe it to be an "argument", you will in essence prove nothing but your ignorance.

[JefferyHale]

You guys have to realize with anarcho-capitalists, they don't really care about whether their system leads to better prosperity, they only care about rigidly preserving two individual rights that we supposedly have: right to self, and right to property. In their minds, they think it will lead to greater prosperity and happiness but even if you convinced them it would lead to hell on earth, they'd still be behind it because at least it would be a "free" hell.

Exactly! The "collective good" is of no interest to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither is your own, apparently.

[JefferyHale]

The_Germans_are_coming: Later is when I have the time! It's not dictated by you. I am not trying to gain your support or even make you understand every little detail behind my stance on this matter. I will, on my time, explain the facts & only when I see fit. I seek no approval from you, nor the collective.

You equate total freedom to "totalitarian", yet the current way the state/government functions is not? Seems about right when speaking with/to a statist.

---

Neither is your own, apparently.

Incorrect. Only mine & those I care about. You probably think Anarchism means chaos, right? That, without government, everything would fall apart & there would be no roads. Later, post-dinner, I will outline as to why this is a fallacy.

[Darkstar]

Exactly! The "collective good" is of no interest to me.

So...you want no government because you are selfish and want to do whatever, or is there somehow another meaning to not caring about the overall good of humanity at all?