Anarchists Versus Tea Baggers by Riverlove

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, what I meant there is not the computer as an extension of "caring" about people, but an organizational tool to allow for projects among larger populations than individual community dynamics would allow.

Who maintains the internet? It seems in that example the internet would be functioning merely as a communication route for government.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:47 AM

Quote:
It's a problem because it breaks the sense of community. That's why the Hitterites break the community up before it happens.

Exactly. I'm not seeing what we're arguing about anymore. New communities form at the breakup of a previous community, people develop new attachments. The old community breaks. The sense of community CHANGES to different relationships for the individuals, but it's not like the individuals involved lose their capacity to have a sense of community.

The solution the Amish use is precisely the one I'm proposing, and it apparently works.

Quote:
The other issue is that it makes your communities inherently unstable, they're less communities and more the current group that's formed in lulls between explosions. Not very conducive to a sense of community at all I think.

It does at that. But that doesn't mean, again, that with a break up of communities that individuals can no longer feel a sense of community. Nor does it mean that just because a community can break up (and probably eventually will) that there is no point to having a community, or having a feeling of connection to people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The solution the Amish use is precisely the one I'm proposing, and it apparently works.

The Amish system seems to work for them, but it's really nothing like what you are proposing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It does at that. But that doesn't mean, again, that with a break up of communities that individuals can no longer feel a sense of community. Nor does it mean that just because a community can break up (and probably eventually will) that there is no point to having a community, or having a feeling of connection to people.

No, it means that the communities that form are inherently less valuable, and their ties less strong, not more so. A system that functions by allowing communities to routinely collapse is inherently undermining them.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:16 AM

I suppose the question is how quickly the communities reach their maximum capacity, time could be a factor in the continuing relevance of the communities.

Still, I don't think it can be argued that it isn't important to have communities and have people connecting to each other. The value of having a community and the effort it takes to promote a community is worth it despite the tendency for a community to eventually fail, which all communities must do. I'm merely admitting that it's inevitable. I don't see that inevitability necessarily diminishes the value of community.

Quote:
The Amish system seems to work for them, but it's really nothing like what you are proposing.

I don't understand what you mean. You said that the Amish split up their communities before arguments and disputes become serious, that's what I'm suggesting all communities try to do. Amish communities have a local person to person organization that is very valuable, supportive, nurturing, and helpful to people in the community, this is also what I'm suggesting. The only difference that I can see is that I'd like to propose trying to emulate such a community without the church and related shunning/excommunication aspects, see if such a community can be created to be secular.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:19 AM

Quote:
Who maintains the internet? It seems in that example the internet would be functioning merely as a communication route for government.

This is a good point. Who maintains the internet? I suppose corporations do, which are a form of government (that I don't like).

Does it has to be maintained and regulated?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't understand what you mean. You said that the Amish split up their communities before arguments and disputes become serious, that's what I'm suggesting all communities try to do. Amish communities have a local person to person organization that are is very valuable, supportive, nurturing, and helpful to people in the community, this is also what I'm suggesting. The only difference that I can see is that I'd like to propose trying to emulate such a community without the church and related shunning/excommunication aspects, see if such a community can be created to be secular.

Hitterites were who I referenced, and their system is not the laissez faire you're talking about. They don't destroy the community, they create sister colonies and split the group between the two. This is also a very structured change over, run by leaders (essentially government) who ultimately decide when where and who.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:24 AM

What do you mean, destroy the community? Fractioning results in two (or more) communities, but "mass" in a sense is conserved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This is a good point. Who maintains the internet? I suppose corporations do, which are a form of government (that I don't like).

Does it has to be maintained and regulated?

Servers don't provide themselves with power... Communications infrastructure has to be maintained...

And you better believe it needs to be regulated. Just the idea of DNSs in themselves require that, apportioning the finite IP addresses, etc etc. The internet requires a huge amount of maintenance and regulation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What do you mean, destroy the community? Fractioning results in two (or more) communities, but "mass" in a sense is conserved.

There's a big difference between factioning, and splitting the community. It's like the difference between a bacteria splitting into two, and killing the bacteria and using it's components to create more. Not quite an elucidate example, but hopefully you get the point. Point is that in the first case something is being destroyed, and the survivors (if you like) are creating something new, in the second you've just got a branching out.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:44 AM

Citizen, lies of omission are still lies, ole chap.

Not only are you completely discounting the open source community on the net, which might I add is consistently opposed and afflicted by government and it's hangers-on...

And discounting just how many of those listed communities consistently cleared Dunbars number...

But you are also discounting the extremely important aspect that you are STILL using a corrupted sample for your examples.

You don't take a modern american, raised on cradle-to-grave government nitpicking and interference, who sees this *AS THE NORM* or even as something "good" (and you yourself have this affliction to some degree, as seen from an external viewpoint) and then expect them to function effectively any more than you can cut off a junkie cold turkey and expect them to immediately cope.

And not just government, but I have pointed out the "society" devolved from it values, treasures, and rewards the most exploitive and anticooperative behavior while outright punishing anything else, because of both the need to dance around seemingly arbitrary laws, or laws that benefit the few at the expense of the many, and the possibility, almost inevitability, of using those laws as a bludgeon against each other.

You keep pulling things out of context and dropping them wholesale in a fashion that does not work, can not work - any more than pulling a couple slave traders out of the 17th century and dumping them into modern detroit would.

And I keep trying to explain that to you - either you're not getting it, or deliberately ignoring me, or, and this is what I suspect is the case, the whole concept is completely beyond your reckoning because you simply CANNOT CONCEIVE of how it would work without discarding much of your core beliefs - and that, exactly that, is what I am saying the "not ready to go there" problem *IS*.

This, of course, puzzles me - can you truly, honestly, believe, that humans are by nature so fucking insane that they are *incapable* of getting along on a larger scale without a gun stuffed down their throat to make them ?

I reject that, categorically, AND, furthermore, state that that EXACT BELIEF is really the only thing that prevents it, the same self-fulfilling prophecy about how horrible a place the world is we inflict upon our kids.

But then, I suspect there's a level of deliberate facetiousness there too, since every time you get told Anarchy means "no leaders" instead of "no rules" you proceed to completely ignore that, and then go on to state that it means no rules at all, ever, and proceed from that deliberately and intentionally false assumption to attack the very idea.

And all because it impinges on your precious core beliefs, which if any of what the Anarchists say are true, means you have been living a lie, and you just cannot face that, it makes you offended, afraid, and thus your need to attack.

And therein lies problem two - the fact that any functional community of Anarchists *will* be attacked by people like you, by the governments you support, and then what, bloodshed and slaughter ?

Which... brings us to why I choose instead of knocking heads with folk like you in anything other than theory and discussion, to actively work to prevent that kind of insanity from being inflicted on future generations, laying the groundwork for people who COULD live in a society like that without the *need* to be told what to do, who don't automatically believe that human nature is evil and you must regard your fellowman with suspicion and distrust, and do unto him before he does unto you.

But that ain't primarily the reason I generally don't bother discussin it, so much as it's trying to explain color to a blind person - not really a productive use of the time of either.

But just in case... lemme add it up in simple form for you.

ONE: It's already here.
Anarchy: You’re Soaking In It
http://www.fr33agents.com/1036/anarchy-youre-soaking-in-it/

TWO: Who runs the "Governments" ?
Why Does the World Feel Wrong?
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html

THREE: What happens if we ignore them ?
Would You Hurt Me If I Said No to Your Politics?
http://www.strike-the-root.com/would-you-hurt-me-if-i-said-no-to-your-
politics

And there's your answer - it ain't any of the reasons you stated, so much that unless you had a goddamn death star to defend yourself with, there's still too many morons who listen to, damn near worship, and certainly will take orders from, a bunch of sociopathic monsters who've set up what amounts to the perfect scam, in every logical way indistinguishable from a mafia racket, save for the perception of legitimacy.

And so, cut their supply lines at the source, co-opt their forces, and then proceed to ignore them to death.

All the rest of this mess aside, there it is, and as inevitable as sunrise.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 12:04 PM

Sorry if this is a might combative, but when someone spends a whole post putting words in my mouth and calling me a violent and stupid fascist because I don't agree with them, while lending nothing worthwhile to the thread whatsoever, I tend to get a bit testy:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Citizen, lies of omission are still lies, ole chap.

Wow, prefacing your post with an unsolicited personal attack. Usually means a person's argument is falling apart. Just saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Not only are you completely discounting the open source community on the net, which might I add is consistently opposed and afflicted by government and it's hangers-on...

Nope, but that example works just great for me. The Open Source Community has it's own government, exemplified through various structured organisations. Since I'm an open source developer and use only open source software, I'd say in all likelihood I know more about the community than you do too. Feel free to ignore that if it interferes with your view of my as the jack booted government fascist.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And discounting just how many of those listed communities consistently cleared Dunbars number...

Maybe you could quote me where I said that? I take a dim view of someone accusing me of lying, and substantiating that by putting words in my mouth. What I pointed out was those groups had their OWN governmental system, which is what lets them grow to that size. QED.

What was that about omission?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

But you are also discounting the extremely important aspect that you are STILL using a corrupted sample for your examples.

Not really, I'm just discounting your highly dubious claims that I'm doing that, based on your complete inability to back them up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You don't take a modern american, raised on cradle-to-grave government nitpicking and interference, who sees this *AS THE NORM* or even as something "good" (and you yourself have this affliction to some degree, as seen from an external viewpoint) and then expect them to function effectively any more than you can cut off a junkie cold turkey and expect them to immediately cope.

That's right, I'm not. I'm taking examples across the entire vista of human experience, and all the strawmanning in the world isn't going to change that. What you can't do is decide these groups that DO have a formal governmental structure don't, simply because you've decided the only thing that can be called government is the US Federal Government. That's your blind sightedness, NOT mine. Government is merely a structure of rules and formal leadership, show me one group that doesn't have that that has grown to a large size. Every example you've come up with so far does have a formal leadership system with defined structures and procedures.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You keep pulling things out of context and dropping them wholesale in a fashion that does not work, can not work - any more than pulling a couple slave traders out of the 17th century and dumping them into modern detroit would.

And all the strawmanning of my statements in the world doesn't change the fact that you have wholesale failed to produce a convincing argument, or one at all for that matter.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And I keep trying to explain that to you - either you're not getting it, or deliberately ignoring me, or, and this is what I suspect is the case, the whole concept is completely beyond your reckoning because you simply CANNOT CONCEIVE of how it would work without discarding much of your core beliefs - and that, exactly that, is what I am saying the "not ready to go there" problem *IS*.

I'm awful indebted for you trying to point out I'm just a simpleton who can't grasp your evident wisdom, but this just happens to work both ways.

The fact is when someone says government to you, you hear Hitler. You just can't conceive that all your arguments and examples so far actually support my case, because you'd have to abandon your core beliefs to do so. I've set out my statements, I've provided a fair argument for how our maximal groups sizes have to be expanded by artificial organisation, I've pointed out how your examples support my case your rebuttal is to ignore all that, repeat yourself and call me a moronic liar. Not a particularly persuasive argument.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This, of course, puzzles me - can you truly, honestly, believe, that humans are by nature so fucking insane that they are *incapable* of getting along on a larger scale without a gun stuffed down their throat to make them ?

Do you want some alone time with the person in your head that you're actually having this conversation with? Because you're sure as hell not talking to or about me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But then, I suspect there's a level of deliberate facetiousness there too, since every time you get told Anarchy means "no leaders" instead of "no rules" you proceed to completely ignore that, and then go on to state that it means no rules at all, ever, and proceed from that deliberately and intentionally false assumption to attack the very idea.

Right, well I'm fast becoming bored of this. I'd ask you to quote me, but I suspect it'll be a pointless exercise won't it?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And all because it impinges on your precious core beliefs, which if any of what the Anarchists say are true, means you have been living a lie, and you just cannot face that, it makes you offended, afraid, and thus your need to attack.

How's screaming at the mirror going for you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And therein lies problem two - the fact that any functional community of Anarchists *will* be attacked by people like you, by the governments you support, and then what, bloodshed and slaughter ?

Ah, I'm going off to violently attack anarchists now am I. And all while sitting at a computer at home getting brow beaten by a self proclaimed one. What a talented chap I am.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Which... brings us to why I choose instead of knocking heads with folk like you in anything other than theory and discussion, to actively work to prevent that kind of insanity from being inflicted on future generations, laying the groundwork for people who COULD live in a society like that without the *need* to be told what to do, who don't automatically believe that human nature is evil and you must regard your fellowman with suspicion and distrust, and do unto him before he does unto you.

I believe nothing of the sort. Though quite clearly you believe everyone either agrees with you 100%, or they're bad, evil and stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But that ain't primarily the reason I generally don't bother discussin it

Yes, I have noticed.

Please continue to accuse me of things I haven't done, put words in my mouth and accuse me of being a violent nazi because I've dared to disagree with you won't you

If you actually feel like having the courage to evaluate your own core beliefs rather than trying to silence dissent, I'll be around

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 12:35 PM

Quote:
Servers don't provide themselves with power... Communications infrastructure has to be maintained...

Part of the idea of a self-sufficient sustainable community is their ability to supply their own power. Preferably with solar power, but I'm biased for solar power.

Communications infrastracture... I have to admit, despite using the internet, I don't know what that means.

Quote:
And you better believe it needs to be regulated. Just the idea of DNSs in themselves require that, apportioning the finite IP addresses, etc etc. The internet requires a huge amount of maintenance and regulation.

The only DNS I'm familiar with is Denial of Service. I'm assuming this is a different acronym. If not... Well, Denial of Service is inconvenient, but it's also in a way a KIND of free speech, just as putting the site out there is a KIND of free speech.

What's this about limited IP addresses?

Is what Frem was saying about the open source community, does that mean they're managing their own networks? Or is that something unrelated to this? I was only aware of their coding and production system.

As for your bacteria/community analogy, of course the second option where the bacteria merely splits in two (mitosis) is the best option, as opposed to the original community being destroyed, but I still don't get why it matters. Communities will fail, evolve, change, flow, sometimes even die out. Why put a fossil on a respirator if it ain't breathin'? You just let the old hatreds and prejudices stew if you make a decaying community stay together.

You would hope to prevent the split from happening by bloodshed, which was my point about people choosing to leave instead. Any community or civilization that dies, you still see the descendents and genetic inheritance from it. Destroy seems like the wrong word, seems more negative than the natural process I envision is. And if people know how to cope with those changes, doesn't have to have any lasting damage or be damaging at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Communications infrastracture... I have to admit, despite using the internet, I don't know what that means.

The internet is a connected network of communicating computers. For computers to communicate there has to be a communications network. The packet switching network utilised by the internet is very highly connected and requires a lot of cabling. Currently that's supported by individual companies, ISPs, Governments and communications corporations.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only DNS I'm familiar with is Denial of Service.

Domain Name Server/System. When you surf to a website (i.e. www.fireflyfans.net) your browser first queries the local DNS for the sites IP address. These are managed by a non-profit organisation, and mirrored locally by your ISP. Obviously these have to be regulated to ensure they're all storing the same data, and that they're storing it in the same format. I.e. : Standardised.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What's this about limited IP addresses?

We've run out of IPv4. More people on the net than there are possible IP addresses, essentially. That's why we're moving away from IPv4 (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) to IPv6. IPv4 has four numbers ranging from 0-255, with 255 being reserved. Also given the way IPs are structured (roughly each different level is a subnet, it more complex than that, especially when using subnet masks, but thats not important) there's less IPs than the theoretical maximum.

IPv6 means lots more possible combinations, but it too is finite. It's like a phone number, there's only a finite number of them, and about 18(?) years ago over here we sort of run out. The area code for my parents had to be changed from 0737 to 01737 to add more possible numbers.

There's an organisation that defines IP ranges for different purposes (such as 192.168.x.x which is non-routable (means you can use them at home without screwing up other peoples net connection)) and gives out IP ranges to ISPs to give to their customers. Literally without that organisation the net would grind to a halt and we'd forever be getting IP conflicts.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Is what Frem was saying about the open source community, does that mean they're managing their own networks? Or is that something unrelated to this? I was only aware of their coding and production system.

No they don't. In fact much open source work is conducted by corporations such as Novell (who develop OpenSuSE Linux). Any idea that OS is Anarchistic is complete fantasy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Why put a fossil on a respirator if it ain't breathin'? You just let the old hatreds and prejudices stew if you make a decaying community stay together.

That's why you don't want to get it to the point of collapse.

Perhaps we're at an impasse, because I can't imagine how you can't see how letting communities collapse like this is just a bad idea. Why let a community degrade to the point of needing a respirator if you can provide cheap and efficient preventative care?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You would hope to prevent the split from happening by bloodshed, which was my point about people choosing to leave instead.

But what if they don't choose to leave?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Any community or civilization that dies, you still see the descendents and genetic inheritance from it.

You may want to tell this to the Easter Islanders.

You see the lucky survivors of the violence and strife that follows societal collapse certainly.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Destroy seems like the wrong word, seems more negative than the natural process I envision is. And if people know how to cope with those changes, doesn't have to have any lasting damage or be damaging at all.

I think destroy is a good word for it. It might be a natural process, but natural doesn't mean good. Dying of cancer is natural. I think communities being expected to be torn apart by internal strife is inherently damaging. If you're joining a community knowing that at some point squabbling with your neighbours is going to cause that community to collapse, don't you think that might undermine the enterprise?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 1:37 PM

Quote:
If you're joining a community knowing that at some point squabbling with your neighbours is going to cause that community to collapse, don't you think that might undermine the enterprise?

No, because people need human contact and support. Society can provide that, and communities are the most local (and in some of my models only) and most immediate kind of society.

The United States is probably inevitably going to collapse, but you don't see me losing my mind and fleeing from my home to go make clothing out of human skin and eat people. Civilization fails, will always fail, I see prolonging failure as prolonging suffering and worsening damage. But that doesn't make it any less worthwhile an endeavor to be a part of the civilization, and yes, you do try to solve problems and resolve disputes up to the point where it becomes impossible and the factions don't listen to each other.

Having a socioeconomic foundation in place that limits the damage of community splits/changes, and stops bloodshed, and suddenly these fluid communities become not such a big deal when they drift apart, and the process may even ultimately possibly helpful for sanity, quality of life, and productivity. Nothing gets done if everyone's at each other's throats. Oh, hmm, what does that remind me of in America? Gosh, it's something recent, I know it, at the tip of my tongue...

As to your question, if there's no consequence to cutting ties from a community (having to give up land or possessions) than what's to STOP people from leaving? Heck, I think it's a good thing, provided that's their choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No, because people need human contact and support. Society can provide that, and communities are the most local (and in some of my models only) and most immediate kind of society.

Doesn't address the question. Just because people need that, doesn't mean your system will facilitate it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The United States is probably inevitably going to collapse, but you don't see me losing my mind and fleeing from my home to go make clothing out of human skin and eat people.

Completely different situation. For a start you're saying it will probably fail, where as your system has it definitely failing and promotes that failure. A system that requires itself to fail is self defeating by definition.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Civilization fails, will always fail, I see prolonging failure as prolonging suffering and worsening damage. But that doesn't make it any less worthwhile an endeavor to be a part of the civilization, and yes, you do try to solve problems and resolve disputes up to the point where it becomes impossible and the factions don't listen to each other.

Yes, but we're not talking about it being a less worthy endeavour. If you know for a fact your community will collapse, I can pretty much guarantee people aren't going to work for it. People don't create or work at something thinking about how it might some day crumble into dust. You say you know the US will probably collapse, but that's a big difference to knowing it WILL collapse and it'll happen because you and your fellows just couldn't make it work. Half of civilisation is staving off collapse, you've just pulled the rug out. They're completely different situations. It takes a lot of work to keep a society going, and part of the reason people do that is the hope that it won't collapse, make it inevitable that it will and I'll be willing to bet you're going to have a lot of depressed people that just can't be arsed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Having a socioeconomic foundation in place that limits the damage of community splits/changes, and stops bloodshed,

And how does it do that?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
and suddenly these fluid communities become not such a big deal when they drift apart, and the process may even ultimately possibly helpful for sanity, quality of life, and productivity.

So you say, but I'm fairly sure the requirement for collapse will be a pretty nasty and massive psychological hit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nothing gets done if everyone's at each other's throats.

You don't succeed if you're setting yourself up to fail.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As to your question, if there's no consequence to cutting ties from a community (having to give up land or possessions) than what's to STOP people from leaving? Heck, I think it's a good thing, provided that's their choice.

If there's no consequences to cutting off ties, obviously the ties were incredibly weak. Which would mean that far from creating stronger communities, you're relying on weaker ones.

I'm also not clear how someone can leave a community, without leaving the community.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 2:19 PM

Quote:
Doesn't address the question. Just because people need that, doesn't mean your system will facilitate it.

It doesn't address the question because from my perspective it doesn't matter. People are going to form communities, whether or not those communities do eventually fail down the line (and they do).

I think I see where we're having confusion though, you seem to think I'm pro-collapse and think communities should go through regular collapses for no apparent reason. I'm not and I don't. I'm just admitting the reality that collapse happens. I'm just trying to figure out a system that limits damage and makes the most of it.

My point about America was this point on a larger scale. I KNOW America is going to collapse. All the signs are there, and every civilization does eventually collapse. This doesn't prevent me from precipitating, despite what I know about inevitability and history, because it's worthwhile to participate.

Quote:
And how does it do that?

Limited government and different economic system means less structure to collapse, which means less damage/losses and safer transition/collapse periods in general. Then add to that the splitting before bloodshed idea.

Quote:
So you say, but I'm fairly sure the requirement for collapse will be a pretty nasty and massive psychological hit.

Or just certain groups being no longer able to talk to each other. It would honestly be better if the two groups just split apart, because compromise seems to be impossible now.

Quote:
You don't succeed if you're setting yourself up to fail.

I dunno, civilization as a whole has been pretty productive despite constant CONSTANT collapse and failure. Some things even persist long after a civilization dies.

Quote:
If there's no consequences to cutting off ties, obviously the ties were incredibly weak. Which would mean that far from creating stronger communities, you're relying on weaker ones.

Also not necessarily. You're looking at this like a bad break-up between a boyfriend and a girlfriend or something, or that these collapses are somehow more common than collapses in real time are. Why would they be? The only stipulation we've put on them is 150 person limit.

Sometimes the grass is just greener, or sometimes you're tired of arguing with a certain somebody, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a strong connection to the community or endeavor to further it while you were with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My point about America was this point on a larger scale. I KNOW America is going to collapse. All the signs are there, and every civilization does eventually collapse. This doesn't prevent me from precipitating, despite what I know about inevitability and history, because it's worthwhile to participate.

All civilisations that have collapsed so far, have collapsed. There's plenty of Civilisations that have endured, many in Europe stem back thousands of years without collapse.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Limited government and different economic system means less structure to collapse, which means less damage/losses and safer transition/collapse periods in general. Then add to that the splitting before bloodshed idea.

But the idea that it'll collapse without bloodshed is based on assuming that'll happen because it should. Doesn't mean it will. Why will this happen?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also not necessarily. You're looking at this like a bad break-up between a boyfriend and a girlfriend or something, or that these collapses are somehow more common than collapses in real time are. Why would they be?

Because that's how it works. In a limited sense I've witnessed the dynamic, that's exactly what happens. There's no reason that it shouldn't, save that if it does your concept doesn't work correctly. Why wouldn't it work that way?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sometimes the grass is just greener, or sometimes you're tired of arguing with a certain somebody, but that doesn't mean you didn't have a strong connection to the community or endeavor to further it while you were with it.

Except the whole point of a strong community is belonging and fighting to keep it together. If people are willing to just shrug their shoulders and let it go down the tubes, then to my mind it wasn't a strong community by definition.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 3:02 PM

Quote:
All civilisations that have collapsed so far, have collapsed. There's plenty of Civilisations that have endured, many in Europe stem back thousands of years without collapse.

Um... What? Are you saying that European Countries have never collapsed, and that they will never collapse in the future?

France collapsed in the 1800s. Germany collapsed in 1909, and again in 1945. Britain's been around a little longer, but they've collapsed three times I can think of in the last thousand years, first with the installation of the Magna Carta, then the very short reign of the Cromwell (his rise, one collapse, then his fall, another collapse). I'm sure looking at other countries in Europe I could find similar histories.

The CULTURE has endured, yes... As it always does. But the civilization has, does, and will collapse, with sometimes violent and sometimes non-violent turnover.

Quote:
Because that's how it works. In a limited sense I've witnessed the dynamic, that's exactly what happens. There's no reason that it shouldn't, save that if it does your concept doesn't work correctly. Why wouldn't it work that way?

I don't understand this.

Quote:
Except the whole point of a strong community is belonging and fighting to keep it together. If people are willing to just shrug their shoulders and let it go down the tubes, then to my mind it wasn't a strong community by definition.

They do try to keep it strong. But they will choose to leave if arguing gets to be too much, or the community becomes corrupt. And I think this should be allowed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 3:18 PM

Also, I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument that a government expands the 150 person limit, or that it slows the decay of communities.

Say we look at a city government in America, and it's effects on a neighborhood. Even if the city government is not corrupt and receiving incentives from developers, the city government zoning commission will open up some land for development in the course of a year. Developers will come in and bid on the land and build a neighborhood. People, jobs, utility works, and schools will grow up in demand for the needs of the new community.

Then a few years later, initial growth into the neighborhood slows. The zoning commission opens up another development. People and homes age, decay happens. Homes decrease in value, the area becomes poorer. Developers are no longer interested in making improvements to the area. Jobs go elsewhere. Crime begins to become a problem. People in the community become distrustful and suspicious of each other.

I wonder what's going on with the 150 rule as this goes on? I think it may still be in effect, even with government influence, and government influence is limited, if it has any effect at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 3:51 PM

So, would you like a Polka, or is this more of a Waltz ?

Ya see, this is a big part of why I see little point in discussin this issue with you, Citizen, as far back as I can recall, your participation in such discussions has been inherently dishonest, in my opinion - and with just a gentle little nudge, your own bias and temper have caused you to overplay your hand and make it obvious.

Firstoff, many, MANY times, has the difference between social, cultural, ethical "rules" and violence-enforced "laws" and how they often have little to do with each other, as well as the concept of the people as a whole making those decisions instead of whatever crackpot excuse (election, heredity, lottery) THIS time around for what is essentially the same old divine-right-of-kings "leadership".

Anarchy isn't just plain raw chaos, but you keep going back to that basic assumption, and since you are not in any way illiterate, what other excuse can you have ?

No, instead you lump ALL rules of ANY kind into "government" and then point and yell "see, rules, look, it's not anarchy!" - that's a bullshit argument, especially since you keep mutating the terms you use to fit the situation, and as I recall you had a screechin fit about someone else doin that to you in a discussion about religion.

So there's no point in even having a discussion if you keep moving the goalposts, speakin of which - I've offered samples, actual sourced articles with further links, and even examples of communities which exceed Dunbars number, and you ain't read em, didn't bother to, apparently, just dismissed out of hand - and yet all you've brought so far is Dunbars number and a whole damned lot of assumptions, and then played dodgeball with the salient facts.

Like how do you explain Catalonia, or Freetown, or Mondragon, in light of your Dunbars number as a hard number argument, or how when you said no examples exist, and pressed, and then I pointed out the Hutterites were very close if not indentical to the concept we were discussing, you go and move the goalposts *again*, kinda like Rappy and his WMD.

You're a fine one to talk about strawmanning an argument and cherry picking around inconvenient little facts, especially seeing as how fast you've gone to the chewbacca defense here.

AND you keep dodging the biggest bullet of all, all of your assumptions stem from that Dunbars number argument, which you take to mean that humans are not naturally capable of that level of cooperation - a theory I do not accept because most of my work involves watching us "educate" children NOT to cooperate, to sabotage the efforts of others, to exploit, to conquer, but not cooperate because it is a weakness...
EVEN WHEN IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO SO.
As pointed out, quite explicitly, in our discussion as to why children do not band together against a school administration gone hostile to them, they are taught NOT to cooperate, from the earliest part of american education.

Therefore you *are* dealing with a flawed sample, because I will put Kropotkins Mutual Aid up against your Dunbars number, as evidence that humans are, in fact, naturally cooperative, and any society, however run, on *mutual consent* instead of force and fear, will work, and what is mutual consent but the will of the people as a whole ?

On top of that, there's been many recent studies that show this, despite previous studies, which as me, Byte and HKCav have pointed out, were based on some seriously flawed premises, artificially loaded to produce a specific result to justify a political agenda, or set up on science as bad as spontaneous mouse generation.

Children naturally inclined to feel empathy
http://www.rxpgnews.com/paediatrics/Children_naturally_inclined_to_fee
l_empathy_103107.shtml

We May Be Born With an Urge to Help
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?pagewanted=all

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html

Plus there was the fact that mutual consent, considered by many a "light" form of Anarchy, was around long before "official" governments were, and existed in much of the colonial americas in places like Rhode Island, and the Watauga Association, Seviers goons in particular - hell, as I pointed out some of my kin *still* reside up in the wild hills, and should you desire to go force someone elses rules on em, better bring enough muscle to do it.

So yes, I consider any selection from a collective of folk actively trained not to cooperate a flawed sample, and it is that very flaw that I believe to be the essential problem - and all too often when trying to even explain this whole issue to folk, I feel like I am trying to explain womens rights or racial equality to a member of the 17th century - they simply cannot wrap their mind around it, because it's so far out of their comfort zone and all they have ever been brought up to believe.

And so, I teach children to *QUESTION* - and for that, I ain't exactly welcome at the dinner parties, and so what of it ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 3:52 PM

As a nod to Frem, I'd also like to say that I don't condone that the Amish are physically strict with their children. This seems to be a problem in all societies, one that needs fixing.

But apparently sociopathy can be staved off by teaching children the value of caring about others in their community, and non-violence as adults towards other adults. If the Amish didn't have such a close hand in their child care and making SURE kids grew up right, though, I imagine the mixed messages would become serious behavioural problems. Like we see in all other American communities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 4:52 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

So, would you like a Polka, or is this more of a Waltz ?

Ya see, this is a big part of why I see little point in discussin this issue with you, Citizen, as far back as I can recall, your participation in such discussions has been inherently dishonest, in my opinion - and with just a gentle little nudge, your own bias and temper have caused you to overplay your hand and make it obvious.

Firstoff, many, MANY times, has the difference between social, cultural, ethical "rules" and violence-enforced "laws" and how they often have little to do with each other, as well as the concept of the people as a whole making those decisions instead of whatever crackpot excuse (election, heredity, lottery) THIS time around for what is essentially the same old divine-right-of-kings "leadership".

Anarchy isn't just plain raw chaos, but you keep going back to that basic assumption, and since you are not in any way illiterate, what other excuse can you have ?

Folks just can't seem to hear anarchist and NOT think either "Somalia" or "childish utopian." They KNOW what anarchism is before we even open our mouths. It's pretty much exactly like the conservative argument from the other thread that all liberals are simply childish and conservatives understand liberalism better than liberals do.

Once you and I grow up, Frem, and start living in "the real world" we'll stop all this foolishness, amiright?

By the bye, these folk sure do seem to share a low opinion of children, wouldn't you say?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 5:11 PM

HKCAVALIER

Just casually, can we get back to the traffic light example? I mean thousands, millions of people follow the conventions of the road and our streets are astonishingly safe in this country. Is that all because folk are afraid of the po-leese? Is that why pretty much everyone, criminals and milquetoasts alike, drives on the right side of the road? Seems like you've got well over 150 people A MINUTE cooperating on the roads 24/7.

Is that even worth discussing?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 1:09 AM

HKCav - part of the problem with even discussin it is always what I call the "Crazy Eddie" problem.

That conventional school of thought that "this is the way things are, have always been, always will be, ad infinitum" - which, again, although *obviously* untrue, since if it were we'd never have built civilization in the first place, is still held by most people as a deepest core belief, and to impinge on it results in a threat-response almost immediately, to even *question* it results in hostility and derision.

Quote:
Presumably, each civilization arises, unlocks the museums, and discovers that unless they can solve a problem that had plagued countless others, they are doomed. Thus, the Moties have become fatalistically resigned to the never-ending Cycles. Only a mythical character called "Crazy Eddie" believes there is a way to change this, and any Motie who comes to believe a solution is possible is labeled as a "Crazy Eddie" and deemed insane.

And that's where the fight always begins, as soon as you say "it does not have to be this way!" - you're Crazy Eddie, and no one wants to listen to you.

But me, I've spent near three decades bettin Crazy Eddie all the way, even when I was told it was impossible, even when the problems I was tryin to address were considered just a myth and conspiracy theories and was blasted as a loon and a nutter for even bringing the subject up...

And yet here we are, with the Hellcamps in ruins, the Pope holed up in the Vatican practically hiding under a rock, and the concept that children might just be human starting to catch on and grow.

Damn right I am bettin on Crazy Eddie!

Besides, it's a variation on Pascal's Wager, really, as I lose nothing by refusing to meekly accept that we're all doomed, destined to eventually blow ourselves and our biosphere to hell and gone, if that's gonna happen, it's gonna happen - but to just roll over and accept it ?

NEVER!
Not till the last breath leaves, the last failing heartbeat, and someone pounding in a stake to make sure.

And perhaps... not even then.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:42 AM

Frem:
And Snaaaap goes the trap!

Quote:

So, would you like a Polka, or is this more of a Waltz ?

Well, I'm partial to a Waltz, but it seems that, despite me gettin' this new pretty dress and my hair done special, my dance partner has had some sort of psychotic episode and is currently pirouetting around screaming at mirrors and muttering, so I guess I'm going to go get some Ice Cream with Renee Zellweger.

While I may be over playing my hand, it's rather irrelevant, given my opponent's hand is filled with jokers and he ain't playing with a full deck anyway

.

It's amazing how it takes no nudging at all to get you to get your AURaptor on. Looks like you let your own mask slip a bit there...

Like I said, if all you can do is attack and lie about me for no reason other than I dared not to agree with you, then I ain't interested. If you ever find yourself willing and able to act like a decent human being, I'll be around.

Though I did enjoy the reference to the Moat in Gods eye.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Folks just can't seem to hear anarchist and NOT think either "Somalia" or "childish utopian." They KNOW what anarchism is before we even open our mouths. It's pretty much exactly like the conservative argument from the other thread that all liberals are simply childish and conservatives understand liberalism better than liberals do.

Once you and I grow up, Frem, and start living in "the real world" we'll stop all this foolishness, amiright?

By the bye, these folk sure do seem to share a low opinion of children, wouldn't you say?

Well thank you, HK, for affirming that anyone can be wrong. See I used to think you were an ok reasonable person, the kind of person who wouldn't read Frem's litany of lies about me, and take them as gospel without reading what I've actually said. Further I had thought that you weren't the kind of person who would jump in to put the boot in as well.

So clearly I was wrong. A valuable lesson, thank you :)

But I must agree with you, it is like the other thread. Either you agree with Frem, or you're a stupid and evil...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Just casually, can we get back to the traffic light example? I mean thousands, millions of people follow the conventions of the road and our streets are astonishingly safe in this country. Is that all because folk are afraid of the po-leese? Is that why pretty much everyone, criminals and milquetoasts alike, drives on the right side of the road? Seems like you've got well over 150 people A MINUTE cooperating on the roads 24/7.

Is that even worth discussing?

Oh, I'm sure if I were to point out that road use is regulated, and that drivers are trained to use the right (or left, as the case maybe) of the road, and only receive a certificate that allows them to operate a vehicle on the road when they've shown competency and a willingness to follow the rules; then that would merely be proof that I'm an evil stupid violent fascist who hates and abuses children, wouldn't you agree, HK?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um... What? Are you saying that European Countries have never collapsed, and that they will never collapse in the future?

I'm saying what I said, that there are civilisations that have collapsed, and some that haven't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
France collapsed in the 1800s.

If you're talking about the French revolution at the end of the 18th century, then in no way did France Collapse. If you're talking about the problems of the Third Empire and the Franco-Prussian war, then again, not a collapse.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Germany collapsed in 1909, and again in 1945.

I assume you mean 1919, and in no way did they collapse. There was a change in leadership, as the German state transitioned to democracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Britain's been around a little longer, but they've collapsed three times I can think of in the last thousand years, first with the installation of the Magna Carta, then the very short reign of the Cromwell (his rise, one collapse, then his fall, another collapse). I'm sure looking at other countries in Europe I could find similar histories.

Ok, so this is equivocation. Before collapse meant the end of the community, now you're using it to mean what amounted in most cases to a very slight change in government organisation. Especially in the case of the Magna Carta, if you define that as a collapse the UK has collapse about five times this week. In fact the US collapsed in January when Obama took over.

Assuming we took these as examples of collapse, which I really think we shouldn't, they're still completely different to what you were talking about with the communities. France after the revolution didn't endure through culture, it was exactly the same country with just a change of who sat on the throne. In fact it was no more a collapse of France, than a change of monarch or a new government being voted in would be. It's wholly unlike the ending of a community that you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I don't understand this.

I'm saying that a cohesive unit like a community coming apart is an inherently traumatic experience. It's like saying “why don't we have a war where everyone is nice to each other”.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They do try to keep it strong. But they will choose to leave if arguing gets to be too much, or the community becomes corrupt. And I think this should be allowed.

Yeah, but if a community is strong people will fight for it. I can't see how it can be strong, and weak enough that people will give up at the first sign of trouble at the same time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also, I'm not sure I'm convinced by the argument that a government expands the 150 person limit, or that it slows the decay of communities.

There's more than 150 people in the United States.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
wonder what's going on with the 150 rule as this goes on? I think it may still be in effect, even with government influence, and government influence is limited, if it has any effect at all.

No it's still in effect. The concept of government (which despite Frems redefinition is much wider than the formal public institution that is usually called government) allows communities to continue to function and to also give a mechanism for releasing in fighting and factionalism. Of course social pressures go up, and no government is perfect, but I'd posit that a group can't remain cohesive as it grows without some formal procedural system, and even a hierarchical decision making structure. And so far all the examples that have grown to a greater size have been epitomised by ALL those things.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:45 AM

I really don't think talking about change from one form of government to another is a "slight" change in government organization. As I recall, the Magna Carta involved some very angry people holding the king at the equivalent in those times of gun point to law down some rules about the rights of Englishmen and also give power to the House of Lords. The King retained some power for a while after that, but as I see it, that was the precise moment that England changed from a monarchy to a parliamentary system.

With Cromwell, as I understand it, he threw out the House of Lords and influence of the Anglican church, which also seems like not a small change. Then it was quickly changed back. Cromwell's change also resulted in a group of people departing for America, the puritans, which makes that a clear cut example of fractionalization and a society splitting apart. Hence why I compared it to our conversation about communities fractionalizing and splitting apart.

With France, you have first the student revolution then the revolution that deposed King Louis the XIV for a Republic, which then was taken over by Napoleon before he was removed. Lots of internal strife, crushing poverty, and extreme changes in government form and power vacuums, I'm really not sure HOW you can say this WASN'T a collapse.

Though perhaps your example in Germany about the Nazi take over and the toppling of the Wilhelm Republic is a better example of an internal collapse for Germany than the ones I listed.

In any case, the ones I have listed, from what I recall there was a lot of internal strife, fractioning, and economic turmoil. Again, they seem to me to meet the definition of a socio-economic or government collapse.

The Bush administration, and again the Obama administration could potentially constitute a collapse, seeing the economy crash and the general anger from both sides. But a new government form didn't arise from it, so I don't know if you can call it a complete collapse. Either that, or Americans are just stupid and we keep buying into and prolonging the existence of a system that just doesn't work.

Gonna get to your other points... Have a meeting soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:51 AM

Quote:
Yeah, but if a community is strong people will fight for it. I can't see how it can be strong, and weak enough that people will give up at the first sign of trouble at the same time.

I never said they would. I just said that this is the most preferable last resort, and that this should be encouraged as opposed to more traumatic or violent kinds of break up.

If the 150 people thing is still operating on the level of communities, I don't understand how you mean that a government expands on the base number allowable. It seems like people still have these limits on a local level. I can't think of anyone who I could consider part of my 150 community on a national level.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 1:27 PM

You really are bonkers, Citizen, and I don't think you've even understood any of the points I've tried to make cause you keep takin em as an attack on your core beliefs.

Which, they ain't - I am pointing out it doesn't HAVE to be the way you think it does, and just to take the traffic example one step further...

Anarchy in the Streets
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer213.html

Mind you, I had already discussed Mondermans work before under the thread "Anarchist Traffic Control" in RWED, but Shaffer makes some good points about it too, like the fact that folks cooperate cause they want to, not cause they're forced to, and when you remove force from the equation it not only still happens, but the cooperation improves.

But of course, evidence means nothing to you when you're circling your mental wagons and throwing what appears to my perspective to be a temper tantrum cause your core beliefs are challenged.

Still, while I might challenge em, you know what the critical difference between you and me is ?

I am unwilling to force mine upon you, or anyone else, while you and yours are perfectly happy to ram yours down my throat on the gunbarrels of government.

AND you mischaracterize me, quite deliberately - even if you missed that example there's plenty more like it, but there was a conversation between me and wulfenstar not long ago about why all property taxes are not necessarily bad, what they go to and why, and how you would want many of those things anyway and the collective bargaining of a community buying in bulk tends to get a better deal on goods and services, lest you forget, I *did* manage to get the former township a discount on utility services, a better deal with a new waste pickup service, and enough salt to cover the roads that winter for far less than we'd ever paid - so there's practical experience there with the idea too.

You *are* strawmanning, as well, don't even deny it, cause you keep attributing my position as "Chaotic Stupid" instead of Chaotic Neutral.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticStupid

Do you think someone like me drives in their lane and obeys signals ONLY because of force and threat ?
Do you honestly think Anarchists INCAPABLE of any degree of mutual cooperation with their fellow man ?

No, I don't believe that, you are just shovelling a load of shit to demonize the "other" just like you've been trained to do, quite reflexively, without even being fully aware of it, and I am trying to get you to see beyond that.

Whether you AGREE with me or not, doesn't much matter, you live your life the way you want to, and more power to you - but you ain't got no right to force that way on everyone else, either of yourself, or by proxy via engaging a government to use that force on your behalf.

But you are too wrapped up in the my-way-is-the-only-right-way mindset to think anyone who doesn't see things your way is anything but a wacko.

Me, I think humans are as a rule, somewhat nuts, and if folks want, truly WANT a constitutional monarchy, a militaristic dictatorship, a democracy, or commune socialism, hey, more power to em, so long as it's based on *mutual consent*, whatever you CALL the structure itself, however you choose to functionally practice it.. don't matter so much.

But when you go shovin it down someone elses throat with force and violence, you become the aggressor, you practice evil.

The biggest difference however, is that I can acknowledge and respect your worldview no matter what I think of it, provided you don't try to inflict it by force on me...

But the mere EXISTENCE of mine seems to threaten yours to where you simply cannot abide it.

Ergo, I think you're Bonkers.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You really are bonkers, Citizen, and I don't think you've even understood any of the points I've tried to make cause you keep takin em as an attack on your core beliefs.

I've asked you to quote where I've done or said any of the things you've accused me of Still Waiting. What I've taken as a attacks, are your constant personal attacks, whether you're capable of admitting that or not.

You're delusional if you believe I've done or said any of the things you've accused me of. You're the only one demonising the other (though I suppose calling me a violent authoritarian isn't doing that, when you're the one doing it, right?). I've quoted you doing it. The fact you can't do the same speaks volumes.

Please continue to try and palm your behaviour off on to me, discussing anything with any one as deeply closed minded and delusional as you are here, is an exercise in futility. I know for a fact you're not talking to me, or about me, just the comfortable strawman you have in your head. In fact I'm fair sure you've probably not even bothered to read my posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But you are too wrapped up in the my-way-is-the-only-right-way mindset to think anyone who doesn't see things your way is anything but a wacko.

Unless you're the one doing though...

I'm not bonkers, the person you're talking to and about is, that's not, however me. That you don't realise that, is kinda sad, but somewhat expected.

Ergo, it's extremely clear you're delusional.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 2:04 PM

How is assigning responsibility to you, for the behavior of a government you support, exactly calling you, directly, a violent authoritarian ?

You support it, you DO have some responsibility, just as I share some responsibility for my governments jackass behavior cause I did pay my taxes, although not by my own free will, and surely not out of mutual consent.

Just because you don't do it personally with your own two hands does not absolve you of responsibility.

Of course, your government in particular hasn't been a threat to me and my kin since 1812, so why you're takin it so personal when we're talkin about the generalities of government, those who support it versus those who do not, and why it's a losing proposition, is beyond me.

And again, YOU still haven't addressed the fact of communities that exceed dunbars number, and the complete deconstruction of your own argument about traffic regs, then topped with hard evidence to the contrary by Mondermans work.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How is assigning responsibility to you, for the behavior of a government you support, exactly calling you, directly, a violent authoritarian ?

My god, you actually don't realise what you've said do you? You can't actually remember word one of the personal attacks you've spouted in this thread can you? You never claimed it is people like me that violently attack people they disagree with, which is calling ME DIRECTLY a violent authoritarian?

I suppose you didn't directly call me a liar or stupid when you couldn't get your own way either. Shall I quote you again?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And again, YOU still haven't addressed the fact of communities that exceed dunbars number,

Actually I have, but given that you were unable to argue against it, you ignored it and went whole sale in to the ad hominem personal attacks, which, btw, rather prove that you couldn't argue against it. QED, as it were.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
so why you're takin it so personal when we're talkin about the generalities of government, those who support it versus those who do not, and why it's a losing proposition, is beyond me.

I'm not, and I've already told you this, and I'm sure you're going to ignore it AGAIN, but what I'm taking personally is your unsolicited personal attacks, your flat out lies about what I said, and your baseless claims of me strawmanning your statements, when I've done no such thing. As I said, I'm not willing to deal with you until you can act like a decent human being and stop YOUR personal bullshit because YOU don't like YOUR core beliefs being questioned.

What you've still yet to do is quote me where I've done or said any of the things you've accused me of. I'm still waiting for those quotes frem, or maybe you can man up and do the decent thing and apologise for claiming I've said things I haven't.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 4:03 PM

Please, spare me the childish temper tantrum and theatrics.

Calling you on your own behavior is not a personal attack, and again, just because you do not do it personally does not absolve you of the responsibility for the actions of a government you support.

That's like americans trying to decry any and all responsibility for the deaths in iraq and afghanistan by insisting they're not over there pulling the trigger.

So long as you support any government based on force, you are then responsible for the force being used, the concept is pretty clear.

And yes, I called you out on committing lies of omission, which you did do, and continued to do, by calling Dunbars number a hard number and then dancing around and completely ignoring evidence presented against it, that *IS* a lie of omission, and still nonetheless a lie - nor have I called you stupid, in fact it was *because* do not consider you stupid or illiterate, that accused you of intent rather than ignorance, and I made point of the fact that you are anything but either one, which you have chosen to take as the exact opposite of what I said because you'd rather have your hissy fit and fight me than address the topic now that you have run out of excuses.

I called you "Bonkers", i.e. crazy - not stupid, and insinuated that you are blinded by bias rather than malicious in intent, although your own actions here at this point make me wonder about that.

Again, explain Catalonia, explain Freetown, explain Mondragon, no, you just scream "you have no argument", or just move the goalposts again, and accuse me of attacking you, when I call you out on this stuff - just like Rappy does when you press him on Iraqi WMD.

And then you dare to step up from lies of omission to flat out lies, you *did* in fact strawman the Anarchist position as "Chaotic Stupid", repeatedly, blatantly, and then stand there and deny it and howl that it's a baseless accusation when the evidence is clear in this thread for all to see ?
And then when called on THAT, you will say "oh I was being facetious" ?
No, you don't get to play that game, not with me.

You want quotes, sure - but what you REALLY want is to bog down and misdirect the discussion now that your chewbacca defense has failed, so you can dismiss it as a petty argument and exit with your dignity intact.

Shit man, why not just do so now, agree to disagree, confirm that we have mutually opposed viewpoints on the matter in diametric opposition instead of screaming at me that your way is the only right way, and whatever I believe is some sort of offense against nature - but you can't do that, can you ?

And therein lies the problem of it all, were anyone to ask me.

And just because I do kinda feel like being an asshole about it, fine, I *will* quote you.

Quote:
It's your inability to see government as anything other than dictatorship, not mine. That blind sightedness is part of your problem here.

Strawmanning.

Quote:
You're talking about utopian ideals with little care or mention of how they actually work.

Strawmanning.

Quote:
you're playing with blue sky thinking completely devoid of any real consideration of how it'll work with real people in the real world.

Completely ignoring the example of Mondragon, and the Hutterites, which HAD been presented to you before that point.

Quote:
Not really. There's a government authority there, it's mentioned in the "Governance and leadership" section. It's quite unlike what Byte is suggesting. My point was to get larger groups you need some form of governance, that example is actually supporting my case.

Moving the Goalposts.

Quote:
What I asked for was an example of a society without some form of abstract law and governance that is larger than the Dunbar number. These don't seem to fit that criteria.

Moving the Goalposts.

Quote:
Sorry if this is a might combative, but when someone spends a whole post putting words in my mouth and calling me a violent and stupid fascist because I don't agree with them, while lending nothing worthwhile to the thread whatsoever

A completely false accusaion, as I have called you nothing of the sort, and yet you repeat this accusation in efforts to provoke some false assumption of it's viability.

Quote:
What I pointed out was those groups had their OWN governmental system, which is what lets them grow to that size. QED.

Moving the goalposts, which I was calling you on, at which point you choose to redefine "government" to mean whatever you want it to, once again.

Quote:
Not really, I'm just discounting your highly dubious claims that I'm doing that, based on your complete inability to back them up.

Discounting Catalonia, Discounting Freetown, Discounting Mondragon, after the goalposts got moved, and will get moved again and again, won't they ?

Quote:
The fact is when someone says government to you, you hear Hitler.

Strawmanning.
Hell, I could quote most of THAT post as personal slams having nothing to do with the discussion as you keep changing the terms and moving the goalposts.

Quote:
Completely different situation. For a start you're saying it will probably fail, where as your system has it definitely failing and promotes that failure. A system that requires itself to fail is self defeating by definition.

That was to byte, and could be considered strawmanning, as the Anarchist concept is for a society to EVOLVE, not DEVOLVE, and yet there again is the automatic assumption that we're out to just smash everything and dance on the ruins.

Quote:
Oh, I'm sure if I were to point out that road use is regulated, and that drivers are trained to use the right (or left, as the case maybe) of the road, and only receive a certificate that allows them to operate a vehicle on the road when they've shown competency and a willingness to follow the rules; then that would merely be proof that I'm an evil stupid violent fascist who hates and abuses children, wouldn't you agree, HK?

And voila, right there in your own words, classic strawmanning of Anarchy and Anarchists, myself in particular, as "Chaotic Stupid", and yet despite that being mere hours ago, you go and deny it ?

Please.

Normally I'd let it go, but yanno, I wanna see if I can run you out of excuses.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 5:53 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Folks just can't seem to hear anarchist and NOT think either "Somalia" or "childish utopian." They KNOW what anarchism is before we even open our mouths. It's pretty much exactly like the conservative argument from the other thread that all liberals are simply childish and conservatives understand liberalism better than liberals do.

Once you and I grow up, Frem, and start living in "the real world" we'll stop all this foolishness, amiright?

By the bye, these folk sure do seem to share a low opinion of children, wouldn't you say?

Well thank you, HK, for affirming that anyone can be wrong. See I used to think you were an ok reasonable person, the kind of person who wouldn't read Frem's litany of lies about me, and take them as gospel without reading what I've actually said. Further I had thought that you weren't the kind of person who would jump in to put the boot in as well.

So clearly I was wrong. A valuable lesson, thank you :)

But I must agree with you, it is like the other thread. Either you agree with Frem, or you're a stupid and evil...
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Just casually, can we get back to the traffic light example? I mean thousands, millions of people follow the conventions of the road and our streets are astonishingly safe in this country. Is that all because folk are afraid of the po-leese? Is that why pretty much everyone, criminals and milquetoasts alike, drives on the right side of the road? Seems like you've got well over 150 people A MINUTE cooperating on the roads 24/7.

Is that even worth discussing?

Oh, I'm sure if I were to point out that road use is regulated, and that drivers are trained to use the right (or left, as the case maybe) of the road, and only receive a certificate that allows them to operate a vehicle on the road when they've shown competency and a willingness to follow the rules; then that would merely be proof that I'm an evil stupid violent fascist who hates and abuses children, wouldn't you agree, HK?

Oh my god. What happened here? I'm dumbfounded and flabbergasted. I DID read what you said, citizen, not EVERY DANG WORD and not the latter half of the excruciating back and forth between you and Byte. I'm sorry, citizen, but with your posts the signal to snide ratio gets pretty low on occasion. And to be frank, Byte and I routinely misunderstand each other. Something gets lost in translation from her context to mine and mine to hers. So I skim.

The gist of the debate as far I could see amounted to the two of you telling the other, "No, that's not what I meant." And the worst I accused you of was misunderstanding. So, I made an admittedly self-pitying joke of it to share a sorry little laugh with Frem.

"Put the boot in???" Seriously? I've injured you in some way? I honestly don't see it, and yes indeed, I can be dead wrong. So if I've injured you, brutalized you in some way, even just cybernetically, of course, I'm really sorry.

I really have no idea how I've elicited your contempt and condemnation here. I was referring to the years-long debate on this board about the meaning of Anarchism. So far everyone thinks they know what it means better than the Anarchists. Is that a vicious thing for me to say?

You're a brilliant guy, citizen, and I began reading the back and forth here with interest, as I saw you speaking with some passion on the subject of Communism, and I hadn't heard you on that topic before, but, unfortunately, the conversation soon devolved and then Frem hears "government" and hears "Hitler" and we're off to the races. That's what I got. I'm sorry that I missed your point.

People have been kinda flippin' out on this board lately. I don't know what it is, and I don't blame anybody. I'm just a little in shock. I'm sure I'll be fine.

As to the traffic light issue, I just don't see a lot of what you're talking about requiring laws and guns to back 'em up. That's all I object to when it comes to governance: rule of the gun, either directly or indirectly. Rigid hierarchies imposed by threat of violence. I don't believe in punishment as a tool of...y'know, well, anything. Punishment only teaches you how to punish people when it's your turn. It's an evil.

Anarchism may simply not be a good word to use in mixed company. It's proven to be next to useless on this board, that's for sure.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Please, spare me the childish temper tantrum and theatrics.

I can't, and I'm not seeking to control your behaviour Frem, so I can't spare you your behaviour no.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Calling you on your own behavior is not a personal attack, and again, just because you do not do it personally does not absolve you of the responsibility for the actions of a government you support.

Apparently it is if I call you out on YOUR behaviour. Where I draw the line is where you claim I've said things I haven't, claim I've done things I haven't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I called you out on committing lies of omission,

And you had to lie about what I said to do it, which is why I'm calling YOU out on your lies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
because you'd rather have your hissy fit and fight me than address the topic now that you have run out of excuses.

This is an accurate description of your behaviour, certainly, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Again, explain Catalonia, explain Freetown, explain Mondragon, no, you just scream "you have no argument", or just move the goalposts again, and accuse me of attacking you, when I call you out on this stuff - just like Rappy does when you press him on Iraqi WMD.

No, I explained that that had a system which fulfil the role of government. To say I ever screamed "You have no case" until long after YOU had descended in to personal attacks because YOU couldn't stand someone not agreeing with you or simply shutting the fuck up is a complete and obvious lie. IF you think that I moved the goalposts its simply because YOU were unable to understand my point.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And then you dare to step up from lies of omission to flat out lies, you *did* in fact strawman the Anarchist position as "Chaotic Stupid", repeatedly, blatantly, and then stand there and deny it and howl that it's a baseless accusation when the evidence is clear in this thread for all to see ?

Quote me. If it's there for all to see, it'll be easy to quote. You can't, you certainly haven't hear, and you won't. What's clear is you threw a hissy fit because you couldn't get your own way, and now your desperately cherry picking and spinning completely unrelated comments to try and legitimise your personal attacks, your strawmanning and YOUR lies after the fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And then when called on THAT, you will say "oh I was being facetious" ?
No, you don't get to play that game, not with me.

Nope, I'll point out the truth, the truth that I never said those things facetious or not, and your making up shit, whether consciously or through some delusion I really don't care at this point.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You want quotes, sure - but what you REALLY want is to bog down and misdirect the discussion now that your chewbacca defense has failed, so you can dismiss it as a petty argument and exit with your dignity intact.

You are talking out of your arse mate. YOU'VE already bogged down the debate into personal insults and pointless and baseless accusations. YOU did that, not me. YOU continued pushing for that AFTER I told YOU I had no interest in it. Pushing harder and harder, demanding I respond to your character assassination. You're the one who did that, don't try and offload your behaviour on to me because you're not man enough to take responsibility for your own actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Shit man, why not just do so now, agree to disagree, confirm that we have mutually opposed viewpoints on the matter in diametric opposition instead of screaming at me that your way is the only right way, and whatever I believe is some sort of offense against nature - but you can't do that, can you ?

Actually, I'd be more than willing too, but the very fact that you use that offer as a spring board to get more personally insulting is just proof that YOU'RE NOT prepared to do it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And just because I do kinda feel like being an asshole about it, fine, I *will* quote you.

Or pick out cherry picked quotes and lie about their contents at least.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
It's your inability to see government as anything other than dictatorship, not mine. That blind sightedness is part of your problem here.

Strawmanning.

Quote:
You're talking about utopian ideals with little care or mention of how they actually work.

Strawmanning.

Quote:
you're playing with blue sky thinking completely devoid of any real consideration of how it'll work with real people in the real world.

Completely ignoring the example of Mondragon, and the Hutterites, which HAD been presented to you before that point.

Point one: I was talking to Byte not you. I was talking directly about a particular system she was proposing that had some flaws I felt she wasn't addressing.

All these are strawmen and flat out lies.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Not really. There's a government authority there, it's mentioned in the "Governance and leadership" section. It's quite unlike what Byte is suggesting. My point was to get larger groups you need some form of governance, that example is actually supporting my case.

Moving the Goalposts.
Quote:
What I asked for was an example of a society without some form of abstract law and governance that is larger than the Dunbar number. These don't seem to fit that criteria.

Moving the Goalposts.
Quote:
What I pointed out was those groups had their OWN governmental system, which is what lets them grow to that size. QED.

Moving the goalposts, which I was calling you on, at which point you choose to redefine "government" to mean whatever you want it to, once again.

A flat out and obvious lie. I've said throughout that groups larger than Dunbars number require abstract systems of government, a formalised system rather than a non-formalised one. I'm merely pointing out that those groups have those things. The only person shifting goalposts is you, but given that you've spent your entire time here trying to blame me for your actions, that comes as no surprise.

I also like that in order to flesh out this charge, you have to cherry pick several quotes talking about the same thing...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Sorry if this is a might combative, but when someone spends a whole post putting words in my mouth and calling me a violent and stupid fascist because I don't agree with them, while lending nothing worthwhile to the thread whatsoever

A completely false accusaion, as I have called you nothing of the sort, and yet you repeat this accusation in efforts to provoke some false assumption of it's viability.

A completely true accusation, whether you are man enough to admit to your statements or not. In the post I was referencing I quote you claiming people like me carry out violence to enforce their authority. That would make them violent authoritarians, since you claim they are just like me that means you're claiming I AM a violent Authoritarian, QED. You also claimed that I'm incapable of understanding your lofty wisdom (showing that it's you who thinks "my way is the only right one" if it's anyone here), which is, in a very real sense calling me stupid. Funny how the only way you can deflect the charges of your false accusations, is to make more.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Not really, I'm just discounting your highly dubious claims that I'm doing that, based on your complete inability to back them up.

Discounting Catalonia, Discounting Freetown, Discounting Mondragon, after the goalposts got moved, and will get moved again and again, won't they ?

Since all you seem to have is to flat out lie about me, I'm sure you will continue to do so yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
The fact is when someone says government to you, you hear Hitler.

Strawmanning.
Hell, I could quote most of THAT post as personal slams having nothing to do with the discussion as you keep changing the terms and moving the goalposts.

Not strawmanning at all. Someone says government to you, you do hear hitler. Trying to claim that you don't believe all government is always wrong bad and evil would be a strawman, an out and out lie.

But sure, since that whole post was in response to your own where you first threw the hissy fit, where I was responding rather less personally than the personal attacks you were spitting out, go ahead quote the whole thing. Then I'll quote you, you'll come off worse.

The only person who has redefined terms here is you. My term use for government is bang on the money, dictionary perfect. Yours is restricted and narrow, designed only to fit in with your core beliefs that government is bad and wrong evil with no exceptions. I've moved no goalposts, but to be fair neither have you. Because there are no goalposts for you, you're literally that closed minded on this issue, that there is no amount of evidence or argument that could EVER hope to persuade you of anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Completely different situation. For a start you're saying it will probably fail, where as your system has it definitely failing and promotes that failure. A system that requires itself to fail is self defeating by definition.

That was to byte, and could be considered strawmanning, as the Anarchist concept is for a society to EVOLVE, not DEVOLVE, and yet there again is the automatic assumption that we're out to just smash everything and dance on the ruins.

No, the only strawman here is yours. I've not even mentioned Anarchy, and yet you manage to try and spin my words into a completely different discussion. We're not even TALKING about any form of anarchy here you fucking liar. We were talking about the psychological effect of KNOWING a community will collapse, you've dragged out of my words something that isn't there AT ALL.

You're so far away from any base of my words that it's as if you said "hey it's spring, I like spring" and I came back with "here we go, Frem saying he wants to kill rabbits again". Your statements about my words bear no relation, you're just picking quotes at random to hang about baseless accusations so you can claim you've quoted me. Bullshit you lunatic. And I mean lunatic, only a mad man can see in my words what you have.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:
Oh, I'm sure if I were to point out that road use is regulated, and that drivers are trained to use the right (or left, as the case maybe) of the road, and only receive a certificate that allows them to operate a vehicle on the road when they've shown competency and a willingness to follow the rules; then that would merely be proof that I'm an evil stupid violent fascist who hates and abuses children, wouldn't you agree, HK?

And voila, right there in your own words, classic strawmanning of Anarchy and Anarchists, myself in particular, as "Chaotic Stupid", and yet despite that being mere hours ago, you go and deny it ?

And Voila, right here we see everything I was talking about. None of your quotes NONE of them, bear the least relationship to what you've claimed. Either you're doing this on purpose, or you really are having psychotic episode. Like I said, you're not going off at me, you're going off at the voices in your head, and the fact that the only proof you have of the things you've claimed are quotes you've flat out lied about, really goes further to prove that case.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Normally I'd let it go, but yanno, I wanna see if I can run you out of excuses.

Excuses? No I will never run out of the truth to counter your delusional lies, but I'm willing to bet you won't run out of delusional lies.

Normally let it go? Bullshit, you never let anything go. One thing we can see in your posting record is if anyone dares disagree with you you badger and attack them until they are silenced. You badger and attack people until dissent from your glorious viewpoint is silenced.

Then you laughably claim you have respect for other people and their worldview, you claim you're an Anarchist.

Please.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 4:06 AM

HK: I didn't know you felt that way at all. I always thought we understood each other pretty well. Or at least, I always feel like I understand you, and am usually in agreement with what you're saying. I actually can't think of the last time I did disagree with you.

Must be me, I can be pretty abstract in the thinky and talky. If I'm not making sense, I'm always happy to explain. ^_^'

It seems like to me that Citizen is on a side of the debate that's kinda unfathomable to us, and he sees US as equally unfathomable, and there's no possibility of seeing eye to eye. I mean, we can try, and I think I made some headway in trying to understand him and him trying to understand me, but maybe that feeling is all on my side. Actually, looking back, I imagine that he must find me pretty illogical, because I don't think he found any of my arguments sufficient to explain how a society without a government acting as an "impartial third party" would work.

Aw. Deflated.

In any case, I'm not sure arguing over who's done what in this debate is going to win anyone any points for their side. Just going to end up upsetting people and I think we all want to try to coexist with each other? Being upset will make that difficult. None of us are necessarily lying from where I'm standing, it's just our real facts and backgrounds are different, and possibly incompatible.

Quote:
Fact has a long history of usage in the sense "allegation of fact." This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as the true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 4:17 AM

I have a feeling both of my posts are going to be lost here. There's a ring being made in the sand. Salt is being scattered over the arena.

But, if I could point out, technically anarchism IS a system of government, albeit a minimalist one. Actually having a structure or organization doesn't preclude a society from being considered anarchist. So the Mandragons that Frem uses as an example, they're still anarchist, even though they have what you would consider something that functions as or in place of a government.

I'm kinda a purist I guess in that I think all structure represents a possibility for someone permanently being stationed above everyone else... Which as I see it is where a lot of selfish behaviour and corruption can theoretically leak into society. So I go further than most people, in all likely hood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The gist of the debate as far I could see amounted to the two of you telling the other, "No, that's not what I meant." And the worst I accused you of was misunderstanding. So, I made an admittedly self-pitying joke of it to share a sorry little laugh with Frem.

Frem has spent the last several posts doing little more than pushing words in my mouth, lying about me and personally attacking me. Then you pop up, quote his post, and make a joke which essentially reads as sarcasm supporting his lies about what I said. How else, pray tell, am I supposed to take that?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Put the boot in???" Seriously? I've injured you in some way? I honestly don't see it, and yes indeed, I can be dead wrong. So if I've injured you, brutalized you in some way, even just cybernetically, of course, I'm really sorry.

You're refrencing a post aimed at me, and talking about "these folk" when you say:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
By the bye, these folk sure do seem to share a low opinion of children, wouldn't you say?

How is that not aimed at me, and saying I hate children exactly? Given Frem's other diatribes, that would seem to also suggest that I'm personal responcible for child abuse as well. Of course it's Frem that has said those things, but since you're agreeing with Frem here, and jumping off from his personal insults I can't help but seeing the same thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I was referring to the years-long debate on this board about the meaning of Anarchism. So far everyone thinks they know what it means better than the Anarchists. Is that a vicious thing for me to say?

It is when it's directed at me, when I've said nothing of the sort. For instance:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
As to the traffic light issue, I just don't see a lot of what you're talking about requiring laws and guns to back 'em up.

Where did I say anything about guns? What I said is people are trained to drive a certain way, and don't get a driving licence until they've shown that that training has reached a satisfactory level. Then lo and behold they drive the way they've been trained to do so. That's what I said.

Then Frem and yourself start talking about me claiming guns and violence were the only way. Seriously, WTF? And then I'm accused of Strawmanning and lying?

What it seems like to me is that you both have had this conversation over and over again, and you're having this conversation again, but with me playing the part of the Authoritarian Anti-Anarchist however unwillingly. And to be honest, I've had enough of it. So I'm not going to respond further on this point.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 4:35 AM

Quote:
How is that not aimed at me, and saying I hate children exactly? Given Frem's other diatribes, that would seem to also suggest that I'm personal responcible for child abuse as well. Of course it's Frem that has said those things, but since you're agreeing with Frem here, and jumping off from his personal insults I can't help but seeing the same thread.

Oops! I think this one is a misunderstanding. I haven't seen HK around, but I think I might be able to clear it up?

In another thread, AURaptor was talking about how conservatives view liberals as a "childish, naive ideology."

And in this thread, you have stated that Anarchists simply have a pie-in-the-sky outlook that can't be grounded in reality. Which implies you see this as naivety, possibly childish naivety. You also seem annoyed by this naivety, and you might have a low opinion on the logic used in rationalizing this ideology, and thus, a low opinion of the childish people who promote it (and maybe their intelligence).

HK Cavalier was pointing this out, "we're like children," hence why he referred to it as self-deprecatory humour. He wasn't implying that you were a child abuser, nothing of the sort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:05 AM

Quote:
Where did I say anything about guns? What I said is people are trained to drive a certain way, and don't get a driving licence until they've shown that that training has reached a satisfactory level. Then lo and behold they drive the way they've been trained to do so. That's what I said.

Then Frem and yourself start talking about me claiming guns and violence were the only way. Seriously, WTF? And then I'm accused of Strawmanning and lying?

What it seems like to me is that you both have had this conversation over and over again, and you're having this conversation again, but with me playing the part of the Authoritarian Anti-Anarchist however unwillingly. And to be honest, I've had enough of it. So I'm not going to respond further on this point.

This is another misunderstanding, I think.

"Laws and Guns" to HK, Frem, and I refer to the police and possibly military enforcement branches of some governments. Not to you, personally walking out there with a gun and forcing people to do your bidding. I suspect this is also where the "are these people calling me violent? o.0 Why are they calling me violent?!" confusion that you're having is coming from.

You support your government, I imagine, which at least your military uses guns in it's enforcement (as I recall, the British police don't have guns). That does not mean you as an average citizen of your government are violent (especially considering it's a government with such strong gun control), but it does mean maybe your government is. I have a distinction I draw in my mind between the actions of the government and the actions of the people and what the people approve of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have a feeling both of my posts are going to be lost here. There's a ring being made in the sand. Salt is being scattered over the arena.

No, I was going to get to it next. The problem was last night it was late when I got back in, and wasn't up to it; this morning I had a migraine, and now I'm doped up to the gills, but I'll make a stab at it, in awhile.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It seems like to me that Citizen is on a side of the debate that's kinda unfathomable to us, and he sees US as equally unfathomable, and there's no possibility of seeing eye to eye. I mean, we can try, and I think I made some headway in trying to understand him and him trying to understand me, but maybe that feeling is all on my side. Actually, looking back, I imagine that he must find me pretty illogical, because I don't think he found any of my arguments sufficient to explain how a society without a government acting as an "impartial third party" would work.

No, I think I understand where you're coming from, I don't agree on points, however. Equally, I'm near certain Frem doesn't have the first clue where I'm coming from, because as I've said I think Frem is having the same Anarchist vs Ant-Anarchist conversation he's had time and again here, and I've unwillingly been cast in the Anti-Anarchist role. That is what I'm not happy about. As I said though, if he wants to agree to disagree that's up to him, he wants to spit out more bile, same, I'm done.

Back to what you said. A government is any sort of governing body, and it's associated legislative and procedural framework. I really don't think I'm redefinining terms here. My case was that as a group enlarges in size, you start to need some form of Government for the group to remain cohesive. This could be a few members taking leadership roles, it could be a representative council.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But, if I could point out, technically anarchism IS a system of government, albeit a minimalist one. Actually having a structure or organization doesn't preclude a society from being considered anarchist. So the Mandragons that Frem uses as an example, they're still anarchist, even though they have what you would consider something that functions as or in place of a government.

It depends on your definition of Government. It's certainly self governing, but in an informal way. I've tried to make it clear that I'm talking about a formal governmental structure and procedure. Anarchy, as the name suggests (Anarchy, from Ancient Greek Anarchia "no ruler") is a system devoid of leadership (I'm fairly sure Frem has noted that as well). In refrence to the Mandragons, as I said they have a form of formalised government, from Frems earlier link:

Quote:
Over the years these links have been embodied in a series of operating rules approved on a majority basis by the Co-operative Congresses, which regulate the activity of the Governing Bodies of the Corporation (Standing Committee, General Council), the Grassroots Co-operatives and the Divisions they belong to, from the organisational, institutional and economic points of view as well as in terms of assets.

Frem's own link says they have a governing body, so how I can be lying or shifting the goal posts by saying they have a government, is really somewhat beyond me

.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And in this thread, you have stated that Anarchists simply have a pie-in-the-sky outlook that can't be grounded in reality.

I don't think I said that, I think I mentioned that the system you were proposing didn't seem grounded in reality, and that I don't think Anarchism (or communism) can work in the real world, in large communities.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
HK Cavalier was pointing this out, "we're like children," hence why he referred to it as self-deprecatory humour. He wasn't implying that you were a child abuser, nothing of the sort.

I was referring to where he said "these folk have a low opinion of children".

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This is another misunderstanding, I think.

"Laws and Guns" to HK, Frem, and I refer to the police and possibly military enforcement branches of some governments. Not to you, personally walking out there with a gun and forcing people to do your bidding. I suspect this is also where the "are these people calling me violent? o.0 Why are they calling me violent?!" confusion that you're having is coming from.

Yes, I don't agree with that characterisation. However in Frem's case he said "people like [me]", so I think in that circumstance he was accusing me personally of being violent.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You support your government, I imagine, which at least your military uses guns in it's enforcement (as I recall, the British police don't have guns).

I don't support my governments use of it's military for anything other than self-defence. I have practised martial arts since very young, my definition of violence comes from that. I'm not willing to say violence is always bad, self defence is a logical use for violence, as long as it's in response (not pre-emption) and appropriate. Self defence, in my martial art, also includes defence of others, who cannot defend themselves.

As such I accept the need for an armed military. I do not accept the need for open aggression, such as the invasion of Iraq. Which is the point I see being missed here. It seems at some level, there seems to be an expectation from some quarters that you either stand against the government, AT ALL TIMES, or you support them, AT ALL TIMES.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:36 AM

Quote:
It depends on your definition of Government. It's certainly self governing, but in an informal way. I've tried to make it clear that I'm talking about a formal governmental structure and procedure. Anarchy, as the name suggests (Anarchy, from Ancient Greek Anarchia "no ruler") is a system devoid of leadership (I'm fairly sure Frem has noted that as well). In refrence to the Mandragons, as I said they have a form of formalised government, from Frems earlier link:

Yeah, I think this may be the core issue in this debate that we're hitting, right here. Neat! :)

I think that HK, Frem, and I would all define "leadership" as a "ruling elite." In America and I imagine also over in Britain, most of our representatives are very rich men and women. It puts them on a different social tier than the rest of the public, which has possible influences on their motivations, mindsets, and etc. In our opinion I think I can safely say we feel that they tend to actually NOT represent the interests of their constituents, more themselves and their also ruling class elite friends, though they PRETEND like they do (and have propaganda machines to convince the public) to get re-elected.

As such, the congress in a cooperative, in our estimation, lacks a ruling class elite because of a more even distribution of resources, and therefore does not have a leadership class. So as we consider it, they are anarchist.

But I think now I understand why your interpretation of their congress as formalized is the reason behind why you believe they are not anarchist.

I'm not sure they are formal, myself, congress in this sense seems to be more in the sense of meeting than elected representatives, from what I understand everyone in the cooperative can participate can attend congress and participate.

But I myself have a poor understanding of it and have never been to one, so I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 8, 2010 5:48 AM

Quote:
Yes, I don't agree with that characterisation. However in Frem's case he said "people like [me]", so I think in that circumstance he was accusing me personally of being violent.

Mmm, yeah. I'm not Frem, so it's tricky to know what he's meaning. But this is probably something you aren't mistaken in... I have seen Frem equate the people who support their government TO their government, and heard him say that some of them are irredeemable. This is usually in regards to the right wing in America, which you might have a very poor impression of. But usually to earn such a label from him it requires UNCONDITIONAL support of the government, and I imagine you don't agree with and support everything your British government has done (such as invade Iraq). Maybe the problem is that we're dealing in abstract concepts, where abstractly you can say that you support the IDEA of government, and Frem is interpreting this as unconditional support for all governments.

This also applies to your later point, I certainly don't see it as a clear-cut for or against thing at all times. Though usually I am against or at least wary about most of the things a given government might propose or policy it might enact, simply because I'm always asking who's it benefiting. The most likely answer (to me) is the people IN or controlling the government, not the people they supposedly serve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2010 1:52 PM

ANTIMASON

what about a minarchist society? would you settle for something like that (in practice)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2010 2:08 PM