Hello Community. My introduction is as follows...

[Jeremy]

I think it's time for a Ropey v. Retread cage match thread.

 

[Ropey]

I think it's time for a Ropey v. Retread cage match thread.

Sorry, I would not enter such a thread. Why enter the cage of a foul beastie Jeremy?

 

[4m6in3]

There is little Populist about "Last Man Standing" outside of NRA Country anyway. Good try though. Been through the Anarchy phase Myself. The first rule being that there are no rules, it degrades really fast. There is an Order to the Universe, which has left us far behind wallowing in our own mess. Which is as it should be. Perspective Varies, application varies, that does not change truth, not at it's core.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Can you justify an absolute universal truth? I don't think you can. Believing that there might be an absolute universal truth is irrelevant since it's unknown to us, therefore, practically speaking, one can only assume that we create our own individual subjective truths while lacking the ability to justify one over another due to the lack of justification for an absolute universal truth.

Either way there is cause and effect. In effect, consequence, both good and bad, each to it's own measure. We make out of it what we will.

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

 

[Sheldon]

Anarchism.


Is your username some kind of phonetic trick?

No, it's not a phonetic trick. It's meant to be read as enigma even though it's spelled backwards with numbers mixed in. I figured since enigma means mystery, I substituted three of the letters with numbers that look similar to the letters in an attempt to enhance the uncertainty of meaning.

Heh.


Welcome to USMB.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

I think it's time for a Ropey v. Retread cage match thread.

Not sure you would be happy with the results. I would say something, he will silently neg me while making nonsensical references to one's sanity and accuse me of homosexuality, to which I'd respond more pointedly and he will cry, "oh yore a foul beast," and avoid any further conversation with me, beyond his neg dropping. Though he will whine about me negging him a while back when I was above him, since he holds grudges like that, the sensitive little snot dripper that he is.

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Can you justify an absolute universal truth? I don't think you can. Believing that there might be an absolute universal truth is irrelevant since it's unknown to us, therefore, practically speaking, one can only assume that we create our own individual subjective truths while lacking the ability to justify one over another due to the lack of justification for an absolute universal truth.

Either way there is cause and effect. In effect, consequence, both good and bad, each to it's own measure. We make out of it what we will.

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

I think your definition of anarchism, or maybe my understanding of it, is confused with social libertarianism. I don't view your bridge example of the minority not following the majority off the bridge as anything other than a organized disagreement, and in anarchy, there is absolutely zero organization. Even mobs within the anarchy follow a system, a code upon themselves.

And acting individually, entirely, isn't possible unless you wish to defy human nature and basically ignore your survival instinct, but this is a slight tangent.

 

[boedicca]

Relativism and Anarchism. That is all.

So, ?

Meh. Same old same old.

But Welcome all the same.

 

[4m6in3]

Either way there is cause and effect. In effect, consequence, both good and bad, each to it's own measure. We make out of it what we will.

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

I think your definition of anarchism, or maybe my understanding of it, is confused with social libertarianism. I don't view your bridge example of the minority not following the majority off the bridge as anything other than a organized disagreement, and in anarchy, there is absolutely zero organization. Even mobs within the anarchy follow a system, a code upon themselves.

And acting individually, entirely, isn't possible unless you wish to defy human nature and basically ignore your survival instinct, but this is a slight tangent.

Is that how I came off? Hmm. I'm defiantly against libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialism is a type of moderate Anarchism. While traditional anarchists would believe in a revolutionary need for the overthrow of government and would shun the idea of participating in political parties, libertarian socialists feel that government can be overthrown in a less violent manner and that some political parties are productive. I view Anarchism as all forms of governmental authority are unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. The point I wanted to bring out, is that Anarchism would be an ideal system that supports relativism. A government system does not. As for survival instinct, that's what I was implying when I wrote "Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution." The drive is survival instinct. Some define survival instinct as self-pleasure/self-interest. This is the very essence that would make anarchism work.

 

[Intense]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Can you justify an absolute universal truth? I don't think you can. Believing that there might be an absolute universal truth is irrelevant since it's unknown to us, therefore, practically speaking, one can only assume that we create our own individual subjective truths while lacking the ability to justify one over another due to the lack of justification for an absolute universal truth.

Either way there is cause and effect. In effect, consequence, both good and bad, each to it's own measure. We make out of it what we will.

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

Think Locke. Unalienable Right. There are issues between Each of Us and Our Maker that is Nobody Else's business. There Are Freedoms and Liberties that No Organized Structure has the Right to take away. Statist V.S, Anarchy??? Why are you so limited??? Fuck Progressive Statism, Fuck Anarchy, Fuck Hamilton, who robbed us of our Republic. We are a Federal Republic, where in some things, a Simple Majority is not supposed to be enough to obstruct Liberty, to feed Injustice. That Super Majority, where the higher bar does act against misdirected impulse, allowing reason time to prevail. How about returning to Madison style Federalism, let's try something that we haven't in 200 years, Enumerated Powers, 3 Equal Branches of Government, meaning end the abuse of Judicial Review, connecting dots that are not there. You know where to flush the Commerce Clause, or maybe where we can get an Exorcist to Banish the Demons from it? Anarchy is not the answer. Structured Liberty, Government by Consent of the Governed is. It is the search for and adherence to Justice and Fair Play that makes or breaks us. Under any Name or Brand, Tyranny remains what it is. That is absolute.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

[4] After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. -Thoreau Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

 

[Intense]

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

I think your definition of anarchism, or maybe my understanding of it, is confused with social libertarianism. I don't view your bridge example of the minority not following the majority off the bridge as anything other than a organized disagreement, and in anarchy, there is absolutely zero organization. Even mobs within the anarchy follow a system, a code upon themselves.

And acting individually, entirely, isn't possible unless you wish to defy human nature and basically ignore your survival instinct, but this is a slight tangent.

Is that how I came off? Hmm. I'm defiantly against libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialism is a type of moderate Anarchism. While traditional anarchists would believe in a revolutionary need for the overthrow of government and would shun the idea of participating in political parties, libertarian socialists feel that government can be overthrown in a less violent manner and that some political parties are productive. I view Anarchism as all forms of governmental authority are unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. The point I wanted to bring out, is that Anarchism would be an ideal system that supports relativism. A government system does not.

The only thing that can't support Relativism is Reality, huh. Nice Fiction though.

 

[random3434]

I think it's time for a Ropey v. Retread cage match thread.

My money is on Ropey!

 

[random3434]

Agnapostate Delivers!

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

I think it's time for a Ropey v. Retread cage match thread.

My money is on Ropey!

You might as well tell me I'd lose to Gh0sTeR or one of the Emmas. I'm shocked, dismayed and utterly disgusted that you'd place your money on him. Now I'll have to split my winnings with you after I take the dive and finish the fix.

 

[4m6in3]

Either way there is cause and effect. In effect, consequence, both good and bad, each to it's own measure. We make out of it what we will.

We, is the problem. In the current system, We, is the majority, and the majority sets the standards. What about the minorities that make it out differently? Keep relativism in mind here. Why must the minorities abide to the standards of the majority? If the majority decide to jump of the bridge, should the minority abide by the standards? I think not, hence, why I choose Anarchism instead. Anarchism would allow We, to act as individuals, to make it out as individuals without setting standards that interfere with other individual truths. You're probably going to ask me now, how do I know anarchism levels the playing field for everybody? Well, why do you have food on the shelves? The most basic factor is a greed of a farmer, therefore, whenever there would be a need, there will be a solution. Obviously, extremely oversimplified, but that's the fundamentals. Granted, I lean towards Austrian school of thought, so if you want more details, check out the Ludvig Von Mises Institute. At the end of the day it always comes down to Anarchism Vs Statism. I'll take the former since I agree in relativism and the reasons I just wrote above.

Think Locke. Unalienable Right. There are issues between Each of Us and Our Maker that is Nobody Else's business. There Are Freedoms and Liberties that No Organized Structure has the Right to take away. Statist V.S, Anarchy??? Why are you so limited??? Fuck Progressive Statism, Fuck Anarchy, Fuck Hamilton, who robbed us of our Republic. We are a Federal Republic, where in some things, a Simple Majority is not supposed to be enough to obstruct Liberty, to feed Injustice. That Super Majority, where the higher bar does act against misdirected impulse, allowing reason time to prevail. How about returning to Madison style Federalism, let's try something that we haven't in 200 years, Enumerated Powers, 3 Equal Branches of Government, meaning end the abuse of Judicial Review, connecting dots that are not there. You know where to flush the Commerce Clause, or maybe where we can get an Exorcist to Banish the Demons from it? Anarchy is not the answer. Structured Liberty, Government by Consent of the Governed is. It is the search for and adherence to Justice and Fair Play that makes or breaks us. Under any Name or Brand, Tyranny remains what it is. That is absolute.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

[4] After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. -Thoreau

What do you call it when government and anarchism coexist (you and the majority want a government, fine, let it govern you all. The minority and I want no government, fine, nothing will govern us) ?

By the way, I had to remove the link from your quotes. It wouldn't let me post because of the 15 post minimum limit.