Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It does require authority, IMO.

But what good is authority and expertise, when any uneducated fool thinks his opinion is just as valid as a person who has dedicated their entire life to the study of a topic?

See: you and climate change

That's not a trolling post...that is a serious point. You are part of the problem, my man.

 

[TNHarley]

It does require authority, IMO.

But what good is authority and expertise, when any uneducated fool thinks his opinion is just as valid as a person who has dedicated their entire life to the study of a topic?

See: you and climate change

That's not a trolling post...that is a serious point. You are part of the problem, my man.

So i should take a professionals opinion on something with no ACTUAL proof? Just because?
LOL for real?
I have never claimed validation for my environmental opinions. I just ask for PROOF
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. All the PROFESSIONALS said so

 

[Oddball]

My "six months" (as the old joke goes) turned into about eight years...I'm a recovering libertarain who now works with a blend of ancap & agorism.

The State is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the human race.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So i should take a professionals opinion on something with no ACTUAL proof?

Are you suggesting that there are not mountains of proof of the accepted views of scientists on climate change? You understand...that's how they came to adopt those views, right?

When your doctor prescribed antibiotics...did you demand to see all of the research and case studies? I doubt it.

So you are fooling exactly nobody when you pretend to ascribe some sort of intellectual nobility to your goofy denialism. No, the fact is that you deny this robust science ONLY because it does not jibe with your politics and your superstitions.

Period. So go peddle that bullshit to someone else.

 

[Oddball]

 

[TNHarley]

So i should take a professionals opinion on something with no ACTUAL proof?

Are you suggesting that there are not mountains of proof of the accepted views of scientists on climate change? You understand...that's how they came to adopt those views, right?

When your doctor prescribed antibiotics...did you demand to see all of the research and case studies? I doubt it.

So you are fooling exactly nobody when you pretend to ascribe some sort of intellectual nobility to your goofy denialism. No, the fact is that you deny this robust science ONLY because it does not jibe with your politics and your superstitions.

Period. So go peddle that bullshit to someone else.

Why is wanting proof such a taboo subject for you?

 

[toobfreak]

First of all, it misrepresents anarchy (as nearly everyone does) as meaning chaos, i.e. lack of cooperation and organization. It then equates law with cooperation and organization. Both are false equations.

BULLLLLLL









SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIT.

Man, do the propaganda head-shrunk fan boys live here!
CHAOS: Lack of order.
ANARCHY: state of disorder.
REPUBLIC: Rule of LAW whose purpose is to maintain order based on cooperation with a central authority.

Can't make it any simpler for you!

 

[Oddball]

"State of disorder" is an opinion, not etymological nor epistemic fact....Absence of rulers does not automatically mean chaos, violence, and disorder.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

First of all, it misrepresents anarchy (as nearly everyone does) as meaning chaos, i.e. lack of cooperation and organization. It then equates law with cooperation and organization. Both are false equations.

BULLLLLLL









SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIT.

View attachment 190076

Man, do the propaganda head-shrunk fan boys live here!
CHAOS: Lack of order.
ANARCHY: state of disorder.
REPUBLIC: Rule of LAW whose purpose is to maintain order based on cooperation with a central authority.

Can't make it any simpler for you!

Words have more than one meaning or connotation. At the bottom of the definition box you posted it lists the definition I’m using. Let me guess... “tl;dr”

And if you think picking apart definitions will distract anyone reading this exchange from realizing that you failed to address any of the points I raised, you’re mistaking your own level of intelligence for theirs.

 

[Tehon]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

As long as it’s all voluntary, go for it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"State of disorder" is an opinion, not etymological nor epistemic fact....Absence of rulers does not automatically mean chaos, violence, and disorder.

View attachment 190086

Don’t you just love how “cooperation with a central authority” flies right through people’s filter? Authority is the antithesis of cooperation.

Euphemisms abound. I think the word they’re looking for here is “obedience”

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It does require authority, IMO. I dont have enough faith in humans to handle things like that MORALLY without some one there to keep them in line.
I believe in small govt but there should be something there.
If we were all just little communities like humans were 2K years ago? Maybe that would work. But not with the populations we have now.

This reflects the subconscious notion that government is something super-human (which is why people don't balk at them having rights in excess of what the average individual has). Humans are handling it, law or no law. No one is there to keep them in line besides themselves.

Do you think authority makes them handle things morally? You know full well that this is not the case. You think cops would get away with murder, or the millions of other immoral infringements upon personal liberty, in a free society? It's authority that protects them. You think the billions of government murders that have occurred throughout history would have been possible without this fallacious "authority"? Stalin killed 50 million. Try that without government and see how far you get.

Humans are humans. Some of them are immoral. All authority does is magnify the immorality of some of them, and dupe moral people into acting immorally, and supporting the immorality of others by the false justification of political process. There is no filter that keeps immoral people out of positions of authority. In fact, they are more likely to seek out those positions, because it provides them with protection for their immoral acts. And we both know there are countless real-world examples of this. In fact, most people openly recognize that, generally speaking, politicians are lying crooks, and that police get away with bullying and even killing people because of their position.

Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear.

Again, you cite "the population we have now" as justification for denying people their rightful freedom. It doesn't matter whether you think we're "worthy" of it - you have no right to deny them their freedom simply because you're afraid of what they will do with it. It's the same valid argument in support of gun rights, or any individual liberty. If you understand it in that context, you should understand it in this one.

 

[TNHarley]

It does require authority, IMO. I dont have enough faith in humans to handle things like that MORALLY without some one there to keep them in line.
I believe in small govt but there should be something there.
If we were all just little communities like humans were 2K years ago? Maybe that would work. But not with the populations we have now.

This reflects the subconscious notion that government is something super-human (which is why people don't balk at them having rights in excess of what the average individual has). Humans are handling it, law or no law. No one is there to keep them in line besides themselves.

Do you think authority makes them handle things morally? You know full well that this is not the case. You think cops would get away with murder, or the millions of other immoral infringements upon personal liberty, in a free society? It's authority that protects them. You think the billions of government murders that have occurred throughout history would have been possible without this fallacious "authority"? Stalin killed 50 million. Try that without government and see how far you get.

Humans are humans. Some of them are immoral. All authority does is magnify the immorality of some of them, and dupe moral people into acting immorally, and supporting the immorality of others by the false justification of political process. There is no filter that keeps immoral people out of positions of authority. In fact, they are more likely to seek out those positions, because it provides them with protection for their immoral acts. And we both know there are countless real-world examples of this. In fact, most people openly recognize that, generally speaking, politicians are lying crooks, and that police get away with bullying and even killing people because of their position.

Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear.

Again, you cite "the population we have now" as justification for denying people their rightful freedom. It doesn't matter whether you think we're "worthy" of it - you have no right to deny them their freedom simply because you're afraid of what they will do with it. It's the same valid argument in support of gun rights, or any individual liberty. If you understand it in that context, you should understand it in this one.

Excellent post!
I wont argue a thing. I will say, still, i just cant get on your team. But you definitely make a good point!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It does require authority, IMO. I dont have enough faith in humans to handle things like that MORALLY without some one there to keep them in line.
I believe in small govt but there should be something there.
If we were all just little communities like humans were 2K years ago? Maybe that would work. But not with the populations we have now.

This reflects the subconscious notion that government is something super-human (which is why people don't balk at them having rights in excess of what the average individual has). Humans are handling it, law or no law. No one is there to keep them in line besides themselves.

Do you think authority makes them handle things morally? You know full well that this is not the case. You think cops would get away with murder, or the millions of other immoral infringements upon personal liberty, in a free society? It's authority that protects them. You think the billions of government murders that have occurred throughout history would have been possible without this fallacious "authority"? Stalin killed 50 million. Try that without government and see how far you get.

Humans are humans. Some of them are immoral. All authority does is magnify the immorality of some of them, and dupe moral people into acting immorally, and supporting the immorality of others by the false justification of political process. There is no filter that keeps immoral people out of positions of authority. In fact, they are more likely to seek out those positions, because it provides them with protection for their immoral acts. And we both know there are countless real-world examples of this. In fact, most people openly recognize that, generally speaking, politicians are lying crooks, and that police get away with bullying and even killing people because of their position.

Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear.

Again, you cite "the population we have now" as justification for denying people their rightful freedom. It doesn't matter whether you think we're "worthy" of it - you have no right to deny them their freedom simply because you're afraid of what they will do with it. It's the same valid argument in support of gun rights, or any individual liberty. If you understand it in that context, you should understand it in this one.

Excellent post!
I wont argue a thing. I will say, still, i just cant get on your team. But you definitely make a good point!

Much obliged. I appreciate your willingness to engage the topic in earnest.

I didn’t mean for that to sound so formal... I swear I sound more conversational in person!

 

[TNHarley]

It does require authority, IMO. I dont have enough faith in humans to handle things like that MORALLY without some one there to keep them in line.
I believe in small govt but there should be something there.
If we were all just little communities like humans were 2K years ago? Maybe that would work. But not with the populations we have now.

This reflects the subconscious notion that government is something super-human (which is why people don't balk at them having rights in excess of what the average individual has). Humans are handling it, law or no law. No one is there to keep them in line besides themselves.

Do you think authority makes them handle things morally? You know full well that this is not the case. You think cops would get away with murder, or the millions of other immoral infringements upon personal liberty, in a free society? It's authority that protects them. You think the billions of government murders that have occurred throughout history would have been possible without this fallacious "authority"? Stalin killed 50 million. Try that without government and see how far you get.

Humans are humans. Some of them are immoral. All authority does is magnify the immorality of some of them, and dupe moral people into acting immorally, and supporting the immorality of others by the false justification of political process. There is no filter that keeps immoral people out of positions of authority. In fact, they are more likely to seek out those positions, because it provides them with protection for their immoral acts. And we both know there are countless real-world examples of this. In fact, most people openly recognize that, generally speaking, politicians are lying crooks, and that police get away with bullying and even killing people because of their position.

Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear.

Again, you cite "the population we have now" as justification for denying people their rightful freedom. It doesn't matter whether you think we're "worthy" of it - you have no right to deny them their freedom simply because you're afraid of what they will do with it. It's the same valid argument in support of gun rights, or any individual liberty. If you understand it in that context, you should understand it in this one.

Excellent post!
I wont argue a thing. I will say, still, i just cant get on your team. But you definitely make a good point!

Much obliged. I appreciate your willingness to engage the topic in earnest.

I didn’t mean for that to sound so formal... I swear I sound more conversational in person!

I believe you lol

 

[Tehon]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

As long as it’s all voluntary, go for it.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
Karl Marx-The German Ideology

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why is wanting proof such a taboo subject for you?

spare me your little dance. If you wanted proof, you would go look it up. You don't want proof. You want to remain ignorant, because you prefer your stupid little fetish over the truth.

 

[Oddball]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

 

[Tehon]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."