Vote your conscience

[Divine Wind]

Anarchism is Retarded
Anarchism is a nonsensical and immature political philosophy. To even call it a philosophy is probably being far too generous. In order to mitigate the inevitable bleating of “No True Scotsman” from various unwashed packs of self-styled “anarchist” rabble across the internets, allow me to define my term. When I say “anarchism” here I am talking about the utopian and fantastical ideology promoted by leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and described in the Anarchist FAQ. So yes, I am talking about your kind of anarchist Mr. Scotsman.

Yes, what he said.

 

[TEXIndependence]

I agree that you must vote your conscience if you're going to vote. At the same time, I would encourage most people not to vote.

 

[MisterBeale]

I find it interesting that you quote anarchists when you are not an anarchist, and that social contract theory is one of very few arguments used to morally justify the state. Just saying that, because I question why you support the state if you do not acknowledge a social contract governed by the state.

Lynsander Spooner actually acknowledged the existence of a social contract, but he believed that it was illegitimate when the government acted as an arbitrary authority of it.

You're a cool person Onyx. We won't agree to a paradigm of reality based on your definitions, okay?

 

[Divine Wind]

Are you still yapping? Go back to eating pudding and accusing nonconformists of being in league with the Russians

Tovarich, you're the one seeking to tear down the US and pooh-pooh the Russians. You're the foreigner who comes to the US to bash it. You're the one with the Russian signature and the anti-American ideals. If you were a true "anarchist' you'd shut the fuck up and let me speak since that's what anarchism is all about, isn't it?

BTW, Fuck the Russians and all of their supporters.

 

[Onyx]

Anarchism is Retarded
Anarchism is a nonsensical and immature political philosophy. To even call it a philosophy is probably being far too generous. In order to mitigate the inevitable bleating of “No True Scotsman” from various unwashed packs of self-styled “anarchist” rabble across the internets, allow me to define my term. When I say “anarchism” here I am talking about the utopian and fantastical ideology promoted by leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and described in the Anarchist FAQ. So yes, I am talking about your kind of anarchist Mr. Scotsman.

Yes, what he said.

That's what who said?

Iian Mckay? I have never even heard of the guy, much less care about his simple minded opinions.

 

[Divine Wind]

So if I do not sign a substantive contract with the government, then I do not need to pay taxes.

Wrong. You get to go back to Mother Russia.

 

[MisterBeale]

Agreed. Hence why I believe the "right" of automatic citizenship should be rescinded. People should earn their citizenship and, therefore, "sign" that social contract. No problem if they don't. If born here by legal resident parents, they can continue to live here and pay taxes. What they won't be able to do is have to hassle with all that "social contract" shit like voting, running for office, etc.

Do you think only land owners should be citizens?

So you are a statist then? You endorse and sanction the monopoly of violence by the state? Might makes right, all that sort of stuff?

Don't you think Plato's Republic is a bit idealistic?

 

[Onyx]

You're a cool person Onyx. We won't agree to a paradigm of reality based on your definitions, okay?

What? Reality is not dictated by definitions, nor does that have the slightest fucking thing to do with what I just said.

You peddle Lysander Spooner, but are not an anarchist. How do you justify the existence of the state, if you do not view the state as being the legitimate arbitrator of a social contract?

That makes your positions seemingly in conflict with each other. Could you explain yourself?

 

[Onyx]

So if I do not sign a substantive contract with the government, then I do not need to pay taxes?

Wrong. You get to go back to Mother Russia.

Okay, then you just contradicted yourself

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you think only land owners should be citizens?

So you are a statist then? You endorse and sanction the monopoly of violence by the state? Might makes right, all that sort of stuff?

Don't you think Plato's Republic is a bit idealistic?

I think only those who have a stake in our government and the welfare of our nation should be citizens.

If you want to be an anarchist, go find a nice little island somewhere or state out some territory in Africa.

OTOH, I don't believe in kicking out those who were born here, just not allowing them to participate in our government since they, by the terms I outlined above, don't give a shit about it .

As for Plato, yes, idealistic...but not unobtainable. Just not realistic in a world of limited resources. If (and when) we reach a state of technology that allows unlimited resources, then, yes, it will be obtainable.

 

[Onyx]

So you are a statist then? You endorse and sanction the monopoly of violence by the state? Might makes right, all that sort of stuff?

Wait, but don't you believe in the same thing? The state can only survive by upholding a monopoly on violence, and if I remember correctly, you believe in the state.

Could you clarify your position, because I might be mistaken on your beliefs? Do you believe in rulers or the existence of a state?

 

[Divine Wind]

So if I do not sign a substantive contract with the government, then I do not need to pay taxes?

Wrong. You get to go back to Mother Russia.

Okay, then you just contradicted yourself

Wrong again, but that's you, isn't it?

 

[Grizz]

 

[Onyx]

OTOH, I don't believe in kicking out those who were born here, just not allowing them to participate in our government since they, by the terms I outlined above, don't give a shit about it .

They still have to pay taxes and follow the laws you set, right?

The only new idea in your beliefs, is that Americans should have to apply for citizenship in order to be represented in the government, based on arbitrary criteria that you have yet to define. Count me out of your retarded authoritarian bullshit

 

[Divine Wind]

So you are a statist then? You endorse and sanction the monopoly of violence by the state? Might makes right, all that sort of stuff?

Wait, but don't you believe in the same thing? The state can only survive by upholding a monopoly on violence, and if I remember correctly, you believe in the state.

Could you clarify your position, because I might be mistaken on your beliefs? Do you believe in rulers or the existence of a state?

 

[Divine Wind]

Anarchists are immature idiots

 

[Onyx]

Wrong again, but that's you, isn't it?

Anarchism does not merit force or violence in anything other than self defense. Those are not anarchists.

Government does not stop chaos. In fact, states are the number one reason why chaos exists on earth.

Furthermore, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers, deriving from the greek word archon, which means rulers. If you need a ruler to tell you what to do and how to think, then you are not an anarchist

Want to demonstrate anymore of your stupidity?

 

[Onyx]

How does this meme have the slightest relevance on what I just said?

Nevermind, it is abundantly clear that you are just a cook living in your own reality.

 

[Onyx]

Anarchists are immature idiots

That's rich coming from a statist.

 

[MisterBeale]

You're a cool person Onyx. We won't agree to a paradigm of reality based on your definitions, okay?

What? Reality is not dictated by definitions, nor does that have the slightest fucking thing to do with what I just said.

You peddle Lysander Spooner, but are not an anarchist. How do you justify the existence of the state, if you do not view the state as being the legitimate arbitrator of a social contract?

That makes your positions seemingly in conflict with each other. Could you explain yourself?

Sorry, I don't believe in violence, nor am I an ideologue.

Naturally my positions are going to seem in conflict, because I believe in the old American values of pragmatism, conflict negotiation, compromise, realpoltik and incrementalism to change the system over time. I have no grand ambition or illusions about what can be the end result. Just a vision of freedom.

I'd like non-violence and voluntary association to be American values, sadly, they are not.


I have no grand ambition or illusions about what can be the end result. Utopia is a fools dream. However, I don't think a world with love, community, family and peace isn't too much to be hoped for.

The Russians, Arabs, Israelis, Chinese, Europeans, and Americans all want the same thing for their families. With enough openness, and an agreement to not use violence, maybe we can get there.