Damn you guerilla, damn you

[scottspfd82]

I definitely owe a lot of thanks to Guerilla, Jake Strathom, PfGannon and a bunch of guys I'm forgetting for introducing me to new ways of thinking. I used to think Government was a necessary evil. Now I just see it as really, really evil and completely unnecessary.

For example: Guerilla, when you said Minarchists are more dangerous than Socialists I disagreed at the time. And then I thought it through. And you're right (again). Socialists are oblivious, Minarchists should know better than to consider any State as a way to improve things, no matter how small it's a dangerous and immoral belief.

So yeah, damn you.

 

[GoldMarketing]

Damn. I expected a line like: "Now instead of wasting part of my day arguing with flaming libtards on the internet, I have became 5x productive". But no...

 

[guerilla]

Well, this didn't last long did it.

 

[productionhead]

 

[JakeStratham]

Well, this didn't last long did it.

Reminds me of this passage from Matthew:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

Of course, I'm half-convinced SUP3RNOVA starts polarizing threads just to see his name up in lights. There are several reasons I won't engage him, but that is one of them.

 

[johnmatrix]

Of course, I'm half-convinced SUP3RNOVA starts polarizing threads just to see his name up in lights. There are several reasons I won't engage him, but that is one of them.

Yeah guerilla never uses his sig to sell things.

 

[guerilla]

Yeah guerilla never uses his sig to sell things.

lol.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Of course, I'm half-convinced SUP3RNOVA starts polarizing threads just to see his name up in lights. There are several reasons I won't engage him, but that is one of them.

lol posting in a Wickedfire thread is "putting my name up in lights" lol

I polarize my viewpoints a lot in general. I'm receptive to criticism on my world views and will change them based on what I'm learning.

At the time, I had engulfed myself in anarchist literature and videos and was definitely agreeing with most of the moral philosophies they had. But the cliche argument of "it just wouldn't work in practice" is really true, I believe. The human race is nowhere near ready to cooperate with an anarchist society at large scales. There are simply too many complexities to have no centralization and too many stupid people to have cooperation. I absolutely would not give humans the benefit of the doubt in this scenario and I don't think we'll see an evolution to anarchist living until the human species itself evolves (which could take thousands/millions of years).

Aside from there being literally no examples of large, fully functional and prosperous anarchist societies, the concept itself is a pipe dream. All of the moral philosophy in the world couldn't make it work.

 

[scottspfd82]

lol posting in a Wickedfire thread is "putting my name up in lights" lol

I polarize my viewpoints a lot in general. I'm receptive to criticism on my world views and will change them based on what I'm learning.

At the time, I had engulfed myself in anarchist literature and videos and was definitely agreeing with most of the moral philosophies they had. But the cliche argument of "it just wouldn't work in practice" is really true, I believe. The human race is nowhere near ready to cooperate with an anarchist society at large scales. There are simply too many complexities to have no centralization and too many stupid people to have cooperation. I absolutely would not give humans the benefit of the doubt in this scenario and I don't think we'll see an evolution to anarchist living until the human species itself evolves (which could take thousands/millions of years).

Aside from there being literally no examples of large, fully functional and prosperous anarchist societies, the concept itself is a pipe dream. All of the moral philosophy in the world couldn't make it work.

Have you ever thought that anarchy (freedom) exists despite the Government, not because of it? I can walk to the store right now and buy a loaf of bread. Does the State make this easier or more difficult for me? Now ask that question about everything you do.

You live in a large and prosperous anarchists society. The State exists to restrict the freedom that gives you, to steal from you and on virtually every level, make it much less prosperous than it would be without the existence of the State.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Have you ever thought that anarchy (freedom) exists despite the Government, not because of it? I can walk to the store right now and buy a loaf of bread. Does the State make this easier or more difficult for me? Now ask that question about everything you do.

You live in a large and prosperous anarchists society. The State exists to restrict the freedom that gives you, to steal from you and on virtually every level, make it much less prosperous than it would be without the existence of the State.

Ya you just sound like an anarchist lackey spouting the same rhetoric as the rest of the lackeys that try so hard to be intellectual. Anarchy is freedom the State is evil rawrrrrrrr.

You're comparing running an insanely complex society with 100+ million people to buying a loaf of bread. That's ridiculous.

The state builds roads for me to drive on, the state delivers my mail and protects it, the state provides a national defense for me, the state keeps the sanitation in my city controllable, the state polices bad guys for me domestically, the state provides a system in which other people have the opportunity from birth to contribute to society and give me their monies. The list goes on and on.

Could private companies handle each individual service for me? The answer is arguably not (security/police/laws/courts), but even assuming the answer is yes, I prefer to have everything under 1 tax bill, and in a single federal system (although I probably would prefer if there were only state governments). And the majority of blue collar America (and world) without a doubt prefers the state handling all of the shit they don't think about. People do not want anarchy, even if anarchy explodes and we have 10 million open anarchists, there will be 6 billion people stacked against them that prefer government. That will never, ever change without humans evolving into some sort of emotionless supercreature.

 

[Benji49]

If you guys vote for me, I promise I will pay you off with some of this "anarchy" stuff that you guys are so keen on.

 

[scottspfd82]

Ya you just sound like an anarchist lackey spouting the same rhetoric as the rest of the lackeys that try so hard to be intellectual. Anarchy is freedom the State is evil rawrrrrrrr.

You're comparing running an insanely complex society with 100+ million people to buying a loaf of bread. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, was trying to keep it simple for you.

The state builds roads for me to drive on, the state delivers my mail and protects it, the state provides a national defense for me, the state keeps the sanitation in my city controllable, the state polices bad guys for me domestically, the state provides a system in which other people have the opportunity from birth to contribute to society and give me their monies. The list goes on and on.

Everything you listed can (and is) done more efficiently by the private sector.

FedEx and UPS are profitable. USPS is not.

Individuals build roads all the time.

The police protect you? When have they? Why do we have the largest prison population per capita on the planet?

Who are the bad guys? Certainly not the people who murder thousands of innocent children each year?

Their "monies" won't be worth shit in the very near future because the State is robbing you blind.

The state murders everyday. The states only source of revenue is theft.

You either support murder and theft or you don't. It's black and white.

 

[johnmatrix]

Individuals build roads all the time.

Any examples of a country where all roads are privately owned? I have to have an 'e-tag' stuck on my windscreen that records every time I drive on a private 'Citylink' road, it's about $6 each way. Imagine that system on every road in Australia, what a fucking nightmare.

FedEx and UPS are profitable. USPS is not.

Australia Post is government owned and is profitable.

 

[scottspfd82]

Any examples of a country where all roads are privately owned? I have to have an 'e-tag' stuck on my windscreen that records every time I drive on a private 'Citylink' road, it's about $6 each way. Imagine that system on every road in Australia, what a fucking nightmare.

No.

Ever wonder why the Government takes control over roads, infrastructure, education, healthcare, defense, currency and everything essential to quality of life?

So they can legitimize their existence.

"Without Government we wouldn't have roads, or education... etc..."

Bullshit.

It's creating an illusion of dependence.

Australia Post is government owned and is profitable.

We have an awesome highway system in the States. If they fucked everything up people may start realizing that we don't need them.

And just for the record, I see where you guys are coming from. Seriously, many of my best friends just voted for Obama or Romney. I'm encouraging healthy discussion/debate here, we can all learn from it.

Just because I see politics differently doesn't mean I judge anyone as an individual because of their beliefs.

I do wish that people would put more thought into my last point though, or at least bring it up for debate.

"You either support murder and theft or you don't. It's black and white."


That's really what it boils down to for me.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

And just for the record, I see where you guys are coming from.

I do wish that people would put more thought into my last point though, or at least bring it up for debate.

"You either support murder and theft or you don't. It's black and white."


That's really what it boils down to for me.

Your points aren't points, it's rhetoric. The State is a beast, the State is evil, the State creates dependence. This is all garble, the "State" is a collection of men voted into office by other men, and the goal of a state is to create a safe and regulated society, not to steal and murder.

Saying anybody who thinks a government helps keep society safer and more fluid supports murder and theft is ludicrous. I don't support theft and murder. It's not "black and white", that's more rhetoric.

I agree with most moral philosophies anarchists have, and think it's fine if they want to go live in a secluded and self-sustaining mini-society. But I like living in large societies like most other people, and nearly all of these people agree that governments help regulate things they don't care to worry or think about. It's human nature, not "delusion and illusion" (more rhetoric).

 

[guerilla]

But the cliche argument of "it just wouldn't work in practice" is really true, I believe. The human race is nowhere near ready to cooperate with an anarchist society at large scales.

But here is what I told you numerous times on Skype. The attempt to qualify anarchism because it is "workable" requires you to have perfect knowledge of the future.

Anarchism is a moral position. If you believe aggression against the innocent is absolutely wrong, you have no choice but to be an anarchist.

If you think it is sometimes ok to aggress against the innocent, then you won't be.

If you're not an anarchist, I think it is safe to assume you believe it is not wrong to hurt innocent people.

You're comparing running an insanely complex society with 100+ million people to buying a loaf of bread. That's ridiculous.

And you're arguing that the same insanely complex system is capable of sane organization through government.

This is also why I advised you to learn economics. If you understood concepts like emergence and spontaneous order in nature, you wouldn't say silly things like this.

Any examples of a country where all roads are privately owned?

Sort of like asking if there are any virgins in a bordello isn't it?

Australia Post is government owned and is profitable.

It's sort of like saying a bank robber is profitable.

It's a monopoly. It has no competition. Without competition, we have no idea if they are efficient, or if its rates and services are the best offering.

 

[guerilla]

Your points aren't points, it's rhetoric. The State is a beast, the State is evil, the State creates dependence. This is all garble, the "State" is a collection of men voted into office by other men, and the goal of a state is to create a safe and regulated society, not to steal and murder.

Actually, the argument is that aggression is wrong. The state is just the largest body of institutional aggression in society.

The reason why the state gets brought up, is because people understand private violence is wrong, but they create a moral exception for public sector violence.

Aggression is wrong whether you or I do it, or a policeman or tax agent does it. A uniform, an election, a title or a license cannot sanction aggression because no one has the right to commit aggression that they may sanction an agent to do it on their behalf.

In other words, if you can't rob me, you can't elect a politician to rob me. You don't have that power to confer on them. And if you can't give them that authority, from where does their authority derive?

When you make exceptions for certain kinds of behavior, you undermine the nature of ethics. And when you lack consistent ethics, you're a potential danger to peaceful society.

I think you're right about one thing. Humanity is not ready. But you're proving that by example. You're belief that government was created for good is a delusion, and totally unsupported by any facts.

As someone who claims to be open to reason and evidence, this is a tremendous blindspot in your thinking.

It's human nature, not "delusion and illusion" (more rhetoric).

If you don't believe it is delusion, then prove the state. You don't believe in God, right? No evidence, right? Where is your evidence for the state?

Tell me what the state is. Not what it does, not what you think it is about, but what is the state. Define it.

If you can provide solid reason and evidence, particularly in this public format, then who can resist your argument?

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Anarchism is a moral position. If you believe aggression against the innocent is absolutely wrong, you have no choice but to be an anarchist.

Anarchism is not simply a moral position, it's a way of running a society. "Without rulers" is not just a moral position, it's an action.

If you're not an anarchist, I think it is safe to assume you believe it is not wrong to hurt innocent people.

Ya, that's completely wrong. Being sent to jail for not paying taxes is not violence against innocent people; you're guilty of not paying taxes to the society you live in. If you don't like that, you are free to leave and start your own society in a land free of government jurisdiction.

And you're arguing that the same insanely complex system is capable of sane organization through government.

Capable? How about evident. While there are problems in any government, at large these governments function fluidly and allow their citizens a free chance to make their way in this life and society they live in.

 

[guerilla]

Anarchism is not simply a moral position, it's a way of running a society.

No, it isn't a "way of running society". You don't realize how much you sound like a communist apparatchik when you say stuff like that.

Society doesn't need management and the only people you could get to manage it, are the same idiots who supposedly need to be managed. Completely illogical.

"Without rulers" is not just a moral position, it's an action.

It's not an action.

Without rulers is essentially without aggression.

Look, you tell me how we can have a government without aggression, and I will sign up. If not, you're endorsing aggression, and that means you're not a moral actor.

Being sent to jail for not paying taxes is not violence against innocent people; you're guilty of not paying taxes to the society you live in.

That's the same as saying, you're being beaten because you didn't allow a mugging. You're guilty of not allowing a mugging where muggers operate.

If you don't like that, you are free to leave and start your own society in a land free of government jurisdiction.

How does government acquire jurisdiction? Can you prove jurisdiction?

How about evident. While there are problems in any government, at large these governments function fluidly and allow their citizens a free chance to make their way in this life and society they live in.

You haven't proven this, only asserted it. If it is evident, prove it.

If not, you're no different than a Christian who says that God created society and man and that's why you have freedom and fluidity.

Prove something Paul.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

In other words, if you can't rob me, you can't elect a politician to rob me. You don't have that power to confer on them. And if you can't give them that authority, from where does their authority derive?

Again, the theft we're talking about is in different contexts. If I'm personally going to rob you, chances are I'm either going to physically assault you until you give me money for nothing, or sneak around and steal it without you knowing. A government collecting taxes is entirely different. You know the bill is there, they're unbelievably lenient on the time you take to pay it off, and it's a payment to the society that provides services for you and those around you. It's not theft. You can leave if you don't think your tax dollars are worth the life you're getting in return.

You're belief that government was created for good is a delusion, and totally unsupported by any facts.

I'm going to assume you've done any reading on the founding fathers that set up the US government (or maybe other countries, I'm most familiar with the US). Can you explain how they intentionally set up this government to perform evil and not good? It was my belief that they set up the government for good reasons.

If you don't believe it is delusion, then prove the state. You don't believe in God, right? No evidence, right? Where is your evidence for the state?

Tell me what the state is. Not what it does, not what you think it is about, but what is the state. Define it.

If you can provide solid reason and evidence, particularly in this public format, then who can resist your argument?

The "state" is a governed body of land controlled by elected officials who write laws and regulations with other elected officials. I'm not sure what you mean by evidence of it existing. You live in one, I live in one, we both pay into it and lead prosperous lives.