PDA

View Full Version : I can has freedom to assemble now?



Pages : [1] 2

Steve
15th June 09, 08:48 PM
Well, this isn't too happy...

Iranian protester killed after opposition rally


TEHRAN, Iran In a massive outpouring reminiscent of the Islamic Revolution three decades ago, hundreds of thousands of Iranians streamed through the capital Monday, and the fist-waving protesters denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim to victory in a disputed election.

Standing on a roof, gunmen opened fire on a group of protesters who had tried to storm a pro-government militia's compound. One man was killed and several others were wounded in the worst violence since the disputed election Friday.

Angry men showed their bloody palms after cradling the dead and wounded who had been part of a crowd that stretched more than five miles (nearly 10 kilometers) supporting reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The huge rally and smaller protests around the country reinforced what has become increasingly clear since the election: the opposition forces rallying behind Mousavi show no signs of backing down. Their resolve appears to have pushed Iran's Islamic establishment into attempts to cool the tensions after days of unrest.

In his first public comment on the Iranian election, President Barack Obama said he was "deeply troubled by the violence I've been seeing on TV."

Although he said he had no way of knowing whether the election was valid, Obama praised protesters and Iranian youth who questioned the results.

"The world is watching and is inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was," he said.

Police and other security forces stood by quietly some sitting on stoops with their batons and shields resting behind them as the marchers swallowed the streets in parts of Tehran. Estimates put the turnout at hundreds of thousands overflowing the square, where crowds of 200,000 have filled the plaza in the past.

Mousavi made his first public appearance since the polls closed, and he launched his claims that the vote was rigged to re-elect the hard-line president.

Brief clips of the march were shown on state television in an extremely rare nod to anti-government protests.

"Respect the people's vote!" Mousavi cried through a hand-held loudspeaker in Azadi, or Freedom, Square where Iran's leaders hold military and political gatherings.

It appeared that Iran's ruling clerics had opened the door for the demonstration even giving it news coverage in a possible bid to avoid more street clashes and seek some breathing room in the growing confrontation.

But a single moment could change all that. Gunfire erupted from a compound used by the Basij, a volunteer militia linked to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard. An Associated Press photographer saw at least one demonstrator killed and several others with what appeared to be serious wounds. The protesters had tried to storm and set fire to the compound on the edge of Azadi Square.

Some reports put the death toll higher, but they could not be confirmed.

The dead man, wearing a white shirt and khaki pants, lay sprawled on the sidewalk with blood from a head wound spilling onto the pavement. Nearby, protesters carried another gunshot victim, a makeshift tourniquet around his thigh, onto the back of a yellow taxi.

It was first known death in Tehran since postelection clashes erupted and could be a further rallying point in a culture that venerates martyrs and often marks their death with memorials. One of Mousavi's Web sites said a student protester was killed early Monday in clashes with plainclothes hard-liners in Shiraz in southern Iran. But there was no independent confirmation of the report.

Britain and Germany joined the calls of alarm over the rising confrontations in Iran. In Paris, the Foreign Ministry summoned the Iranian ambassador to discuss the allegations of vote-tampering and the violence.

Protests also spread across the country. Witnesses told the AP that pro-Mousavi demonstrators clashed with police in the historic city of Esfahan and the northeastern city of Mashhad, a conservative bastion with one of Iran's most holy Shiite shrines.

Police in Shiraz fired in the air to disperse several pro-Mousavi gatherings. Fars Province Police Gen. Ali Moayeri said officers had been "authorized to shoot. From now on we will respond harshly."

In the heavily Arab city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border, a crowd of about 2,000 people chanted: "We don't want a dictator!" Police attacked some with batons.

Mousavi said another rally was planned for Tuesday in north Tehran, the hub of his youth-driven campaign and now a nerve center for his opposition movement.

This is the type of spreading unrest most feared by Iran's non-elected ruling clerics, who control all important decisions but are rarely drawn directly into political disputes. A long and bitter movement against Ahmadinejad could push the dissent past the presidency and target the theocracy itself.

It also has the potential to embolden some members of the ruling inner circle, such as the powerful former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who strongly opposed Ahmadinejad in the campaign.

"That sets you up for a tremendous split," said Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It could be tremendously destabilizing because if the office of (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is damaged, then the whole shape of leadership ... moves into flux."

There's widespread belief that Khamenei the successor of the Islamic Revolution patriarch Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini will do what it takes to keep the system intact.

He welcomed Ahmadinejad's victory on Saturday. By Monday, however, he directed one of Iran's most influential bodies, the Guardian Council, to examine claims of election fraud. The move had no guarantee it would satisfy those challenging Ahmadinejad's re-election or quell their anger after the weekend unrest.

The 12-member Guardian Council, made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law and closely allied to Khamenei, must certify ballot results and has the apparent authority to nullify an election. It would be an unprecedented step. Claims of voting irregularities went to the council after Ahmadinejad's upset victory in 2005, but there was no official word on the outcome of the inquiry, and the vote stood.

More likely, the intervention by Khamenei sought to lower the tensions and give some time for possible further talks with Mousavi, who was prime minister in the 1980s.

At the rally, Mousavi had strong words for those standing in his way for his demands to cancel elections, including the ruling clerics.

"I am ready to pay any price to carry the ideals of you, dear people," said Mousavi, who wore a gray striped shirt.

"We must regain our trampled rights and stop this lie and stand up to fraud and this astonishing charade," he said, looking out over the huge crowd and raising his arms in salute. "Otherwise, nothing will remain of people's trust in the government and the ruling system."

He also said he has little hope that the Guardian Council will annul the vote. The crowd roared back: "Long live Mousavi."

"This is not election. This is selection," read one English-language placard at the demonstration. Other marchers held signs proclaiming "We want our vote back!" and made a V-for-victory salute.

Although any rallies were outlawed earlier, security forces were not ordered to move against the protesters, many waving the green banners and ribbons the symbolic color of Mousavi's movement.

Authorities have blocked pro-Mousavi Web sites and text messaging, but word of the rally was passed by e-mails, phone calls and word of mouth.

At nightfall, Ahmadinejad opponents again shouted their denunciations from Tehran's rooftops. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar!" "God is great!" echoed across the capital for a second night.

It's a deeply symbolic tactic that Mousavi borrowed from the Islamic Revolution and the idea that people power can challenge any system. The rooftop cries were how Khomeini asked Iran to show its unity against the Western-backed shah 30 years earlier.

Tehran police and hard-line militia stormed the campus at the city's biggest university early Monday, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students angry over what they say was mass election fraud.

Protesters also gathered outside Iranian diplomatic offices in London, Ankara and other cities. In Dubai, home to about 200,000 Iranians, 150 demonstrators stood outside the consulate in the withering Gulf summer heat and chanted: "Where is my vote?"

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

Link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election)

I will find it very hard to swallow if it pans out that there wasn't some funny business going on after the votes were all in. This has been all over the news for awhile, new dictatorship in the making? Cast your vote, nay or yea.

No poll, as of yet.

elipson
15th June 09, 08:55 PM
THANK GOD Obama is saying the right shit.

The worst thing he could do is be all "The election was rigged and democracy must be respected!"

Why you ask? Because everyone is tired of the US interfering in other peoples politics.

I was really worried he would pull a Dubya and start openly cheering for one side or the other (re: Chavez).

This is really interesting because the Mullahs are getting involved, and they are not automatically supporting one side or the other.

Sun Wukong
15th June 09, 08:58 PM
is there a term limit in Iran?

WarPhalange
15th June 09, 09:00 PM
Doesn't matter if the votes were tampered with or not. Getting away from Ahmadinejad's policies benefits everyone, in the end. That the people don't want that shit anymore is reason enough for protests like that. That's what revolutions are, after all. You step outside of any government system or laws, and fight for what the people want. No laws are set in stone. That's what pisses me off about Constitutionalists so much. Yeah, it's the framework of our government. So what? Frameworks need fixin' too sometimes.

TheLordHumungus
15th June 09, 10:10 PM
Just curious. How much does the president actually control. I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the Mullahs ran the show in Iran.

Either way its sad to see one more example of state sponsored bullies silencing the voice of the people. Same old shit, different countries.

Ajamil
16th June 09, 12:06 AM
I was trying to watch this closer than I have been, but while I'm really not happy with the result it's hard to say whether I think it was rigged. I wouldn't be surprised if it was (he got something like 60% of the vote, compare that to the reactions that are happening), but Iran's maybe not quite done with his insanity.

I agree it's just nice to see that the opposition is finding a voice and an arm.

Steve
16th June 09, 02:35 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

Ouch. Well, there goes Iran. One way or the other, tarnished politically forever.

jkdbuck76
16th June 09, 07:02 AM
Question: why do they even have a president in Iran? Doesn't the Grand Ayatollah run the show?

Anyone know how it works in Iran?

Shawarma
16th June 09, 07:16 AM
Stop acting like Uncle Ammy's insane. He isn't. He's just a snide little queer getting in low blows against the US and Israel by trolling them constantly. Because of this, he is not really to be taken seriously. No balls for direct conflict.

This also does not neccesarily mean that you want to get rid of Ammy. Sure, he talks good game, but does he have the stones to DO anything? I doubt it.

And it was a pretty blatant fix, as I understand it. According to the "official" vote count, Ammy took his opponents home town by 70% or something like that, having been soundly trashed in a regional election there shortly before. Even more suspiciously, a third candidate didn't even get 1% of the vote. Even Ron Paul doesn't produce fail at that level.

Props to the Persians - When this happened to the Americans, they just scratched their asses and went back to watching Friends reruns.

Shawarma
16th June 09, 07:18 AM
Question: why do they even have a president in Iran? Doesn't the Grand Ayatollah run the show?

Anyone know how it works in Iran?
I believe that the president runs the show, but the clergy can come in and go "ah ah!" whenever he does anything they disagree with. The clergy don't want to concern themselves with day-to-day running of shit. That takes some talent and intelligence, a quality rare in fundamentalists.

Ajamil
16th June 09, 09:13 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090615/capt.1362de782e074a5e99a84df12da5f4fe.aptopix_mide ast_iran_election_abc119.jpg?x=213&y=324&xc=1&yc=1&wc=269&hc=409&q=85&sig=FzHyqmFDToQkU5bNMrlJYw--

Hold the phone - what is that structure? It's pretty cool.

Lebell
16th June 09, 09:23 AM
Iran is a bit like a concealed theocracy.

The government can come up with nice little plans but if the council of old people aka ayatollahs say no it wont fly.

as far as i know this shit has been going on for decades.
young people wanting more personal freedom and another chunk of the population being islamic conservatives is affraid for changes.

if i have understood correctly when some persian friends of mine explained its a bit like this: you can somewhat talk shit about the government but you will never ever talk shit about the ayattolah, thats a bit...unhealthy.

WarPhalange
16th June 09, 12:01 PM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090615/capt.1362de782e074a5e99a84df12da5f4fe.aptopix_mide ast_iran_election_abc119.jpg?x=213&y=324&xc=1&yc=1&wc=269&hc=409&q=85&sig=FzHyqmFDToQkU5bNMrlJYw--

Hold the phone - what is that structure? It's pretty cool.

I believe it's called the "Crotch of Muhammed".

TheLordHumungus
16th June 09, 12:25 PM
Props to the Persians - When this happened to the Americans, they just scratched their asses and went back to watching Friends reruns.

Because nobody in America protested after our fixed elections? I remember it differently.

Shawarma
16th June 09, 01:07 PM
Oh yeah, they waved those signs FURIOUSLY and blogged with great venom about how the election was stolen! Surely, the usurper GWB was quaking in his boots.

And the structure is a famous mosque in Tehran. I forget the name, though.

WarPhalange
16th June 09, 01:07 PM
Not like the Persians are doing, no.

Shawarma
16th June 09, 01:08 PM
I'm wrong, not a mosque, a tower: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadi_Tower

elipson
16th June 09, 04:24 PM
Time Magazine has a good (and short) write up about the situation in Iran.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904989,00.html



We're told that a young and restless Facebook generation has arisen in Iran, text-messaging and Twittering away at the fabric of a conservative clerical rule that it is no longer willing to accept. Ranged against it are the dogged defenders of a decrepit regime that has outlived its purpose, surviving only through brute force and its ability to convince the unsophisticated, mostly rural poor folk in their ragged suits and black chadors that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is their champion against corrupt politicians and the treacherous intellectuals and amoral rich kids who support them.

Obviously these are stereotypes — and highly misleading ones at that. The schism in Iran is not reducible to social class, ethnicity, region or generation. A simple glance at the crowds over the past week reveals women in black chadors on both sides of the divide, and women in makeup too. Many kids whose parents were poor have themselves managed to get university degrees as a result of the revolution's largesse — Ahmadinejad may be a populist, and he may emphasize his humble origins, but he's proud of his Ph.D. (His supporters call him "the Doctor.") And many children of rural poverty who are now educated and living in the cities, though still of limited means, don't necessarily share the outlook of their parents. Absent a proper tabulation of the actual vote on June 12, we'll never know the exact distribution of political support to each candidate across the regions, social classes and age groups. But even in the rallies in support of the candidates before and after the election, it's plain that the country can't be neatly divided along the lines of those categories. (See five reasons to suspect Iran's election results.)

Ahmadinejad clearly has a political base. He may have won votes from as many as 10 million people motivated by alienation from the political establishment and a belief that they have been cut out of the spoils of the Islamic revolution. The President has assiduously courted these constituencies by recklessly throwing money at them through unvetted infrastructure projects and social spending. Some government employees have doubled their income on Ahmadinejad's watch. And, of course, many Iranians are so resentful that they've enjoyed Ahmadinejad's naming and shaming of members of the political establishment he accuses of corruption. Many feel that most of the leaders of the Islamic Republic have betrayed the revolution that propelled them to power and made it harder for its foot soldiers to get ahead. In opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's supporters see the epitome of the parasitic political class the President has railed against. (See pictures of Iran's presidential elections and their turbulent aftermath.)

But Mousavi's support ranges from the urban middle class, students and the intellectuals who previously brought the reform movement to power to many people of humble backgrounds, for whom Ahmadinejad's triumphalist economic claims simply don't ring true. They know the economy has gotten worse on his watch because they have been the most vulnerable to its downturn. Ahmadinejad may go on TV and cite statistics to prove that things are getting better, but they're the ones who are unable to marry because they can never afford to get their own homes. So there's no easy demographic breakdown between the two sides.

What's often forgotten amid the genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle of hundreds of thousands of long-suppressed people risking their lives on the streets to demand change is the fact that the political contest playing out in the election is, in fact, among rival factions of the same regime. Ahmadinejad represents a conservative element, backed by the Supreme Leader, that believes the established political class has hijacked the revolution and enriched themselves and is fearful that the faction's more pragmatic inclination toward engagement with the West could lead to a normalization of relations that will "pollute" Iran's culture and weaken the regime. Mousavi is not really a reformer so much as a pragmatic, moderate conservative who has campaigned with the backing of the reform movement because it recognizes that he has a better chance of unseating Ahmadinejad than one of their own would have. (The reformists' own economic performance, during their eight years in power from 1997 to 2005, unfortunately also left much to be desired, and was a key reason for Ahmadinejad's election to the presidency.)

bobyclumsyninja
16th June 09, 04:39 PM
Iran is a bit like a concealed theocracy.

The government can come up with nice little plans but if the council of old people aka ayatollahs say no it wont fly.

as far as i know this shit has been going on for decades.
young people wanting more personal freedom and another chunk of the population being islamic conservatives is affraid for changes.

if i have understood correctly when some persian friends of mine explained its a bit like this: you can somewhat talk shit about the government but you will never ever talk shit about the ayattolah, thats a bit...unhealthy.


ZOMG Lebell just said something relevant, concise, and....it must be the natty ice (not drinking SamAdams banplz, mentioned ban rep plz, banned Sam, Adams plz, mentioned drunk, toast plz, mentioned plz, plz plz, mentioned z, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Phrost
16th June 09, 06:03 PM
This election meant nothing. If anything, it's better Dinnerjacket "won" so we didn't get any softer on these nutjobs.

You forget, his "moderate, reformist" opponent was the guy who started Iran's nuclear weapons program in the 80's.

And both assholes were appointed to run by the theocracy anyway.

WarPhalange
16th June 09, 06:13 PM
I know, what idiots. It's not like everybody else has nukes, amirite?

Funny thing is, Phrost, you'd be sucking that guy's dick if he started our nuclear program or something like that. You have absolutely no objective views on the matters that go on over there. Calling them crazy nutjobs, for one. Millions of people can be categorized into two words? Wow...

TheLordHumungus
16th June 09, 11:19 PM
Surely, the usurper GWB was quaking in his boots.

As long as their police and military are still loyal and the protests haven't evolved into armed insurrection, I doubt protests cause the powerful in any country to 'quake in their boots'.

Ajamil
16th June 09, 11:57 PM
I believe it's called the "Crotch of Muhammed".
Really?

6678

That's pretty cool.

WarPhalange
17th June 09, 02:08 AM
Sorry, need to spread rep around before I can give it to you again. Other people will have to do it for me.

TheLordHumungus
17th June 09, 02:28 AM
Already on it for my midstate comrade.

Lebell
17th June 09, 05:11 AM
And both assholes were appointed to run by the theocracy anyway.

Exactly.

THey are the true power behind the curtains.

Heal the world, shoot an ayatollah! ;-)

attn fundi's, just jk no fatwa plz.

TheLordHumungus
17th June 09, 11:47 AM
THey are the true power behind the curtains.

Like corporate interests are in the west?

Ajamil
17th June 09, 11:55 AM
It more open to the public here. ANYone can try to bri...err, contribute to a politician's campaign to get them elected.

TheLordHumungus
17th June 09, 11:57 AM
Only if you're rich enough to make a substantial 'contribution'. Hell, then you get to be "too big to fail".

Fearless Ukemi
17th June 09, 12:27 PM
^ He's got a point. Our god is money.

TheLordHumungus
18th June 09, 01:22 AM
Mammon FTW?

Gbemi
18th June 09, 09:30 AM
The difference between the American fixed elections, and the Iranian one is that, had it not happened in Iran, the result would still be the same.

Google news that shyt. In seperate independant polls, Moussavi was loosing even in his home town. I wouldn't elect someone I didn't like for President just because he or she was from Brooklyn, so why should the Persians?

I think its cool that they are protesting (the peaceful ones at least) because even if Ahmadinejad would have won anyway, you can't have vote fixing in a democracy. that has to be cleared up, and any guilty person's should be penalized.

But the American media has demonstrated too severe a bias here. Watching t.v., you get teh impression that Moussavi might have won if the playing field were equal. Its just not true. Maybe Moussavi getting more votes could signify a shift in the direction Iran as a people want to go, but they aren't there yet. And with good reason.

Think about it how many Americans (myself included) would have known squat about Iran if Ammy didn't assert himself as a global figure? He's not even the power, yet he has put himself at the fore. We tell him, "stop your nuc. program" he says, "no". We say, "stop talking crazy about Isreal/holocaust/romo". He stands up and keeps talking his crazy. His people apparently love him.

The American people and media should stop compensating for our own *relative* inertia during our elections by being overly opinionated in other people's shit.

Ajamil
18th June 09, 09:49 AM
If I was able, I'd break into the US Mints and change the wording from "In God We Trust" to "This God We Trust." It'd be funny and accurate.

Edit: Oops, derail over.


The American people and media should stop compensating for our own *relative* inertia during our elections by being overly opinionated in other people's shit.
What was the reported percentage of eligible voters that participated? I think our lowest was 20% or some shit like that, but it's been rising.

elipson
18th June 09, 01:41 PM
Their estimates are 80-85% of eligible voters participated.

I'd like to know where you "independant" polls were. Exit polls weren't really allowed in this election. I've heard a few sources say moussasi was trailing for the past few months, abut that he was picking up steam heading into the election. No polls or sources, however, believed Ammy would win with the two thirds majority that he did.

The American media sensationalizes everything. Deal with it. Let me know when they get their info factually incorrect.

elipson
28th December 09, 09:22 PM
It would appear they Iranians still have some fight in them yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/28/iran.protests.streets/index.html

LuDEFiMk3hM

I'm amazed these cops didn't try to shoot their way out of this crowd.

And here I thought the movie was over sometime ago! I love watching other countries figure their shit out.

EuropIan
28th December 09, 09:28 PM
The Iranians are stupid because they don't restrict access to the internet.

At least the Chinese made a noble effort in thought control.

This is why the Middle East sucks, lazy despots.

elipson
28th December 09, 09:34 PM
I'm really starting to think the Mullahs don't have the balls to be oppressive enough to stay in power. Oppression is an all or nothing game; doing it half-assed is just going to piss everyone off.

Keith
28th December 09, 09:55 PM
Protests are one thing, you'll know there's serious possibility of the current Iranian government being overthrown when the protesters start getting violent in meaningful ways. There's a lot of truth in Obama's unintentionally ironic Peace Prize acceptance speach when he said "Peacefull protest would not have stopped Hitler's armies." Those in power in Iran are not going to give it up untill someone takes it from them.

Cullion
28th December 09, 09:56 PM
I'm really starting to think the Mullahs don't have the balls to be oppressive enough to stay in power. Oppression is an all or nothing game; doing it half-assed is just going to piss everyone off.

What makes you think that?

EuropIan
28th December 09, 10:00 PM
they allow access to the internet and do half hearted attempts by only shutting down cellular towers.

Cullion
28th December 09, 10:02 PM
No, I mean why does he think that the only form of oppression which works are forcible and blatant efforts to completely shut down contact with the outside world?

The American system works much better and doesn't require that.

EuropIan
28th December 09, 10:05 PM
Yes, but the mullahs have made their bed of "No porn and no booze" which demands a much higher standard of iron fistery than sedating your masses with daytime tv and pr0n

elipson
28th December 09, 11:21 PM
The mullahs haven't started slaughtering public gatherings yet. And as far as arresting and disappearing people, they are still lagging behind the South American dictatorships in their hayday. Saddam did a much better job of oppressing his people, even after getting smashed in 91.


No, I mean why does he think that the only form of oppression which works are forcible and blatant efforts to completely shut down contact with the outside world?

I wasn't so much thinking of shutting down contact with the outside world as I was thinking of destroying opposition protests and making the people afraid to stand up for themselves.

They let a bunch of unarmed protesters corner and humiliate a group of riot cops. If they were serious about their oppression they would have shot anyone within eyesight of that event. They aren't being strict enough to really stay in power and they are going to either fail or have to make huge concessions which will effectively nueter them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cheering for the protesters, I'm just making observations from a machiavellian pov. They are half-assing it. I really think the Mullahs are having an identity crisis.

TheLordHumungus
30th December 09, 11:01 PM
No, I mean why does he think that the only form of oppression which works are forcible and blatant efforts to completely shut down contact with the outside world?

The American system works much better and doesn't require that.

In fact, footage of cops savaging protesters probably works in the favor of the govt. Many ppl would never think of joining a peaceful protest, and look at you like you're insane if they find out you do. Most everybody is well aware that the price of dissent is a government sponsored ass kicking here in the states. Except for your most pathetic authority worshippers, that is.

elipson
31st December 09, 02:28 AM
No. You just hang out with dumbass anarchists who think the only way to be a hero is to pick a fight with cops.

SFGOON
31st December 09, 02:29 AM
Some of those Iranian videos are both disturbing and inspiring. I watched a mob of Iranians attack AK-47 weilding paramilitaries with rocks. They did so under direct, effective fires. The paras fled and the mobs freed some men who were being hanged. Maybe six protesters died and dozens were wounded to free these two people.

All the while screaming "Allakhu Akhubar!" Love those Aryans.

Of course, such courage and temerity can't compare with TLH's epic internet bitching. These fake "revolutionaries" could learn a thing or two from you, dude!

SFGOON
31st December 09, 02:30 AM
Oh, and that goes for any of you faggot "teabaggers" too.

TheLordHumungus
1st January 10, 11:55 PM
Except for your most pathetic authority worshippers, that is.


No. You just hang out with dumbass anarchists who think the only way to be a hero is to pick a fight with cops.

Right on cue. You're exactly who came to mind when I made that comment. I didn't realize it would summon you immediately. Truly impressive.

TheLordHumungus
1st January 10, 11:59 PM
Some of those Iranian videos are both disturbing and inspiring. I watched a mob of Iranians attack AK-47 weilding paramilitaries with rocks. They did so under direct, effective fires. The paras fled and the mobs freed some men who were being hanged. Maybe six protesters died and dozens were wounded to free these two people.

All the while screaming "Allakhu Akhubar!" Love those Aryans.

Of course, such courage and temerity can't compare with TLH's epic internet bitching. These fake "revolutionaries" could learn a thing or two from you, dude!

Everybody could learn a thing or two from me. But as far as those dudes go, they have unimaginable cohones. I've only had an assault rifle pointed at me once in a fairly controlled scenario, and I can say those things are intimidating as all hell. To fight back with only the stones under your feet is fucking hardcore.

TheLordHumungus
2nd January 10, 12:01 AM
Oh, and that goes for any of you faggot "teabaggers" too.

Heh, teabaggers. It just never gets old.

SFGOON
2nd January 10, 01:32 AM
But as far as those dudes go, they have unimaginable cohones.

They have just as many cajones as you and kracker. It's just that THEY have a cause worth dying for.

What you have are nice ideas worth discussing.

If the latter were ever elevated to the former, you'd do exactly the same, you tenacious son of a bitch. You know it and I know it.

Oh, and on the note of dissent and whooped asses....

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cincinnati-protest2-march-20092.jpg

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090415-teaparty-hmed-10a.h2.jpg

http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/tea-party-crowd.jpg

http://www.lewrockwell.com/quinn/tea_party_protest.jpg

It's not the dissent. It's the crimes that occur during the expression thereof.

TheLordHumungus
2nd January 10, 12:29 PM
It's not the dissent. It's the crimes that occur during the expression thereof.

If it were the crimes, they'd punish those responsible and let the gathering continue. They use the crimes committed by a few to justify shutting down entire demostrations.

The reason that they haven't cracked down on the teabaggers yet is that moderate rigt wingers marching around doesn't worry the powers that be all that much. The decidedly conservative bias of law enforcement doesn't hurt either.

Kein Haar
2nd January 10, 12:43 PM
The reason that they haven't cracked down on the teabaggers yet is that moderate rigt wingers marching around doesn't worry the powers that be all that much.

Or destroy much property of small business owners?

Oh yeah...that.

SFGOON
2nd January 10, 07:04 PM
The reason that they haven't cracked down on the teabaggers yet is that moderate rigt wingers marching around doesn't worry the powers that be all that much. The decidedly conservative bias of law enforcement doesn't hurt either.


Really? You have honestly convinced yourself that the government cracks down against left leaning demonstrations because the government dislikes the ideology espoused?

Picture time, from my hometown. First, the battle in Seattle, 1999.


YO YO YO IMMA GIT MINE YO!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2009/020409topa.jpg

im like to make the FIIIRRRE mbleh!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EjYtO28-Nk4/STFPMto6X0I/AAAAAAAAAtc/SrQgonOnYME/s400/welcoming.jpg

Let'th kill thith man!!
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20091129/621wto_05.JPG

Bleh heh heh heeeeee! Free Coffee icanfinallymakecompostformytomatoes! mbleh!
http://publicola.net/wp-content/uploads/wto2.png

ENOUGH! EVERYBODY GO HOME NOW!! No! We're not done being crazy turtles!
http://wiki.provisionslibrary.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/battle_in_seattle_movie1.jpg

THAT'S IT!!

PEW PEW PEW!!
http://www.louisbeam.com/images/seattl1.jpg


NERD GIRL HATES THE OC, BOTH THE SHOW AND THE LACHRYMATOR!!
http://www.louisbeam.com/wto.jpg

YOU FUCKIN' KIDS GO HOME, NOW!
http://anarchist_century.tripod.com/protest05.jpg

I can't breeeaaathe! I cant breeeeathe!!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/09/17/2002297134.jpg


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

YIKES! Okay, same city, four years later, many of the same people. This time, it's Iraq. They got a license and DIDN'T BREAK ANYTHING!!

Dippy hippe.
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/08/DSCN0363.JPG

Do you need polithe thervithes thir? Why yeth, we do! Very well, I shall ethcort you!
http://yellowcakewalk.net/2007-10-20/october_27_2007_protest_seattle.jpg

WE ARE THE MUSLIM! WE SAY SHITFUCK YOU! NOT TO DO BOMINGS PLEASE!!
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20090103/621protest_02.jpg

QUIT IMPORTING MEXICANS, THEY'RE HARDER WORKING AND MORE FLEXIBLE THAN WE ARE!
http://www.wslc.org/reports/2009/November/WTO-banner2.jpg


Sooooooooooooooo.......

It's not the ideology dude. It's the vandalism and assaults. There's no selective enforcement.

Cullion
2nd January 10, 09:43 PM
Wow, American motorcycle cops still dress like the guys in CHiPs.

That's hot.

TheLordHumungus
3rd January 10, 12:41 PM
ENOUGH! EVERYBODY GO HOME NOW!! No! We're not done being crazy turtles!
http://wiki.provisionslibrary.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/battle_in_seattle_movie1.jpg

This one confused me. The rest of the pictures showed individuals committing crimes. How are the Sea Turtle Restoration Project comparable? They are pretty much the model for respectful, nonviolent protest.




http://www.louisbeam.com/images/seattl1.jpg


It's not the ideology dude. It's the vandalism and assaults. There's no selective enforcement.
They did however gas and assault those who hadn't committed any act of violence or vandalism. Police even make a habit of infiltrating gatherings such as this and causing or inciting disturbances in order to give their little pig brothers an excuse to get rid of an inconvenience.

If the police were fine with peaceful demonstrations the could have arrested those who did damage Instead they punished the entire gathering for what a very small minority of individuals were responsible for. They do the same thing to groups of individuals that contain some criminals through RICO laws. Guess what large and violent group isn't prosecuted because a portion of its members are dangerous criminals? I'll give you a clue, they have shiny badges and wear matching little outfits.

But the main difference between the demonstrations you showed is that one was a march, which doesn't bother the powers that be all that much. The other was an effort to disrupt and shut down a gathering of international financial interests who were there to discuss methods of gaining ludicrous wealth by exploiting the world's poor and raping the environment. And I'll be damned if those cops were gonna let something as trivial as the will of the ppl bother the moneyed interests who call the shots. I mean, who's side are the police supposed to be on?

Cullion
3rd January 10, 12:44 PM
Actually TLH is telling the truth about infiltration of peaceful protests in order to discredit them. There's a long history of it in the UK.

TheLordHumungus
3rd January 10, 12:45 PM
Or destroy much property of small business owners?

Oh yeah...that.

Small business owners like Starbucks and Chase Manhattan? Yeah, maybe one day those struggling ventures will come to something.

Cullion
3rd January 10, 12:46 PM
It's not right to smash up somebody's property just because they have more than you.

Zendetta
3rd January 10, 01:07 PM
It's not right to smash up somebody's property just because they have more than you.

!!!

You aren't going to get invited back to the dumpster dived vegan straight edge potluck with that attitude!

elipson
3rd January 10, 04:04 PM
Small business owners like Starbucks and Chase Manhattan? Yeah, maybe one day those struggling ventures will come to something.
Right. And the people who work there to pay for their schooling and the store owner who bought a franchise license from starbucks so they could open their own coffeeshop. They're evil too. Get them too.

The Franchise doesn't pay for broken windows and stolen property. The store own does, and they usually aren't very rich.

SFGOON
4th January 10, 03:11 AM
!!!

You aren't going to get invited back to the dumpster dived vegan straight edge potluck with that attitude!

You mean the garbage-eater's potluck with no chance of getting drunk or laid? Worthless.

TLH - So you're saying it was police - and not the darling nihilist pieces of shit -smashing those windows, turning over those cars and looting Niketown? If so, why is this not done at every left-leaning demonstration? What do you hypothesize the criteria for inciting a riot by police to be?

I'll be honest, you're starting to sound very "hipster doofus conspiracy theorist" with the direction you're taking this. We had this guy called "Riddeck" on here before your time. Trust me, you don't want to be on the same page as this guy - but you're headed in that direction.

Cullion - That antidemonstration technique doesn't have it's roots in The Troubles, does it?

TheLordHumungus
4th January 10, 08:28 AM
You mean the garbage-eater's potluck with no chance of getting drunk or laid? Worthless.

TLH - So you're saying it was police - and not the darling nihilist pieces of shit -smashing those windows, turning over those cars and looting Niketown? If so, why is this not done at every left-leaning demonstration? What do you hypothesize the criteria for inciting a riot by police to be?

I'll be honest, you're starting to sound very "hipster doofus conspiracy theorist" with the direction you're taking this. We had this guy called "Riddeck" on here before your time. Trust me, you don't want to be on the same page as this guy - but you're headed in that direction.

Cullion - That antidemonstration technique doesn't have it's roots in The Troubles, does it?

I think there was plenty of actual vandalism done by demonstrators, just thought I'd remind you that the police aren't there to simply keep people safe. Social control is the name of the game.

My main beef isn't police instigation, but the fact that they cracked down on an entire gathering because of the actions of a minority of demonstrators.

And I hypothesise that the police are more pressured to control protests that inconvenience the wealthy and powerful or cost them money. Its no mystery whose interests they're protecting.

TheLordHumungus
4th January 10, 08:30 AM
It's not right to smash up somebody's property just because they have more than you.

We've been over this ad nauseum. We're just gonna have to disagree on that.

SFGOON
4th January 10, 07:54 PM
I think there was plenty of actual vandalism done by demonstrators, just thought I'd remind you that the police aren't there to simply keep people safe. Social control is the name of the game.

My main beef isn't police instigation, but the fact that they cracked down on an entire gathering because of the actions of a minority of demonstrators.

And I hypothesise that the police are more pressured to control protests that inconvenience the wealthy and powerful or cost them money. Its no mystery whose interests they're protecting.

What's this "social control" supposed to mean, exactly? Do you think the cops are trying to convert demonstrators to the Republican Party, jihad style? Do you think they're trying to change public opinion by beating the pinko out of them?

The gathering gets cracked down upon when the bricks start flying because that's the point when the whole crowd starts to go apeshit. Had they dispersed the crowds in Seattle right away, and had things cordoned off and manned as needed, it would have never been the disaster it became. It was a "day late and dollar short" police response that allowed the rioting to occur.

Finally, who the fuck protests against poor people? EVERY social demonstration is a mass act against a powerful monolith, right? It stands to reason then, that every demonstration which becomes a riot and gets dispersed was against something "powerful," right? Do we maybe have a little selection bias here?

I don't think you can specifically name individuals or institutions you consider to be your ideological enemies. You seem to believe in a vast conspiracy of wealthy elites ruling over a nation of sheeple - a condition to which you and a relative handful of your social group are immune. Kind of like you're Neo in a political/philosophical Matrix.

Without anything specific to lash out against, you've basically declared "war" on an idea - that of liberal economics (and parenthetically the right of other people to live in a manner you don't like.) This is not unlike G.W. Bush's "War On Terrorism." Well, guess what. It was stupid when he did it, and it's equally if not more stupid when you do it. (At least George had the most powerful military in human history at his command.)

It's stupid because even if you were correct about the world, there's no way in hell you'd ever succeed in changing things to your liking. It would be like trying to piss out a raging forest fire. Factor in that most people are fairly content with the presence of the forest fire and take exception to the gratuitous utilization of your piss, and your revolutionary roadblocks are once again compounded.

The really hilarious part is that the world is changing - only entirely without your involvement and influence because you've decided to "drop out" and live in a flophouse and work serving beers and appetizers. It was the printing press and the spread of literacy which revolutionized the world and gave birth to communism, liberalism, fascism, and I suppose even anarchism. We have that level of technological advance occuring right now under your nose. But, you're too busy being upset about recent history to get involved in the one force that will truly prove to be it's undoing.

Really - given the state of the world and human affairs your ideologies are myopic and frankly a little nuts.

TheLordHumungus
5th January 10, 08:44 AM
What's this "social control" supposed to mean, exactly? Do you think the cops are trying to convert demonstrators to the Republican Party, jihad style? Do you think they're trying to change public opinion by beating the pinko out of them?

They just need the radical and oppressed to know that the price of making their voices heard is violence and prosecution. They need the privileged to realize that they are not subject to the will of the vast majority of citizens, but the vast majority are subject to their whims. That's a big part of social control.




Finally, who the fuck protests against poor people?

Anti immigration rallies, teabaggers, nazis...


I don't think you can specifically name individuals or institutions you consider to be your ideological enemies. You seem to believe in a vast conspiracy of wealthy elites ruling over a nation of sheeple - a condition to which you and a relative handful of your social group are immune. Kind of like you're Neo in a political/philosophical Matrix.

Without anything specific to lash out against, you've basically declared "war" on an idea - that of liberal economics (and parenthetically the right of other people to live in a manner you don't like.) This is not unlike G.W. Bush's "War On Terrorism." Well, guess what. It was stupid when he did it, and it's equally if not more stupid when you do it. (At least George had the most powerful military in human history at his command.)

I can name many groups and individuals that I oppose. If you want to narrow it down a little, I'll try to list just a few.

The fact that you don't realize that there is a small group of incredibly wealthy and powerful individuals shaping with controlling interests in our economy and governments speaks less to my madness and more to your naive complacency.


It's stupid because even if you were correct about the world, there's no way in hell you'd ever succeed in changing things to your liking. It would be like trying to piss out a raging forest fire. Factor in that most people are fairly content with the presence of the forest fire and take exception to the gratuitous utilization of your piss, and your revolutionary roadblocks are once again compounded.[/quote

Yeah. If it seems hopeless and unpopular, give up. Fuck injustice, as long as you aren't getting the worst of it. How noble of you.

[quote=SFGOON]The really hilarious part is that the world is changing - only entirely without your involvement and influence because you've decided to "drop out" and live in a flophouse and work serving beers and appetizers. It was the printing press and the spread of literacy which revolutionized the world and gave birth to communism, liberalism, fascism, and I suppose even anarchism. We have that level of technological advance occuring right now under your nose. But, you're too busy being upset about recent history to get involved in the one force that will truly prove to be it's undoing.

Really - given the state of the world and human affairs your ideologies are myopic and frankly a little nuts.

I don't think I've dropped out of much of anything except mindless consumerism and consenting to tyranny. I still interact with others, keep up with the technologies that interest me, etc. Not bowing to the state doesn't make you a hermit and luddite.

The fact that you think technology will alleviate oppression and not aid the state in becoming more tyrannical is cute though.

taijiamn
5th January 10, 10:55 AM
They just need the radical and oppressed to know that the price of making their voices heard is violence and prosecution. They need the privileged to realize that they are not subject to the will of the vast majority of citizens, but the vast majority are subject to their whims. That's a big part of social control.
...
I don't think I've dropped out of much of anything except mindless consumerism and consenting to tyranny. I still interact with others, keep up with the technologies that interest me, etc. Not bowing to the state doesn't make you a hermit and luddite.

...

I don't think you'll(we'll? people will?) ever be able to move away from this. I think we've talked about it before and it can be shown to work in small groups but really, even communism has had it's elite still calling all the shots for the masses hasn't it?


Out of curiosity, do you manage to not pay taxes as part of not bowing to the state? That, taxes, moreso than mindless consumerism is what enables the continuation of the states status, doesn't it?

Ajamil
5th January 10, 12:08 PM
BG 4.13 (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/13/en): According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.
Atheist speak: There will always be a "ruling class" no matter how you label it because once you get enough humans together, their ingrained social behavior has them placidly listening to those you can "trust."

Doesn't matter how effective you are or how many times you tear it down, authority structures will always grow back. This doesn't mean I dissuade you your plan though; Shiva is also part of the cycle.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/703/reagenshivaavatar.jpg
Sometimes govt. is the problem.

(I don't have a head shot for you - pretend you're NoB.)

SFGOON
5th January 10, 02:40 PM
They just need the radical and oppressed to know that the price of making their voices heard is violence and prosecution. They need the privileged to realize that they are not subject to the will of the vast majority of citizens, but the vast majority are subject to their whims. That's a big part of social control.

Examples? These vague generalities you keep using are making d'Tocqueville smile.

"General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect." The words of Alexis d'Tocqueville, an observer of the birth of modern democracy.


Anti immigration rallies, teabaggers, nazis...

Hold rallys to encourage the government, a powerful entity, to pass legislation. It's not like they're in the housing projects with signs saying "move out!" (except maybe the Neo-Nazis.)


I can name many groups and individuals that I oppose. If you want to narrow it down a little, I'll try to list just a few.

Please do. Can you come up with ten?


The fact that you don't realize that there is a small group of incredibly wealthy and powerful individuals shaping with controlling interests in our economy and governments speaks less to my madness and more to your naive complacency.

I'm aware of their existence, and I'm also aware that they're just as subject to market forces as anyone else. (Some members of those families are personal friends or colleagues of mine.) How many banks failed in the last year, despite the bailouts?

The separation of powers, from Aristotle to Montesquieu, is designed purely to thwart the ambitions of individuals.


Yeah. If it seems hopeless and unpopular, give up. Fuck injustice, as long as you aren't getting the worst of it. How noble of you.

If nobody but your circle of friends cares, your grievances may be a non-issue to the majority of people, and therefore contrived by you. That's why it's unpopular. It's almost a cult mentality - ever talked to one of those LaRouche kids? They live in flophouses too and are convinced they're changing the world by marching around college campuses singing weird songs. But really they've been duped into feeling special, powerful and enlightened above the masses by a charismatic criminal.

"He that wandreth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead." - John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress


I don't think I've dropped out of much of anything except mindless consumerism and consenting to tyranny. I still interact with others, keep up with the technologies that interest me, etc. Not bowing to the state doesn't make you a hermit and luddite.

The fact that you think technology will alleviate oppression and not aid the state in becoming more tyrannical is cute though.

"The formation of knowledge and the increase of power regularly reinforce each other." Michael Foucault, Discipline and Punish

Historically, increasing the mobility of goods, persons, and information has drastically altered the political landscape in favor of the masses. We've just experienced a MASSIVE jump in that same direction. Hell, you and I couldn't have had this discussion 20 years ago.

What I mean by "engaging the world" goes beyond "enjoy your meal, gentlemen!" It's becoming involved in the public discourse and commercial enterprise. (Since I don't doubt you're 100% unemployable, this would have to take the form of a small entrepreneurship.)

Address the flaws in human nature. Strive to make all beings truly equal in both body and mind. If you start with minds that are lucid, knowledgable, and emotionally sound, the needs of government change dramatically.

If you want to even out the social order, you have to change the nature of power itself. And what creates power? Is it wealth, physical strength, maybe legislation? None of these are the root principle of power. Ability is the ideal that drives the modern state. It's a synonym for one's worth, one's social reach, one's "election," in the Biblical sense.

The commodification of ability (such as college tuition, medical treatments, and eventually biomods,) has had the side effect of creating a self-perpetuating aristocracy in all advanced societies. When ability becomes a public resource, what will distinguish people will be what they do with it. Intention. Dedication. Integrity. The qualities we would choose as the bedrock of the social order.

I push to have human affairs driven by wisdom. Finding the correct formula for wisdom has been my project these long years under the sun. Wisdom must first be human. You must start with what a human sees and feels. But wisdom must also be knowledgeable, logical, and fair to billions of other beings.

What you do for a living now and your current lifestyle erodes your credibility with the majority of people, and makes you less effective at persuading them to change their thinking. Your "Neo complex" is responsible for this.

In order to be influential you must first be admired. Have you ever read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli? You should. You really, really should.

"It really is of importance, what men do, but also what manner of men are that do it." - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Zendetta
5th January 10, 06:08 PM
Damn Goon.

You should be charging seminar rates for this shit instead of giving it away free on the internet.

elipson
5th January 10, 08:35 PM
There will always be a "ruling class" no matter how you label it because once you get enough humans together, their ingrained social behavior has them placidly listening to those you can "trust."
TLH has already discussed how he accepts certain kinds of authority. His views on authority are that they should be driven only by force, either individual or the ability to motivate large numbers of people to enact authority over a common interest.

He has no guiding principles and has demonstrated in other threads that his only beef with current authority is that he doesn't have any real influence over it. This all came out in an Iraq discussion a while ago.

Kein Haar
6th January 10, 02:39 PM
BNtpJ6sc4CQ

TheLordHumungus
7th January 10, 09:25 PM
Hold rallys to encourage the government, a powerful entity, to pass legislation. It's not like they're in the housing projects with signs saying "move out!" (except maybe the Neo-Nazis.)

Just as protesters in scenic Seattle held rallies to encourage corporations (powerful entities) to fuck off out of town and not use that city to discuss how to relieve large portions of the developed and undeveloped world of their resouces for as little as humanly possible.

Strangely, it was the protesters demonstrating against corporate hegemony that got beaten on.



Please do. Can you come up with ten?

Cool, I can thin it down to 10. I'll add to each my reason for despising them, as a laundry list would take time I don't have.

1. Coca Cola- At least 179 human rights violations against its workers, mostly union members and their families.

2. Dow chemicals- Took zero responsibility for the damage done by a poisonous gas leak at an Indian plant that has caused the injury and death of over 20,000 ppl.

3.US Army school of the Americas- Trains police and military forces in other (primarily South and Central American) countries to execute and torture their citizens the American way. The Human rights records of its alumni are staggering.

4. CACI and other military contractors who cannot be held accountable for the abuse and torture of native peoples living in war zones. Or the rape of employees by other employees in the case of groups like KBR.

5. Department of Homeland Security- Indefinitely detaining tens of thousands of immigrant peoples.

6. "The family"- Political organization responsible for a proposed Ugandan bill that mandates the death penalty for the 'crime' of homosexuality. Kein would love these guys.

7. Louisiana Department of Justice- For the unjust, racist detention of Gary Tyler.

8. US Congress- Struck yet another blow against reproductive rights by including the Stupak amendment into the new health care bill.

9. The CIA- for their long history of assassinations and destabilizing foreign nations for the benefit of US economic interests.

10. RIAA- Their greed astounds. They go after kids for doing nothing more than copying and sending info via the internet. Exactly what the internet does, oddly enough.


I'm aware of their existence, and I'm also aware that they're just as subject to market forces as anyone else. (Some members of those families are personal friends or colleagues of mine.) How many banks failed in the last year, despite the bailouts?

The bailouts are perhaps the most despicable example of the privileged calling in favors from a state that's long been bought and controlled by them. Huge corporate conglomerates and financiers not only exert tremendous control over the market. And when they manage to fuck up so badly that even their economic influence can't save them, they can count on the state to jump in and offer them staggering amounts of capital to keep them afloat. All while the vast majority of the country is starved for that very same capital.


If nobody but your circle of friends cares, your grievances may be a non-issue to the majority of people, and therefore contrived by you. That's why it's unpopular. It's almost a cult mentality - ever talked to one of those LaRouche kids? They live in flophouses too and are convinced they're changing the world by marching around college campuses singing weird songs. But really they've been duped into feeling special, powerful and enlightened above the masses by a charismatic criminal.

John Brown was considered insane. How could anybody be so radically outraged by something as all american as slavery? Even the slaves didn't complain so loudly or violently. They must not have minded.

The fact that you and most others feel safer in your shackles doesn't make them chase the rest of us less.


What I mean by "engaging the world" goes beyond "enjoy your meal, gentlemen!" It's becoming involved in the public discourse and commercial enterprise. (Since I don't doubt you're 100% unemployable, this would have to take the form of a small entrepreneurship.)

Address the flaws in human nature. Strive to make all beings truly equal in both body and mind. If you start with minds that are lucid, knowledgable, and emotionally sound, the needs of government change dramatically.

If you want to even out the social order, you have to change the nature of power itself. And what creates power? Is it wealth, physical strength, maybe legislation? None of these are the root principle of power. Ability is the ideal that drives the modern state. It's a synonym for one's worth, one's social reach, one's "election," in the Biblical sense.

The commodification of ability (such as college tuition, medical treatments, and eventually biomods,) has had the side effect of creating a self-perpetuating aristocracy in all advanced societies. When ability becomes a public resource, what will distinguish people will be what they do with it. Intention. Dedication. Integrity. The qualities we would choose as the bedrock of the social order.

I push to have human affairs driven by wisdom. Finding the correct formula for wisdom has been my project these long years under the sun. Wisdom must first be human. You must start with what a human sees and feels. But wisdom must also be knowledgeable, logical, and fair to billions of other beings.

What you do for a living now and your current lifestyle erodes your credibility with the majority of people, and makes you less effective at persuading them to change their thinking. Your "Neo complex" is responsible for this.

In order to be influential you must first be admired. Have you ever read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli? You should. You really, really should.

"It really is of importance, what men do, but also what manner of men are that do it." - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

So in summary: to convincingly discuss the evils of capitalism and how it makes everything a commidity, you must be a successful capitalist adept at commoditization? And in order to convince ppl that power games are unnecessary, one should use the power hoarding techniques of men like Niccolo Machiavelli?

Pass.

taijiamn
7th January 10, 09:40 PM
Which human rights do you believe in? You seem to have stated that the right to property is not necessary. Your previous statement, that mugging a mugger and keeping the money he stole is fine, because obviously the people he took it from are far from innocent suggests a right to dignity and pursual of happiness isn't on the top of your list...

So what problems do you have with human rights violations? Is it just the scale?

Zendetta
7th January 10, 10:08 PM
John Brown was considered insane. How could anybody be so radically outraged by something as all american as slavery?

Although lionized by abolitionists in the same way Mumia is lionized by leftist activists, John Brown was, in fact batshit crazy.

His revolutionary posse lasted about 3 minutes against Robert E Lee's Marines.

And the first person the revolutionaries killed at Harper's Ferry was a Black Man, a freed slave. Oops.

SFGOON
8th January 10, 02:33 AM
I was an instructor at SoA. Seriously. Guess what I taught there?

The bailouts resulted in severe caps on executive pay, didn't they? They also made the public majority owners in major nodes in the financial system - explain to me again what about bailouts you dislike? They seem right up your alley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05pay.html


So in summary: to convincingly discuss the evils of capitalism and how it makes everything a commidity, you must be a successful capitalist adept at commoditization? And in order to convince ppl that power games are unnecessary, one should use the power hoarding techniques of men like Niccolo Machiavelli?

Pass.

You've misunderstood much of what I was saying. Allow me to restate the portion I consider most relevant to you, with the paragraphs re-ordered with my opening statement as the conclusion;


Nihilistic revolution vis a vis Karl Marx cannot and will not produce the social change you envision. You can no more build a great society with violence than you could paint a masterpiece with a machete. Revolution and counter-revolution has swayed back and forth for aeons - all to no avail. It is only ingenuity, perseverance and determination unbound which have ever bettered life on this Earth.

One needs only look as far back as the fall of empires and the Monarchistic world order in 1918 to see that the powerful abandon their power rather easily. My own family, d'Cimini, abandoned their titles and took their practices outside Italy when political trends moved away from titled gentry in the mid 1800's.

There is only one path to the world you seek; you must address the flaws in human nature. Strive to make all beings truly equal in both body and mind. If you start with minds that are lucid, knowledgable, and emotionally sound, the needs of government change dramatically.

If you want to even out the social order, you have to change the nature of power itself. And what creates power? Is it wealth, physical strength, maybe legislation? None of these are the root principle of power. Ability is the ideal that drives human affairs, and with it the modern state. It's a synonym for one's worth, one's social reach, one's "election," in the Biblical sense.

The commodification of ability (such as college tuition, medical treatments, and eventually biomods,) has had the side effect of creating a self-perpetuating aristocracy in all advanced societies. When ability becomes a public resource, what will distinguish people will be what they do with it. Intention. Dedication. Integrity. The qualities we would choose as the bedrock of the social order.

I push to have human affairs driven by wisdom. Finding the correct formula for wisdom has been my project these long years under the sun.

Wisdom must first be human. You must start with what a human sees and feels. But wisdom must also be knowledgeable, logical, and fair to billions of other beings. This is what your ideology lacks, what makes it unworkable, what will render it fruitless.

You have a lot of ideas about what you don't want. That's understandable, but not the best approach to change. What you need to do is create a detailed and reasonable framework for what you DO want, as well as sound means to achieve it, means which are acceptable to "the masses" for whom you seem to think you know best.

elipson
8th January 10, 02:41 AM
What you need to do is create a detailed and reasonable framework for what you DO want, as well as sound means to achieve it, means which are acceptable to "the masses" for whom you seem to think you know best.
He is too much of a lazy coward to put himself on the hook by actually making real suggestions for the world. Stating what you think should be done puts your ideas on trial in front of everyone. Critizing allows a person to hide in their cowardice.

SFGOON
8th January 10, 02:44 AM
I don't know - that's EXACTLY what Socrates did. He espoused nothing specific, but by twisting people's words he told EVERYONE, even his own students, why he thought they were wrong.

Always wrong.

You're wrong, Epsilon. Did you know that?

Cullion
8th January 10, 05:31 AM
The bailouts resulted in severe caps on executive pay, didn't they?

Well, not really.



They also made the public majority owners in major nodes in the financial system - explain to me again what about bailouts you dislike? They seem right up your alley.

I didn't think the US govt. took stock ? The UK govt. did though.

Cullion
8th January 10, 05:32 AM
You seem to have stated that the right to property is not necessary.

Which makes it odd that he's bothered when he sees certain people losing property, doesn't it ?

taijiamn
8th January 10, 06:53 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure how it's bad for a poor person to lose something they've gathered, but not a wealthy person, especially when they're working within the same rule set.

Cullion
8th January 10, 07:36 AM
The reality is that sections of the wealthiest elite in the UK, the US and many other countries don't actually work within the same rules. Modern systems of credit and retail banking are essentially a form of counterfeiting and fraud which operate under licence being one example.

Another being that some of our largest industrial corporations would collapse tomorrow if they weren't in receipt of constant and substantial welfare or special legal privilege which comes at the expense of the rest of us, whilst their senior management continue to receive enormous remuneration on the grounds that they're somehow talented or entrepreneurial despite presiding over enterprises that would collapse without massive welfare checks. These people are essentially well dressed, well connected welfare bums with enormous senses of entitlement and no shame, not the elite that Nob imagines them to be.

What TLH has done is seen this on an emotive level without economic analysis and just gone 'well fuck you, I don't care about property rights if you look too rich'. When in reality, much of this is directly a result of the undermining of property rights.

taijiamn
8th January 10, 08:02 AM
I understand that, but theoreticly at least, anyone who comes into a large amount of money by luck or work, should be able to exploit the same loop holes right?

Cullion
8th January 10, 08:07 AM
No, they can't. You cannot operate a fractional reserve bank with a line of credit from the money-printing machine you call the Fed because you don't own stock in it and the stock is not up for sale. The banking system is a government backed cartel which is allowed to do stuff the rest of us would be arrested for, and membership isn't open to you.

You can lobby for corporate welfare if you're rich enough, but that's akin to saying 'political corruption dressed up with bullshit economic theories is okay, because if you're rich enough you can pay bribes too'.

Sun Wukong
8th January 10, 08:54 AM
The reality is that sections of the wealthiest elite in the UK, the US and many other countries don't actually work within the same rules. Modern systems of credit and retail banking are essentially a form of counterfeiting and fraud which operate under licence being one example.

Another being that some of our largest industrial corporations would collapse tomorrow if they weren't in receipt of constant and substantial welfare or special legal privilege which comes at the expense of the rest of us, whilst their senior management continue to receive enormous remuneration on the grounds that they're somehow talented or entrepreneurial despite presiding over enterprises that would collapse without massive welfare checks. These people are essentially well dressed, well connected welfare bums with enormous senses of entitlement and no shame, not the elite that Nob imagines them to be.

What TLH has done is seen this on an emotive level without economic analysis and just gone 'well fuck you, I don't care about property rights if you look too rich'. When in reality, much of this is directly a result of the undermining of property rights.


It's very difficult to argue with you while you are making so much sense. The one rule that keeps me coming back to the table with you is this: There is never a simple answer for an extremely complicated problem. The one caveat being the Gordian Knot solution.

Zendetta
8th January 10, 01:05 PM
The one caveat being the Gordian Knot solution.

You need a sword for that. So are we back to "revolution" then?

elipson
8th January 10, 03:02 PM
You're wrong, Epsilon. Did you know that?

You spelled my name wrong while in the process of telling me I'm wrong. Irony.

SFGOON
8th January 10, 05:28 PM
I wasn't talking to YOU.

elipson
8th January 10, 07:41 PM
Damn. You win again. I guess that means I was wrong.... wait, what?

Cullion
8th January 10, 09:46 PM
It's very difficult to argue with you while you are making so much sense. The one rule that keeps me coming back to the table with you is this: There is never a simple answer for an extremely complicated problem. The one caveat being the Gordian Knot solution.

Don't chop the wrong knot good sir. Not the wrong knot.

TheLordHumungus
8th January 10, 10:42 PM
Although lionized by abolitionists in the same way Mumia is lionized by leftist activists, John Brown was, in fact batshit crazy.

His revolutionary posse lasted about 3 minutes against Robert E Lee's Marines.

And the first person the revolutionaries killed at Harper's Ferry was a Black Man, a freed slave. Oops.

I can see how having the courage to fight an unwinnable battle would seem like insanity to you. Brown had stones, must seem pretty alien to you.

TheLordHumungus
8th January 10, 10:53 PM
I was an instructor at SoA. Seriously. Guess what I taught there?

I have no clue. But I am intrigued.

Maximum comedy will come if you say something like Human rights, Ethics, or International Law.

TheLordHumungus
8th January 10, 11:01 PM
Critizing allows a person to hide in their cowardice.

If only it did as good a job as blind submission. Keep baring your throat to your betters and you'll never need the courage to stand up to them.

TheLordHumungus
8th January 10, 11:04 PM
Which makes it odd that he's bothered when he sees certain people losing property, doesn't it ?

I'm not mad because they are losing property. I despise those that hoard it so that others have no access to it. Ownership is overrated. Why own what you only need to use occasionally?

SFGOON
8th January 10, 11:17 PM
I have no clue. But I am intrigued.

Maximum comedy will come if you say something like Human rights, Ethics, or International Law.


Then I'm not going to tell you what part of the course I taught!

SFGOON
8th January 10, 11:19 PM
I can see how having the courage to fight an unwinnable battle would seem like insanity to you. Brown had stones, must seem pretty alien to you.


Well, there's two ways to resolve this statement. Either you yourself don't have stones, or you're completely full of it.

That being because, you know, you're still alive and all to type that response in the first place.

Next, you should write something like "All anachrosocialists are liars."

elipson
9th January 10, 12:03 AM
Then I'm not going to tell you what part of the course I taught!

Oh oh oh! Was it society destruction? It was society destruction wasn't it!?!?

SFGOON
9th January 10, 12:08 AM
Noooooooooo - keep guessing.

Hint; there is a clue.

Ajamil
9th January 10, 12:36 AM
Green? Human rights in regards to environmentalism?

Zendetta
9th January 10, 02:44 AM
I can see how having the courage to fight an unwinnable battle would seem like insanity to you. Brown had stones, must seem pretty alien to you.

You are a fucking idiot. Brown's cause was noble, but he was a dangerous fanatic. The fact that the first guy they capped was a black freeman undercuts his example as a noble revolutionary.

Kind of like how your Noble Revolutionary persona is undercut by the fact that while you like to talk about people's glorious uprising, in real life you bring hor douerve's to the bourgeoisie.

I don't really care if you want to get the last word in, so feel free to respond with some snarky bullshit. That's about the extent of your impotent rage anyway.

TheLordHumungus
9th January 10, 02:48 AM
Well, there's two ways to resolve this statement. Either you yourself don't have stones, or you're completely full of it.

That being because, you know, you're still alive and all to type that response in the first place.

Next, you should write something like "All anachrosocialists are liars."

A year before Brown's uprising, he wasn't dead either. I certainly lack the guys stones, but who knows what the future holds.

TheLordHumungus
9th January 10, 02:54 AM
You are a fucking idiot. Brown's cause was noble, but he was a dangerous fanatic. The fact that the first guy they capped was a black freeman undercuts his example as a noble revolutionary.

Kind of like how your Noble Revolutionary persona is undercut by the fact that while you like to talk about people's glorious uprising, in real life you bring hor douerve's to the bourgeoisie.

I don't really care if you want to get the last word in, so feel free to respond with some snarky bullshit. That's about the extent of your impotent rage anyway.

"You are a fucking idiot"? Really? That's as imaginative as you get?

I call you a coward for talking shit on a dude whose jock you couldn't carry 10 feet, and you respond like the average 9 year old.

At least in my case it is only my rage that is impotent, in your case It seems to be a lifestyle.

TheLordHumungus
9th January 10, 02:58 AM
Then I'm not going to tell you what part of the course I taught!

Human rights? No shit?

I don't mean to critique how you did shit, but they should consider changing their teaching methods. You haven't exactly done a bang up job, historically. Was Pinochet on an athletic scholarship, and thus allowed to skip classes like that?

Ajamil
9th January 10, 05:54 AM
The fact that the first guy they capped was a black freeman undercuts his example as a noble revolutionary.

Did the black freeman own slaves?

Cullion
9th January 10, 08:03 AM
I'm not mad because they are losing property. I despise those that hoard it so that others have no access to it. Ownership is overrated. Why own what you only need to use occasionally?

Stewardship as the answer to the true tragedy of the commons, for one.

elipson
9th January 10, 11:12 AM
To complicated for him Cullion.

Ajamil
9th January 10, 03:33 PM
And a term I've never heard. What is the true tragedy of the commons?

Cullion
9th January 10, 03:42 PM
What is the true tragedy of the commons?

A shared resource getting depleted or degraded because nobody owns it. This happens when everybody feels free to use a resource 'because it belongs to all of us', but nobody wants to tend and maintain in the way they would with something they personally owned. i.e. private ownership encouraging better stewardship out of self interest.

A common Libertarian answer to environmental questions is to cite some version this principle. e.g. 'they wouldn't dump that waste there if it was somebody's private property, they'd get raped in court'. No, I don't always find it convincing.

Ajamil
9th January 10, 04:25 PM
So it's like the sidework not specifically typed out for people to do at work, thus no one does it and is left for the closer (me!) to deal with.

Those bastard communists - giving me more work. Wipe the coffee stains off your own damn shelves!! I've gotta vacuum!!!

SFGOON
9th January 10, 04:44 PM
Human rights? No shit?

I don't mean to critique how you did shit, but they should consider changing their teaching methods. You haven't exactly done a bang up job, historically. Was Pinochet on an athletic scholarship, and thus allowed to skip classes like that?

Well, for one it's now called "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation." SoA does have a sordid past due to cowboy administrators who ran the school during the Reagan/Contra/Nicaragua era.

The school is primarily geared towards senior military officials in helping them meld their national security strategy with that of the rest of the Americas. There was a time when it provided "commando" training to Latin American Revolutionaries or Counterrevolutionaries, but this is no longer practiced, and allied soldiers who receive any front-line military training do so alongside US soldiers at a standard school. (For example, during my Officer's Basic Course, we had an Italian, a Thai, and two Pakistani Officers in attendance. The Pakistanis are still in regular contact with me.)

The course I taught (derechos humanos universales y el estado moderno, or univerasl human rights and the modern state,) espoused the sanctity of human rights as necessary to promoting the legitimacy of the state. Simply put, I pointed out that if a government tortures, kidnaps, and kills then the campesinos have nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting them. Furthermore, if their government were to provide these "olvidados" (forgetten peoples) with even basic services, then they would have much to lose by fighting. I then outlined various plans by which the military could provide services to persons in their respective theater of operations (medical, sanitary, logistical, etc.) and contrasted the costs of civil-military aid with combat. (Combat costs about 50 times more than giving people vaccines, blankets, agricultural supplies, and toilets.)

It was the Mexicans and Colombians who responded to my course with the most interest. Both saw it as an effective means to undermine guerrilla PR campaigns and deny FARC, ELN or whomever illiterate foot soldiers. (It would also have the net effect of bolstering and stabilizing their economies.)

Sort of the counterinsurgency equivalent of legalizing pot.

Cullion
9th January 10, 05:00 PM
So it's like the sidework not specifically typed out for people to do at work, thus no one does it and is left for the closer (me!) to deal with.

Those bastard communists - giving me more work. Wipe the coffee stains off your own damn shelves!! I've gotta vacuum!!!

In a way, yes. And a canned libertarian argument to that problem would be to say that you'd be keener on cleaning or repairing those shelves if they were your shelves and you were entitled to charge rent. This is what I meant by 'stewardship'. This is also why entrepeneurs often work so hard. It's because what they're trying to build is theirs.

I don't believe that this kind of argument can be applied to everything, which is why I have 'moderate' in my Politics field, but this is one of the reasons that infrastructure and buildings can get very run down in communist societies.

Zendetta
9th January 10, 05:01 PM
That's as imaginative as you get?

No, I can get a lot more imaginative, but sometimes the simple truth will suffice. I wasn't lobbing a generic insight, rather it was a critique on how badly you had missed the point.

Look man, despite the fact that your ideas are garbage, I kind of like you anyway.

How do you feel about dropping the personal insults (lack of balls, etc) and sticking to the issues? The only reason I say that is the empty, meaningless bitchiness of your responses really decreases my respect for you.

On the other hand, if you need that outlet, fine by me.

Because I really don't have to listen to shit about "impotent lifestyle" from a career waiter whose only outlet is the *snicker* Green Party, see?

jnp
10th January 10, 01:34 PM
Wow, I had no idea TLH was so shortsighted.

snicker

TheLordHumungus
11th January 10, 11:30 PM
The school is primarily geared towards senior military officials in helping them meld their national security strategy with that of the rest of the Americas. There was a time when it provided "commando" training to Latin American Revolutionaries or Counterrevolutionaries, but this is no longer practiced, and allied soldiers who receive any front-line military training do so alongside US soldiers at a standard school. (For example, during my Officer's Basic Course, we had an Italian, a Thai, and two Pakistani Officers in attendance. The Pakistanis are still in regular contact with me.)

Well that's at least good news. I have no reason to doubt you, because if the truth were otherwise I'm absolutely confident you'd smilingly say so.

TheLordHumungus
11th January 10, 11:33 PM
Stewardship as the answer to the true tragedy of the commons, for one.

So third world countries being charged for their very rainwater was good because they're more likely to take better care of their clouds?

jnp
11th January 10, 11:44 PM
So third world countries being charged for their very rainwater was good because they're more likely to take better care of their clouds?
That is a very obtuse statement. Would you care to cite a source?

TheLordHumungus
11th January 10, 11:54 PM
No. You just hang out with dumbass anarchists who think the only way to be a hero is to pick a fight with cops.

I'm pretty sure the personal insults between us started in ^ that post. I love how you come into a conversation calling ppl names, and then try to restore the civility by asking me to cease my flaming (out of respect, no less).

I'll admit that I'm unsure how me being involved in an organisation that promotes social justice is in any way comparable to your cowering, ever flaccid memeber. Is it the fact that its so difficult to find women at leftist political activities? ;)

But what the hell. If you wanna sqash this beef, we'll call it squashed.

Ajamil
11th January 10, 11:55 PM
It might give them impetus to start rain harvesting.

bob
12th January 10, 12:04 AM
I'm pretty sure the personal insults between us started in ^ that post. I love how you come into a conversation calling ppl names, and then try to restore the civility by asking me to cease my flaming (out of respect, no less).

I'll admit that I'm unsure how me being involved in an organisation that promotes social justice is in any way comparable to your cowering, ever flaccid memeber. Is it the fact that its so difficult to find women at leftist political activities? ;)

But what the hell. If you wanna sqash this beef, we'll call it squashed.

You realise you just quoted elipson right?

SFGOON
12th January 10, 12:41 AM
Well that's at least good news. I have no reason to doubt you, because if the truth were otherwise I'm absolutely confident you'd smilingly say so.

I actually would. I'm neutral good.

elipson
12th January 10, 01:45 AM
When the fuck did I saw anything about stopping?


So third world countries selling the water from their rivers and lakes was good because they're more likely to take better care of them
Fixed.

And how, pray tell, does your organization define social justice? You always avoid actually defining your definition of this.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:23 AM
You realise you just quoted elipson right?

Oops. Oh well, they both sound the same to me. They both have that same ring of submissive apologism.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:27 AM
That is a very obtuse statement. Would you care to cite a source?

More arcane or possibly esoteric if you've never heard of it, but I wouldn't say obtuse. Since you asked nicely tho : http://http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html (http://http//www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html)

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:29 AM
I actually would. I'm neutral good.

The joker avatar is misleading. It just screams chaotic.

taijiamn
12th January 10, 08:29 AM
I'm still curious what rights you believe people have, if any, TLH.

jnp
12th January 10, 10:31 AM
More arcane or possibly esoteric if you've never heard of it, but I wouldn't say obtuse. Since you asked nicely tho : http://http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html (http://http//www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html)
I can't make that link work, even when I parse what appears to be separate individual addresses contained within the link.

Additionally, I have a hard time taking someone seriously who places a large amount of their self-worth based on their physical size.

elipson
12th January 10, 10:35 AM
And how, pray tell, does your organization define social justice? You always avoid actually defining your definition of this.

You are still avoiding this question.

elipson
12th January 10, 11:05 AM
Seriously, I think the whole thread is waiting for you to define social justice.

This is why I have no respect for your political opinions. You're a coward. You're afraid to define your position because you are afraid to face criticism, and everyone here sees it.

Zendetta
12th January 10, 03:52 PM
I'm pretty sure the personal insults between us started in ^ that post. I love how you come into a conversation calling ppl names, and then try to restore the civility by asking me to cease my flaming (out of respect, no less).

I'll admit that I'm unsure how me being involved in an organisation that promotes social justice is in any way comparable to your cowering, ever flaccid memeber. Is it the fact that its so difficult to find women at leftist political activities? ;)

But what the hell. If you wanna sqash this beef, we'll call it squashed.

On second thought, no let's not. I was trying to give you an out of the bitch-fest.

Upon consideration, I'm not sure you deserve it.

Listen up:
Your insults of "submissive" fall completely flat. Of the two of us, YOU are the one who takes orders and plays the part of trained monkey for tips. Your income is directly related to how much ass you kiss. :lame:

You insults of "impotent" fall flat as well. Your only avenue for working your will on the world is the thoroughly irrelevant and meaningless Green Party, whose main result is to split the leftist vote and thus help elect conservatives. Politically speaking, you are shooting blanks.

Regarding the lack of desirable women at your political gatherings: dames are adept at sniffing out Beta Males and avoiding them. It's Nature's Way of keeping the species strong.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 06:45 PM
I can't make that link work, even when I parse what appears to be separate individual addresses contained within the link.

Oops, I'll try again.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html


Additionally, I have a hard time taking someone seriously who places a large amount of their self-worth based on their physical size.

While being taken seriously based upon people's impressions of me on the internet is hardly a great concern of mine, I am curious as to where you get the idea that I place so much self worth in whatever size I am.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 07:04 PM
I'm still curious what rights you believe people have, if any, TLH.

Rightly so, you've asked politely a few times now and I've been too lazy and sidetracked to give you a proper answer. My apologies.

The problem with the question is the use of the word rights. Rights are generally something given to ppl by a controlling organisation. 'The Bill of Rights' is basically a list of things that the government can't get involved in. I don't recognise the legitimacy of the state, so personally am a bit uninterested in the crumbs they're willing to throw us.

I think an article of 'Organise!' put it pretty well.

Our objection to rights rests on their political content. Rights are only of use if they can be enforced. To which we must ask - who decides what rights there are and who will make sure they are put into effect? This cannot be simply side-stepped by more 'democratic' or anarchist forms of decision making. The idea of rights presupposes that there is a correct answer to be discovered and that makes it an issue for experts. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to how people interact. It effects everyone in a community and everyone should participate in the decision making process. No one is greater expert on you than yourself. Of course if you want to build a house you would be foolish not to consult people with expertise in architecture or bricklaying but they have no greater knowledge than anyone else in the community as to whether a house needs to be built. These types of decision can be blurred on occasion but with rights we can see a definite difference. Rights are the product of a hierarchical society. If you are in dispute with someone over a clash of rights you must appeal to a higher authority. When decisions go against people in British courts they go to the European Court of Human Rights. Regardless of whether they win or lose they have surrendered control of their own lives to someone else. We are not saying that the idea of rights is a manipulative con by capitalism to divert rebellion into acceptable channels but it is product of capitalist, individualistic and authoritarian thinking which cannot serve as the basis for a society of freedom and equality.

Practically though, seeing ppl tortured and murdered in the name of profit does turn my stomach.

Cullion
12th January 10, 07:06 PM
So you believe in everything being decided by a majority of who happen to be present, with no set law and no defence for the few against the many ?

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 07:28 PM
Seriously, I think the whole thread is waiting for you to define social justice.

This is why I have no respect for your political opinions. You're a coward. You're afraid to define your position because you are afraid to face criticism, and everyone here sees it.


And how, pray tell, does your organization define social justice? You always avoid actually defining your definition of this.

You are still avoiding this question.



The whole thread is waiting with bated breath,are they? A tad dramatic, don't you think? I don't believe anybody on the thread who is curious as to how the Green Party defines social justice is waiting for me to tell them. More likely they went to the exhausting effort of doing an arduous google search and read about it themselves. But because I can't keep myself from fostering laziness, here you go:http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html

My own personal views on 'rights' are quite a bit different than the Greens', as I discussed above. But they do good work and are the most mainstream group I can stomach working with from time to time. I see their goals as the very least we can do to improve the human condition.

And my cowardice aside, I don't avoid your questions out of fear of criticism, I'm just not often interested enough to bother responding to you. I often clarify my views, but only if I find the conversation and those I'm conversing with interesting in the least.

taijiamn
12th January 10, 07:34 PM
Rightly so, you've asked politely a few times now and I've been too lazy and sidetracked to give you a proper answer. My apologies.

The problem with the question is the use of the word rights. Rights are generally something given to ppl by a controlling organisation. 'The Bill of Rights' is basically a list of things that the government can't get involved in. I don't recognise the legitimacy of the state, so personally am a bit uninterested in the crumbs they're willing to throw us.

I think an article of 'Organise!' put it pretty well.

Our objection to rights rests on their political content. Rights are only of use if they can be enforced. To which we must ask - who decides what rights there are and who will make sure they are put into effect? This cannot be simply side-stepped by more 'democratic' or anarchist forms of decision making. The idea of rights presupposes that there is a correct answer to be discovered and that makes it an issue for experts. Anarchists do not believe that there are factual answers to how people interact. It effects everyone in a community and everyone should participate in the decision making process. No one is greater expert on you than yourself. Of course if you want to build a house you would be foolish not to consult people with expertise in architecture or bricklaying but they have no greater knowledge than anyone else in the community as to whether a house needs to be built. These types of decision can be blurred on occasion but with rights we can see a definite difference. Rights are the product of a hierarchical society. If you are in dispute with someone over a clash of rights you must appeal to a higher authority. When decisions go against people in British courts they go to the European Court of Human Rights. Regardless of whether they win or lose they have surrendered control of their own lives to someone else. We are not saying that the idea of rights is a manipulative con by capitalism to divert rebellion into acceptable channels but it is product of capitalist, individualistic and authoritarian thinking which cannot serve as the basis for a society of freedom and equality.

Practically though, seeing ppl tortured and murdered in the name of profit does turn my stomach.

So barring the rule of might makes right, how does an anarchist solve disputes? As an anarchist, even an anarchist/socialist(which I think you self identified as?) how long do group decisions last? Is it only until one person dissents, consideration for the greater good?

And if you don't agree with the philosophical ideal of All humans have a right to life and liberty, which you seem to despite the above article, why bother mustering the empathy for people who cannot make their own way half way across the world, like your water buyers?

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 07:51 PM
Listen up:
Your insults of "submissive" fall completely flat. Of the two of us, YOU are the one who takes orders and plays the part of trained monkey for tips. Your income is directly related to how much ass you kiss. :lame:

Which would be a more impressive statement were it not for your constant authority worshipping. The fact that I'm quite mercenary about taking orders is eclipsed by you pathetic insistence that it should be done for free. I may be a trained monkey, but at least I do my tricks for treats. Your the pathetic animal performing routine after routine all to please your uncaring master.


You insults of "impotent" fall flat as well. Your only avenue for working your will on the world is the thoroughly irrelevant and meaningless Green Party, whose main result is to split the leftist vote and thus help elect conservatives. Politically speaking, you are shooting blanks.

You like to use the phrase 'falling flat' as a criticism. Likeit has some strong personal meaning to you. I see I've hit painfully close to the mark on the whole impotence thing. Sorry, didn't mean to bring up a sore subject.

The Greens aren't the only organisation I work with, but they do deal with a great many issues I find to be of interest. Their activities are also completely legal, which means little except that I feel more comfortable discussing them on a public forum.


Regarding the lack of desirable women at your political gatherings: dames are adept at sniffing out Beta Males and avoiding them. It's Nature's Way of keeping the species strong.

This I can tell you've learned from hard experience. Its a bit presumptious to assume you're a beta male, tho. You needn't be ashamed of being an Omega man. It at least sounds pretty cool.

And regarding the lack of women at liberal/leftist political gatherings: I was being facetious earlier. You do realize that women make up a disproportionately large....y'know what, never mind. Your ignorance is vastly funnier than explaining things to you is.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 07:55 PM
So you believe in everything being decided by a majority of who happen to be present, with no set law and no defence for the few against the many ?

Certainly no set law. Its a piss poor anarchist who advocates laws. I do believe in cooperation and compromise between individuals. But not an oppressive state to make sure everybody is "free".

jnp
12th January 10, 07:57 PM
Oops, I'll try again.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html


While being taken seriously based upon people's impressions of me on the internet is hardly a great concern of mine, I am curious as to where you get the idea that I place so much self worth in whatever size I am.
That link works for me, thank you.

As far as the relationship of size to self worth is concerned, let's start with your username, which includes the terms "Lord" and "Humongous". A poster's username reveals a bit of their personality. Take me for instance, I fancy myself a utilitarian person, so I simply use my initials.

Secondly, you typically choose large men to use as your avatar, which is not an indication by itself, mind you, but when combined with other choices you make, gives an overall impression of a person who places value on physical size.

The most salient indicator, in my opinion, is the text you have under your avatar on BS. "All the ladies call him tree top lover. All the men just call him sir".

These are my impressions, although I don't think they are necessarily conclusive, just likely given the way you represent yourself on the two sites.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:04 PM
So barring the rule of might makes right, how does an anarchist solve disputes?

I deal with ppl everyday without resorting to force or appealing to higher authorities. You can resolve disputes through discussion, believe it or not. In the case that force is unavoidable, I don't feel any better about it being put into the hands of an unjust government than I do about it being handled by the ppl involved.


And if you don't agree with the philosophical ideal of All humans have a right to life and liberty, which you seem to despite the above article, why bother mustering the empathy for people who cannot make their own way half way across the world, like your water buyers?

Again, "right to life and liberty" means that some group has to allow you those things. You only shouldn't be murdered becuse a state has given you that privilege. I don't believe that's theirs to give.

taijiamn
12th January 10, 08:15 PM
...

Again, "right to life and liberty" means that some group has to allow you those things. You only shouldn't be murdered becuse a state has given you that privilege. I don't believe that's theirs to give.

I think you missed what I was talking about. I mean philosophically, the idea that a life should be preserved that because something lives, it ought to get to keep living.

Also, and the part that I'm really curious about, as I know no anarchists

"As an anarchist, even an anarchist/socialist(which I think you self identified as?) how long do group decisions last? Is it only until one person dissents, consideration for the greater good?"

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:15 PM
That link works for me, thank you.

As far as the relationship of size to self worth is concerned, let's start with your username, which includes the terms "Lord" and "Humongous". A poster's username reveals a bit of their personality. Take me for instance, I fancy myself a utilitarian person, so I simply use my initials.

Secondly, you typically choose large men to use as your avatar, which is not an indication by itself, mind you, but when combined with other choices you make, gives an overall impression of a person who places value on physical size.

The most salient indicator, in my opinion, is the text you have under your avatar on BS. "All the ladies call him tree top lover. All the men just call him sir".

These are my impressions, although I don't think they are necessarily conclusive, just likely given the way you represent yourself on the two sites.

Ahhh, I see.

I chose the username because I'm a geek and loved the character from the The Road Warrior film. Its actually spelled Humungus in the film which is why I used that spelling. Part of this comes from the film itself. The rest comes from the fact that there was a pro-wrestler who took that name and persona whom my father and I were big fans of when I was younger.

Once the username was there, I figured I'd go with a theme. While I have used avatars who aren't large men, I mostly put up big dudes who I find interesting.

The sig I haven't changed in awhile, but I posted it when my avatar was Andre the Giant holding up a woman who seemed laughably tiny by comparison. I thought it fit. Also, Jim Croce songs rock.

TheLordHumungus
12th January 10, 08:18 PM
"As an anarchist, even an anarchist/socialist(which I think you self identified as?) how long do group decisions last? Is it only until one person dissents, consideration for the greater good?"

As an anarchist, I only belong to a group so long as I wish to. So I suppose group decisions affect me as long as I wish to remain a member of that group and abide by that decision.

taijiamn
12th January 10, 08:23 PM
That seems, to me, that it's a lot like congress

Zendetta
12th January 10, 08:27 PM
Which would be a more impressive statement were it not for your constant authority worshipping. The fact that I'm quite mercenary about taking orders is eclipsed by you pathetic insistence that it should be done for free. I may be a trained monkey, but at least I do my tricks for treats. Your the pathetic animal performing routine after routine all to please your uncaring master.

This is complete empty bullshit.

If you knew anything about me other than your own posturing and pretentious wannabe bullshit, you'd know that one thing I'm passionate about individual liberty.

And my "masters", as it were, are extremely compassionate, supportive people that have helped me develop a satisfying career. You may be enough of a spineless punk as to work for people you hate, but I'm not.

The thing I think is pathetic is that in your mind you are a daring revolutionary, but in reality you are a poorly compensated servant. What's truely tragic is that you obviously have the potential to be much more than that.

You could be doing so much more meaningful things with your life. Alas, Table 4 needs their drink order filled. You'd better step it up if you want that tip.

"Mercenary". That's hilarious. What you actually mean is that you don't have any better options.

For fuck's sake, could you at least do something blue collar? That would give you some Worker's Rights cred. Once again I pine away for ANTIFA. He was an anarchosocialist revolutionary we could respect.


You like to use the phrase 'falling flat' as a criticism. Likeit has some strong personal meaning to you. I see I've hit painfully close to the mark on the whole impotence thing. Sorry, didn't mean to bring up a sore subject.

You've misunderstood dramatically. Oh, you've pissed me off for sure, but not because you struck a nerve so much as you've shown your ass one too many times.

No, what I find disgusting is your repeated insult that people that don't cotton to your LARPing Rebellion are "cowardly".

Not sharing your lame-ass delusions does not equal "impotent" or "cowardly" or "authority worship" or whatever empty nonsense you'll vomit forth next.


The Greens aren't the only organisation I work with, but they do deal with a great many issues I find to be of interest. Their activities are also completely legal, which means little except that I feel more comfortable discussing them on a public forum.

Yes, the Greens do deal, incompetently and ineffectually, with a great many issues.

But I'm not at all suprised to hear that you waste your time with even more marginalized groups.


This I can tell you've learned from hard experience. Its a bit presumptious to assume you're a beta male, tho. You needn't be ashamed of being an Omega man. It at least sounds pretty cool.

And regarding the lack of women at liberal/leftist political gatherings: I was being facetious earlier. You do realize that women make up a disproportionately large....y'know what, never mind. Your ignorance is vastly funnier than explaining things to you is.

Pssst. I specifically said "desirable women".

By the way, my position periodically puts me in an "Alpha" role, and let me tell you, women will fling themselves at that. I've learned to not take advantage of it - because it doesn't exactly bring out the best in women. That is a lesson I learned the hard way.

SFGOON
12th January 10, 11:48 PM
As an anarchist, I only belong to a group so long as I wish to. So I suppose group decisions affect me as long as I wish to remain a member of that group and abide by that decision.

You must be a member of some really lame groups. Even MCs, cults and street gangs fuck your shit up if you try to leave. Blood out, blood in youknowwhatI'msayin'? You are into some retarded shit organizations who values you so little they won't even kick you ass for taking your human capital and walking out the door.

Hell, even the Wild Things tried to kill Max for walking out.

What's this shit you're into? ELF? Is it ELF? Or are you talking about quitting one restaurant by angrily stomping out? Hell, even I did that at the Olive Garden when I was 20. I was just so darned sick of brining the never-ending-pasta-bowl to fat people that I left. What an eye opening event. It set in motion a chain of events that will lead to me arguably being the most dangerous human being in history in two years.

I bet when YOU stomped out you kept stomping right across the street to the restaurant you used to go to after your shift at the one you worked at, except now that's where you work and the place you used to work is the place where you go after your shift at the job you have now.

And so, you're a single unit of a commodity and will be until you change your behavior. Just remember that every girl you'll ever love will eventually wrap her lips around the dick of a wealthier, more stable man while you read pocket editions of Marx under a bare bulb in a basement flophouse and argue with smug yuppie cunts such as myself over the internet.

Kein Haar
13th January 10, 12:16 AM
...under a bare bulb...

Ooo...I want to complete this picture.

There is also a hot-plate within 10 feet of the bed.

A dingy bare twin-size mattress whose springs creek when you shift. The mattress has faded blue stripes on it which run lengthwise.

SFGOON
13th January 10, 12:21 AM
The bulb flickers because there's bad wiring. Garbage is everywhere, and there's a vintage duct-tape punching bag in the corner.

The room smells like tinkle.

jnp
13th January 10, 01:01 AM
Ooo...I want to complete this picture.

There is also a hot-plate within 10 feet of the bed.

A dingy bare twin-size mattress whose springs creek when you shift. The mattress has faded blue stripes on it which run lengthwise.
I smell a bestseller.

Ajamil
13th January 10, 01:18 AM
You can insult the pretentiousness all you want, but why's everyone hating on wait staff?

SFGOON
13th January 10, 01:45 AM
How dare you, servant!! Chop chop, go fetch me some scallops!

Ajamil
13th January 10, 02:04 AM
Like...from the ocean?

http://www.eatnpark.com/upload/menucategory/seafood-pasta-photo.gif
Will this do? It has shrimp and scallops, and comes with one side.

SFGOON
13th January 10, 03:19 AM
Yes! Dammit boy! Hurry, Muffy is hungry!

Cullion
13th January 10, 03:35 AM
Certainly no set law. Its a piss poor anarchist who advocates laws. I do believe in cooperation and compromise between individuals. But not an oppressive state to make sure everybody is "free".

Without law, what prevents tyrannies of the majority arising ?

elipson
13th January 10, 11:14 AM
Nothing. And that's the way he likes it. No rights, no respect, just the rule of power.

It's amazing how much he hates the current system while advocating something much much worse.

Zendetta
13th January 10, 06:36 PM
why's everyone hating on wait staff?

Oh, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

It's just that if you are 30 years old and waiting tables is the peak of your career, then you really aren't in a position to be lecturing anybodyabout socioeconomic anything.

TheLordHumungus
13th January 10, 10:39 PM
This is complete empty bullshit.

If you knew anything about me other than your own posturing and pretentious wannabe bullshit, you'd know that one thing I'm passionate about individual liberty.

And my "masters", as it were, are extremely compassionate, supportive people that have helped me develop a satisfying career. You may be enough of a spineless punk as to work for people you hate, but I'm not. [ /quote]

You love personal liberty so much you constantly advocate blind obedience to anybody with a badge?

I despise the entire capitalist system, so I tend not to be fond of those I am a wage slave to. But you seem a bit confused. Submission to the point of loving those you submit to isn't courage. Its a fine quality in a dog, but less so in a person who imagines himself free.

[quote=Zendetta] The thing I think is pathetic is that in your mind you are a daring revolutionary, but in reality you are a poorly compensated servant. What's truely tragic is that you obviously have the potential to be much more than that.

You could be doing so much more meaningful things with your life. Alas, Table 4 needs their drink order filled. You'd better step it up if you want that tip.

I'll go over this one more time: "You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You are not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

But I'd hate to entirely fuck up your sense of self worth, since so much of its tied up in what you do and how much better it makes you than those working 'lesser' jobs. So I'll pretend I give a shit about whatever the fuck it is you do, and try to judge you on that rather than your constant support of deference t authority.


"Mercenary". That's hilarious. What you actually mean is that you don't have any better options.

For fuck's sake, could you at least do something blue collar? That would give you some Worker's Rights cred. Once again I pine away for ANTIFA. He was an anarchosocialist revolutionary we could respect.

And there I thought I used 'mercenary' to mean that I worked in an exploitative system only for the money I need to live. I suppose it would be hilarious if I were calling myself a Soldier of Fortune, or if you were stupid enough to believe I was.

And I do apologise for not choosing a career that meets with your approval. It may stem from the fact that nobody really gives a fuck about what you think.


You've misunderstood dramatically. Oh, you've pissed me off for sure, but not because you struck a nerve so much as you've shown your ass one too many times.

No, what I find disgusting is your repeated insult that people that don't cotton to your LARPing Rebellion are "cowardly".

Not sharing your lame-ass delusions does not equal "impotent" or "cowardly" or "authority worship" or whatever empty nonsense you'll vomit forth next.

That much is true, but your constant assertion that authority is necessary and that state violence is in some way more just than personal violence does happen to be authority worship.


Yes, the Greens do deal, incompetently and ineffectually, with a great many issues.

But I'm not at all suprised to hear that you waste your time with even more marginalized groups.

Damn right. Instead you should find a status quo, mainstream group and make yourself believe in the crap they're trying to accomplish. That way you get to feel like you accomplished something when they affect things. Don't fight for radical change, instead accept toothless reforms.


Pssst. I specifically said "desirable women".

You have beef with liberal women? That's cool, Ann Coulter types need love too.


By the way, my position periodically puts me in an "Alpha" role, and let me tell you, women will fling themselves at that. I've learned to not take advantage of it - because it doesn't exactly bring out the best in women. That is a lesson I learned the hard way.

See, again its your job that allows you to assume the Alpha "role". If you need your job to make you an alpha, you aren't. If you call it a 'role', then you're only playing at it. And if you have to claim to be an Alpha, you certainly aren't.

That actually wasn't meant to be a serious insult as I'm not much of a pack animal so I can't put too much stock in applying wolf/dog behaviour to humans.

TheLordHumungus
13th January 10, 10:50 PM
You must be a member of some really lame groups. Even MCs, cults and street gangs fuck your shit up if you try to leave. Blood out, blood in youknowwhatI'msayin'? You are into some retarded shit organizations who values you so little they won't even kick you ass for taking your human capital and walking out the door.

What kind of pathetic organisations value themselves so little that they have to threaten you in order to keep ppl as members? Besides the military, that is.

And tell me you don't apply this to all social interaction. Is the reason your wife hasn't left you that you care enough to beat her if she does? Its heart warming in a very disturbing way.


And so, you're a single unit of a commodity and will be until you change your behavior. Just remember that every girl you'll ever love will eventually wrap her lips around the dick of a wealthier, more stable man while you read pocket editions of Marx under a bare bulb in a basement flophouse and argue with smug yuppie cunts such as myself over the internet.
And those wealthier, more stable men will marry them and enjoy lifetimes of mind numbing monogamy. They can have it, I prefer my sex more meaningless and less exclusive.

TheLordHumungus
13th January 10, 10:54 PM
How dare you, servant!! Chop chop, go fetch me some scallops!

What the hell did you just say, Soldier?!?! You had better get yourself unfucked, and that is a goddamn order.

TheLordHumungus
13th January 10, 10:56 PM
Nothing. And that's the way he likes it. No rights, no respect, just the rule of power.

It's amazing how much he hates the current system while advocating something much much worse.

Your alternative is to accept and love the corrupt, violent gang currently running shit?

TheLordHumungus
13th January 10, 10:57 PM
Without law, what prevents tyrannies of the majority arising ?

Better a tyranny of the majority than one of the opulent minority.

Zendetta
13th January 10, 10:58 PM
You don't need a career that meets my approval, moron. You need a career that gets you closer to happiness and prosperity, something you can be proud of.

As to what I do, I'll give you a hint: those poor, downtrodden inner city folks you care so much about? I give them the skills they need to achieve a decent job, prosperity, and the chance to get ahead.

All this talk of "submission to authority" from someone who shucks and jives for tips from yuppies. Goddam that is some funny shit. You probably even have to wear a uniform and a funny hat. I'm on to you now - your whole schtick is projection, pure and simple.

Try to find some posts of mine that give evidence of this "blind obedience to the badge" you speak of. Links or STFU.

Seriously, you gutless cowardly fuck: if you believe this bullshit you are always spouting, why aren't you on a bus to Chiapas right now?

It's because you are too busy Fighting the Good Fight by fetching a plate of chili-cheese fries.

jnp
13th January 10, 11:02 PM
Your alternative is to accept and love the corrupt, violent gang currently running shit?
I have two multi-part questions for you. I am genuinely interested in your answers.

What do you think would happen if there was no rule of law? No system in place to protect the weak from the strong?

Are you aware of any successful anarchy living above a subsistence level? Either as a nation or a large group?

I am not denying a centrally controlled government has it's flaws because they all most certainly do, but I question whether an anarchy would not be worse because there is no system in place to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak.

SFGOON
13th January 10, 11:08 PM
Dude, we've already been over the whole Chiapas thing.

FARC is always recruiting disenfranchised white boys in Che Guevara T-shirts. I still have mine floating around somewhere.

Know who's a bitching' terrorist organization? Hamas! But TLH probably doesn't believe in Muhammad, either.

ETA would be exotic, because nobody knows who the Basque are. Of course, there's always the IRA but they've grown rather lame of late.

TheLordHumungus
14th January 10, 12:25 AM
You don't need a career that meets my approval, moron. You need a career that gets you closer to happiness and prosperity, something you can be proud of.

So if I'm proud of what I do and am happy doing it all is well? Or does it have to be what I do for a paycheck to avoid the hell that is poverty in a capitalist society? And does happiness have to mean contentment with injustice and suffering?


As to what I do, I'll give you a hint: those poor, downtrodden inner city folks you care so much about? I give them the skills they need to achieve a decent job, prosperity, and the chance to get ahead.

That's the thing, I don't care what you do. I'm on an internet forum to discuss ideas. I don't need to form straw men so I can ignore your ideas based upon whether who you are invalidates them. I do a couple things for a living, but I'm not going to jump to one so that the other is okay because its merely a secondary job.


All this talk of "submission to authority" from someone who shucks and jives for tips from yuppies. Goddam that is some funny shit. You probably even have to wear a uniform and a funny hat. I'm on to you now - your whole schtick is projection, pure and simple.

Try to find some posts of mine that give evidence of this "blind obedience to the badge" you speak of. Links or STFU.

Really? You feel you're in a position to make demands? That's cute.

If you want to deny that you've espoused the necessity of a state or its enforcing arm, that;s cool. I'll either go back and find quotes stating otherwise or apologise for mistaking you for somebody else. I will not, however, go fetch you your own words because you demanded it like a petulant child.

elipson
14th January 10, 12:31 AM
When I talk to TLH, I feel as if someone had gathered up the stupidest people of my University classes, took the stupidest things they ever said in class, and puked them onto the board.

You can't debate with someone who is fundamentally ignorant about the basis of society and yet is completely convinced of their own messianic position in regard to the suffering and injustice of the poor.

Keep fighting the good fight, on this message board. Maybe one day you will take action in the real world.

TheLordHumungus
14th January 10, 12:32 AM
I have two multi-part questions for you. I am genuinely interested in your answers.

What do you think would happen if there was no rule of law? No system in place to protect the weak from the strong?

Do you believe their is any real recourse under this system for the weak (the poor and disenfranchised) against the strong ( the opulent and influential)?

It seems many here assume the state as it exists provides anything like justice to everybody regardless of station.


Are you aware of any successful anarchy living above a subsistence level? Either as a nation or a large group?

I am not denying a centrally controlled government has it's flaws because they all most certainly do, but I question whether an anarchy would not be worse because there is no system in place to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak.

The question is a bit odd. Why add the 'above a subsistence level' criteria? Is excess the true indicator of political adequacy? And does that mean our state is failed because a great many people live at subsistence or below? What percentage of a population must be fat and happy in order to make it alright to ignore those who aren't?

TheLordHumungus
14th January 10, 12:38 AM
When I talk to TLH, I feel as if someone had gathered up the stupidest people of my University classes, took the stupidest things they ever said in class, and puked them onto the board.

You can't debate with someone who is fundamentally ignorant about the basis of society and yet is completely convinced of their own messianic position in regard to the suffering and injustice of the poor.

Keep fighting the good fight, on this message board. Maybe one day you will take action in the real world.

So this means you aren't ready to acknowledge that you believe that you're incapable of functioning without the state to protect what you've come to believe are your best interests? Or was this your graceful way of admitting it?

Ajamil
14th January 10, 12:41 AM
I feel a sense of Puritanical wealth = God's favor/success coming across. I'd love for waiting to be the height of my career (well, physical labor like construction would be better, but I mean a low totem pole job). However I know it isn't a tenable position for future security, thus though I hate it I will be moving forward. But let's not digress into a "what is best in life?" tangent.

TheLordHumungus
14th January 10, 12:42 AM
Dude, we've already been over the whole Chiapas thing.

FARC is always recruiting disenfranchised white boys in Che Guevara T-shirts. I still have mine floating around somewhere.

Know who's a bitching' terrorist organization? Hamas! But TLH probably doesn't believe in Muhammad, either.

ETA would be exotic, because nobody knows who the Basque are. Of course, there's always the IRA but they've grown rather lame of late.

I don't have a Che T-shirt yet. What size is yours and are you willing to part with it?

And while I do believe that Mohammed was a real person (there's a good deal of evidence to support that much), I don't believe in Allah. I don't think Hamas will be cool with accepting a dude who doesn't recognise their prophet as a prophet.

jnp
14th January 10, 12:57 AM
Do you believe their is any real recourse under this system for the weak (the poor and disenfranchised) against the strong ( the opulent and influential)?
I am aware of several court cases and a few cases of the government protecting the weak from the strong, yes. I notice you didn't answer my question. You asked me one instead.

For arguments sake, I am also aware of many government injustices. Once again, I'm not claiming the U.S. government is the tooth fairy. Personally I think anarchy has potential for a mature species, but I don't think humans have reached that level of maturity. Now will you answer my question?



The question is a bit odd. Why add the 'above a subsistence level' criteria? Is excess the true indicator of political adequacy? And does that mean our state is failed because a great many people live at subsistence or below? What percentage of a population must be fat and happy in order to make it alright to ignore those who aren't?
I am aware of a few subsistence level societies throughout history that survived for a significant time period under anarchic conditions, but unaware of any that were above this level. Hence my qualifier.

Is it always this hard to get you to answer questions?

Zendetta
14th January 10, 01:18 AM
I don't need to form straw men so I can ignore your ideas based upon whether who you are invalidates them.

Protip: what I'm doing to you is ad hominem, not "strawman arguement".

Ad Hom wouldn't be a valid tactic in a real debate, but it is a perfect counter to your "cowardly submission to authority" insults.

It really has become painfully clear to me why you always fall back on the "submissive" cracks: its a good description of what you despise about yourself.

You do have to wear a goofy uniform, don't you?


If you want to deny that you've espoused the necessity of a state or its enforcing arm, that;s cool. I'll either go back and find quotes stating otherwise or apologise for mistaking you for somebody else. I will not, however, go fetch you your own words because you demanded it like a petulant child.

I'm not denying the necessity of the State or of Law Enforcement. The issue is that I am far from the submissive bourgie slave that you wish I was (hint: go find some of the threads where I've argued with Equipoise or FoxGuitar).

I don't care whether you try to validate your nonsense or not, I'm just calling you out on your bullshit. Feel free to not provide evidence for your ramblings - it just reinforces the degree to which you are blowing hot air out of your ass.

elipson
14th January 10, 01:40 AM
So this means you aren't ready to acknowledge that you believe that you're incapable of functioning without the state to protect what you've come to believe are your best interests? Or was this your graceful way of admitting it?

Not even close. I very much feel that human society requires some form or hierarchy, and that this stems from several sources but the main one being the family unit, with parents naturally having a priviledged status over their children. This organic tendency leads people to create hierarchal structures, either in leadership or subservient roles. I think the only way to exist without this structure is to be a recluse and to isolate yourself from other people. Short of doing this, I feel people always exist in hierarchies and the main issues are those of scale and determination. Saying you refute the current system, and yet continuing to live in it and making no effort to change it, is hilarious.

Trying to create a society where there are no dominant rule makers and no monopoly of force will result in violence (ala post Katrina New Orleans) as other people try to create their own stability within an unstable system. This has nothing to do with my own feelings of governance and is instead a belief I have about people in general. People like stability and don't like risk. I am quite capable of living on my own with no systems of control, however once I interact with other people, and have no recourse to isolate myself from them, then human nature will require that rules be made to govern the interactions between us. Peaceful co-existence, a pre-requisite for a "society", will require one or both of us to determine these rules, either peacefully or by coercion. We can both decide independantly not to deal with the other, but that would be isolation and therefore would not be a "society".

You can disagree with me if you like, but feel free to offer examples of why you think people can and prefer to exist without a social structure. You won't, and we both know it.

I've tried to have this discussion with you before, in a rational manner, but you are either unwilling or unable to pursue this in a logical manner, so therefore I figure it's a better use of my time to just ridicule you and entertain myself.

taijiamn
14th January 10, 07:07 AM
...


I'll go over this one more time: "You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You are not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

But I'd hate to entirely fuck up your sense of self worth, since so much of its tied up in what you do and how much better it makes you than those working 'lesser' jobs. So I'll pretend I give a shit about whatever the fuck it is you do, and try to judge you on that rather than your constant support of deference t authority.

...

I never really understood this part. How are you not what you do day in and day out, what you strive for? Even in the movie, he was his apartment and furniture, until he decided to create change, then he was prety much defined by the Fight Club, 'cause yanno, that's what he did day in and day out, that was what his goals were.

Can you dumb it down for me a little, I guess I'm slow

Kein Haar
14th January 10, 07:30 AM
You probably even have to wear a uniform and a funny hat.

It's called flare.

Zendetta
14th January 10, 09:50 AM
Indeed.

TLH, we need to talk. Do you know what this is about?

I'm counting and I only see fifteen pieces of flair.

How do you feel about people who only do the bare minimum?

I thought I remembered you saying you wanted to express yourself.

-bXHPqj3NcI

TheLordHumungus
17th January 10, 12:16 PM
I am aware of several court cases and a few cases of the government protecting the weak from the strong, yes. I notice you didn't answer my question. You asked me one instead.

For arguments sake, I am also aware of many government injustices. Once again, I'm not claiming the U.S. government is the tooth fairy. Personally I think anarchy has potential for a mature species, but I don't think humans have reached that level of maturity. Now will you answer my question?

Sure. So far as to whether there is any protection for the weak against the strong, there is the whole aspect of community. There is also the fact that in a society without class, weak and strong are more fluid concepts that depend on the situation rather than an inescapable hierarchical system.



I am aware of a few subsistence level societies throughout history that survived for a significant time period under anarchic conditions, but unaware of any that were above this level. Hence my qualifier.

Is it always this hard to get you to answer questions?

Only ones that may be loaded, which is all I was trying to determine.

I suppose it depends upon your definition of what a significant amount of time is. There was the Paris commune and Freetown, Christiania. But for the most part, no. Excess isn't a quality common to anarchist societies.

TheLordHumungus
17th January 10, 01:09 PM
Protip: what I'm doing to you is ad hominem, not "strawman arguement".

Ad Hom wouldn't be a valid tactic in a real debate, but it is a perfect counter to your "cowardly submission to authority" insults.

It really has become painfully clear to me why you always fall back on the "submissive" cracks: its a good description of what you despise about yourself.

You do have to wear a goofy uniform, don't you?

So we're now at the point where your argument is going to consist of "No, you are!"

Well played sir. You've forced me to invoke the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense.



I'm not denying the necessity of the State or of Law Enforcement.

Many argue that the state is preferable to living without rule of law. You've called the state not just preferable, but necessary. How could your position be any more submissive?

SFGOON
17th January 10, 01:15 PM
So we're now at the point where your argument is going to consist of "No, you are!"

You started it.

Hey TLH, you watching the news? Notice a lot of the multinational military presence in Haiti is Latin American? Do you see how they're operating as a coordinated, organized relief mission, how there's a cohesive coalition of aid with as little clusterfuckery as possible?

I taught them that shit. Viva SoA!

TheLordHumungus
17th January 10, 01:19 PM
Not even close. I very much feel that human society requires some form or hierarchy, and that this stems from several sources but the main one being the family unit, with parents naturally having a priviledged status over their children. This organic tendency leads people to create hierarchal structures, either in leadership or subservient roles. I think the only way to exist without this structure is to be a recluse and to isolate yourself from other people. Short of doing this, I feel people always exist in hierarchies and the main issues are those of scale and determination. Saying you refute the current system, and yet continuing to live in it and making no effort to change it, is hilarious.

Its always society that needs some form of hierarchy. Its never you, but other ppl who require laws and masters. Why is that? Why is it those who advocate rule of law never admit it is they who require control?


Trying to create a society where there are no dominant rule makers and no monopoly of force will result in violence (ala post Katrina New Orleans) as other people try to create their own stability within an unstable system. This has nothing to do with my own feelings of governance and is instead a belief I have about people in general. People like stability and don't like risk. I am quite capable of living on my own with no systems of control, however once I interact with other people, and have no recourse to isolate myself from them, then human nature will require that rules be made to govern the interactions between us. Peaceful co-existence, a pre-requisite for a "society", will require one or both of us to determine these rules, either peacefully or by coercion. We can both decide independantly not to deal with the other, but that would be isolation and therefore would not be a "society".

You can disagree with me if you like, but feel free to offer examples of why you think people can and prefer to exist without a social structure. You won't, and we both know it.

I've tried to have this discussion with you before, in a rational manner, but you are either unwilling or unable to pursue this in a logical manner, so therefore I figure it's a better use of my time to just ridicule you and entertain myself.

But a society with dominant rule makers and a monopoly of force also results in violence. Its just that a permanent powerful organization always has the upper hand when it comes to smashing any group or individual that interferes with its interests.

So we can assume that you disdain violence unless the fight is grossly one sided?

TheLordHumungus
17th January 10, 01:30 PM
It's called flare.
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3434/266367930.jpg
Ohhh... that's what you call all that shit.

How're you gonna join in on derisive speculation that somebody else may wear a silly outfit for their job, when its a certainty that you do?

There's even a silly hat involved.

TheLordHumungus
17th January 10, 01:38 PM
You started it.

Already invoked the "rubber and glue" defense. So I'm afraid it is YOU who started it.


Hey TLH, you watching the news? Notice a lot of the multinational military presence in Haiti is Latin American? Do you see how they're operating as a coordinated, organized relief mission, how there's a cohesive coalition of aid with as little clusterfuckery as possible?

I taught them that shit. Viva SoA!

I thought you said you taught Human Rights. Which is it? Were you the only instructor at SOA?

I should've seen through that story from the start. You were teaching 'extraordinary rendition during your entire stint there, weren't you?

Keith
17th January 10, 02:35 PM
But a society with dominant rule makers and a monopoly of force also results in violence. Its just that a permanent powerful organization always has the upper hand when it comes to smashing any group or individual that interferes with its interests.

So we can assume that you disdain violence unless the fight is grossly one sided?

So recently I cut my finger. It was deep and bleed profusely. I went to the doctor who cleaned out the wound, examined it, and claimed it would need stitches. The next thing this psycho does is to take out a needle and jab me with it. He injected some kind of chemical in my finger. Then he takes out a curved needle and sticks me with that one repeatedly; pushing it in one side and pulling it out the other of my skin. It was insane! How the fuck is it suposed to help my laceration by poking more holes in me?

Vieux Normand
17th January 10, 02:43 PM
I'll go over this one more time: "You are not your job..."

We are our deeds--job included (for better or worse).

elipson
17th January 10, 03:14 PM
Its always society that needs some form of hierarchy. Its never you, but other ppl who require laws and masters. Why is that? Why is it those who advocate rule of law never admit it is they who require control?

You are redirecting and not addressing the issues I am raising, specifically that people are inherantly programed to look for structure. Hurricane Katrina for example. If you disagree with this then please elaborate.

I feel an individual in isolation can exist without any of form law or hiearchy, but once interaction takes place, both parties will require standards and norms for that interaction, creating the need for rules and therefore rule makers, however they be decided. I am totally a part of this, and feel that if I'm interacting with others then some norms of conduct should be established. Do you agree or disagree?


But a society with dominant rule makers and a monopoly of force also results in violence. Humanity is a circus display of violence. There is more violence without a social structure than with a social structure. You disagree?


Its just that a permanent powerful organization always has the upper hand when it comes to smashing any group or individual that interferes with its interests. You are assuming all structures are permanent and cannot be changed by the pro-letariat. While democracies may not be perfect, I think they are at the moment preferable to all the other types of government apparatus we've had throughout history. If there was a scale of dictatorships, with Stalin being on the right and somalia being on the left, I think we are center left at the moment.

I think what you are experiencing is a rejection of the society around you as you find that your views are not popular or powerful enough to inspire change in a democratic system, so you blame the system and avoid blaming either yourself for not being able to spark change, or the people around you who aren't rallying behind your cause. This is one of the downsides of democracy; if your views aren't popular then they won't inspire change. You are suffering from a limited tyranny of the majority, which is hilariously ironic because it's what you are advocating to replace the system with. In such a system, your unpopular views wouldn't change much, but the stripping of the State would make you vulnerable to those in society who were able to rally others behind them. Unless of course you feel that people are only being prevented from joining your cause because of the current social structure; which would be odd because you haven't converted anyone here over the years and I doubt people in real life are any more sympathetic towards your beliefs than we are. What are your thoughts on that? In a structureless society, do you feel your beliefs would get a better response than in the current system?

I know you like to change the topic by making off the side comments and then avoiding the issue, but please try to stay on target in your response.

Keith
17th January 10, 07:34 PM
We've strayed pretty far from the Iranian protests, so I started a new thread.

http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1517631#post1517631

I'm especially interested in seeing TLH's replies.

SFGOON
17th January 10, 08:19 PM
No you're not!

elipson
17th January 10, 08:23 PM
You won't get a straight answer from him. You NEVER get a straight answer from him.

Keith
17th January 10, 08:29 PM
No you're not!

Come to think of it, that's probably a fair rebuttal.

TheLordHumungus
18th January 10, 09:59 PM
You are redirecting and not addressing the issues I am raising, specifically that people are inherantly programed to look for structure. Hurricane Katrina for example. If you disagree with this then please elaborate.

I'm not sure whether or not I disagree. Could you clarify what you're using Katrina as an example of?


I feel an individual in isolation can exist without any of form law or hiearchy, but once interaction takes place, both parties will require standards and norms for that interaction, creating the need for rules and therefore rule makers, however they be decided. I am totally a part of this, and feel that if I'm interacting with others then some norms of conduct should be established. Do you agree or disagree?

This is why I defined what I consider liberty to be earlier in this thread . I don't think freedom can be found in isolation as it is inextricably linked to human interaction. Its like saying desegregation would've been made easier had we sent black people back to Africa.

I don't quite understand why I need laws and a hierarchy in order to have a discussion or other interaction with another person. What norms of conduct are in place that you believe exist because of legislation and require enforcement by violence?


Humanity is a circus display of violence. There is more violence without a social structure than with a social structure. You disagree?[quote=elipson]

I do. If you consider not only violence that happens in spite of law enforcement, but also violence carried out by the state (violence by the military and police, forcefully keeping ppl imprisoned), I'm not convinced that a state in any way deters violence. Force is its bread and butter.

By the way, there can be social structure without a state. The reason I can so rarely give you a straight answer is that you (perhaps unintentionally) ask loaded questions. Like the assumption that social norms result from legislation. I can't honestly answer a question that proceeds from false premises.

[quote=elipson]You are assuming all structures are permanent and cannot be changed by the pro-letariat. While democracies may not be perfect, I think they are at the moment preferable to all the other types of government apparatus we've had throughout history. If there was a scale of dictatorships, with Stalin being on the right and somalia being on the left, I think we are center left at the moment.

The problem is that the system isn't designed to address the needs of the proletariat. All the power and access is held by those with money. And when the common people make their voices heard through demonstrations/riots/ strikes, the state silences them with force.


I think what you are experiencing is a rejection of the society around you as you find that your views are not popular or powerful enough to inspire change in a democratic system, so you blame the system and avoid blaming either yourself for not being able to spark change, or the people around you who aren't rallying behind your cause. This is one of the downsides of democracy; if your views aren't popular then they won't inspire change. You are suffering from a limited tyranny of the majority, which is hilariously ironic because it's what you are advocating to replace the system with. In such a system, your unpopular views wouldn't change much, but the stripping of the State would make you vulnerable to those in society who were able to rally others behind them. Unless of course you feel that people are only being prevented from joining your cause because of the current social structure; which would be odd because you haven't converted anyone here over the years and I doubt people in real life are any more sympathetic towards your beliefs than we are. What are your thoughts on that? In a structureless society, do you feel your beliefs would get a better response than in the current system?

First, we don't live in a democracy. Its more like an elected oligarchy.

I advocate a stateless system because my concern isn't how many people agree with me, but that I not be held to the rules of a group I have no interest in being part of.

Besides, in a stateless society I'd be the status quo mofo. You would be the one telling me that I'm a coward who doesn't have the stones to be told what to do day in and day out. People also assume that because things are a certain way, no other way is possible. That would be less of a facto when ppl realized that it is possible to live without gods or masters.

TheLordHumungus
18th January 10, 10:02 PM
You won't get a straight answer from him. You NEVER get a straight answer from him.

Heterosexist.

SFGOON
19th January 10, 07:02 PM
I'm not sure whether or not I disagree. Could you clarify what you're using Katrina as an example of?

G.B.D.C.A.B.P.

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People.

Zendetta
19th January 10, 08:39 PM
I'm not convinced that a state in any way deters violence.

This is one of the fundamental fallacies that your house-of-cards-paradigm is based on.

Get clear on this: you are thoroughly wrong on this point. Among stateless hunter-gatherer groups, homocide is generally the number one cause of death amongst males.

Certainly, the State can produce horrific violence, but a functional civil society can and does prevent a tremendous ammount of violence and exploitation.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

It also means that the society has the centralization necessary to effectively respond to other types of disasters.

see also: Haiti


The problem is that the system isn't designed to address the needs of the proletariat.

And this is the other glaring fallacy. Oh, it's true the system isn't "designed for the Proles", but this system, our system, offers so much potential for upward mobility it's mindblowing.

That's precisely why so many people are willing to cross deserts and oceans to get a crack at that opportunity. How can you not see this?

Oh, yeah. That.

Vieux Normand
19th January 10, 08:43 PM
Among stateless hunter-gatherer groups, homocide is generally the number one cause of death amongst males.

This makes them far more dangerous than either government or corporate hunter-gatherer groups.

Zendetta
19th January 10, 08:55 PM
LOL. Indeed it does, Vieux. And that is exactly the point.

Even Bloodthirsty Government Savages or Ruthless Corporate Scalp-hunters are less dangerous than human beings in a state of nature.

Vieux Normand
19th January 10, 08:57 PM
LOL. Indeed it does, Vieux. And that is exactly the point.

Even Bloodthirsty Government Savages or Ruthless Corporate Scalp-hunters are less dangerous than human beings in a state of nature.

If the latter are 'in a state of nature', how then can they also be 'stateless'?

Zee Eenglish, she fascinates, oui?

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 12:24 AM
G.B.D.C.A.B.P.

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People.

That's one truth that's self evident.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 12:37 AM
This is one of the fundamental fallacies that your house-of-cards-paradigm is based on.

Get clear on this: you are thoroughly wrong on this point. Among stateless hunter-gatherer groups, homocide is generally the number one cause of death amongst males.

Certainly, the State can produce horrific violence, but a functional civil society can and does prevent a tremendous ammount of violence and exploitation.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

It also means that the society has the centralization necessary to effectively respond to other types of disasters.

see also: Haiti


I'm not sure if I missed it, but I didn't see in there what he considers violence. Only the murder rates? Or does he also include all acts of force by the people as well as state and military officials? And does this include the violence required to imprison huge numbers of people as well ast that required to keep them detained? What about the violence that occurs in the prisons they're detained in? I don't mean to sound like I'm calling the dude a liar, but if one source were all it takes to establish truth in a study, I could save a bunch of time and just quote Chomsky ad infinitum.


And this is the other glaring fallacy. Oh, it's true the system isn't "designed for the Proles", but this system, our system, offers so much potential for upward mobility it's mindblowing.

That's precisely why so many people are willing to cross deserts and oceans to get a crack at that opportunity. How can you not see this?

Oh, yeah. That.

I have an idea. You provide some evidence supporting this and I'll provide some stating otherwise. Since our system has "so much upward mobility its mind-blowing "this should be ridiculously easy for you and painfully difficult for me.

Sometimes the water everyone is sure is just ahead turns out to be an artfully crafted mirage.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 12:53 AM
I never really understood this part. How are you not what you do day in and day out, what you strive for? Even in the movie, he was his apartment and furniture, until he decided to create change, then he was prety much defined by the Fight Club, 'cause yanno, that's what he did day in and day out, that was what his goals were.

Can you dumb it down for me a little, I guess I'm slow

Its actually my fault. I'm a quite classist and put little stock in middle and upper class values. I understand that to the middle class, your job is such an important part of who you are that ppl will ask what you do before asking almost anything else besides your name.

In the words of Dr. Rudy Payne: " ... generally, in middle class, work and
achievement tend to be the driving forces in decision-making. In wealth, the driving forces are the political, social, and financial connections. In generational poverty, the driving forces are survival, entertainment, and relationships."

I instinctively dismiss this in the same way that many here instinctively accept t. Also, I like to quote fight club once in awhile.

elipson
20th January 10, 01:09 AM
I realized after I posted that my Katrina reference was ambiguous. Apologies.

The point I think i was trying to make was that people in a stateless existence are prone to act out in violence and not work together in a loving circle jerk of awesomeness.


I don't quite understand why I need laws and a hierarchy in order to have a discussion or other interaction with another person. What norms of conduct are in place that you believe exist because of legislation and require enforcement by violence?
I'm bigger than you, so I have no reason not to punch you in the face and take your apples. You go get a gun, shoot me, and take your apples back. Now all trade is done at gun point, and those without weapons get raped. Those with weapons develop inherant rules of conduct to determine who gets shot for what. Steal my apples, I shoot you. Don't steal my apples, I don't shoot you. If none of these rules get developed, then we all just shoot each other for no apparent reason. Rules are created organically between individuals to establish norms of conduct, so that I know if I steal your apples you'll shoot me, and vice versa. Without these community rules, the system breaks down into constant warfare between all parties, as no one is able to trust the other, due to the lack of established customs, rules, and expectations. If I don't know what actions will get me shot, then I won't trade with you. I'll just shoot you and take what I need and then shoot others so they don't do the same. I could attempt to trade, but I have no expectation that you will honour our agreement, because such customs are "rules" and therefore do not exist.

"Laws" are just the official codification of many of the rules and customs we would have without the government to make them official. Yes, I just gave you an argument there, but I'm waiting with the comeback already.


I do. If you consider not only violence that happens in spite of law enforcement, but also violence carried out by the state (violence by the military and police, forcefully keeping ppl imprisoned), I'm not convinced that a state in any way deters violence. Force is its bread and butter. The violence of places like Somalia and sans-government New Orleans seem to me to be much more excessive than any of the violence I see in my life. And I lead a relatively violent life compared to others I know.

The key there is also the reason why state violence is done. It's considered "justified" (but not in all occasions). What a society deems "justified" and how the state enforces them is subjective and methods differ in determining them. Can we both agree that societies are subjective in their determination of "justified violence"? Would you agree that some violence IS justified?


By the way, there can be social structure without a state. The reason I can so rarely give you a straight answer is that you (perhaps unintentionally) ask loaded questions. Like the assumption that social norms result from legislation. I can't honestly answer a question that proceeds from false premises.
I ask loaded questions on purpose. I never said that social norms result from legislation. I assume the opposite, and that the legislation you oppose is just the codification of the norms societies develop (obviously not in all cases). I also should point out that your definition of a "State" is rigid and outdated, and that a "State" can exist in many scales and forms. Tribal societies can be considered "States", although not Nation-States as the Modern definition fits, and the one you are using.


The problem is that the system isn't designed to address the needs of the proletariat. All the power and access is held by those with money. And when the common people make their voices heard through demonstrations/riots/ strikes, the state silences them with force.
I partially agree with you but not to the extent that you take it to. I think the majority of government systems are historically much worse than what we have in Liberal Democracies today. We have a plague of problems in many of our government systems today, but we have today better means of protesting and changing them, non-violenty, than in any time in history.

Can you explain why there are so many strikes and protests that are NOT settled violently by the State? One would think that with such a monopoly of force that the State would silence ALL forms of protest, instead of allowing so many to go unhindered.



I advocate a stateless system because my concern isn't how many people agree with me, but that I not be held to the rules of a group I have no interest in being part of.

Besides, in a stateless society I'd be the status quo mofo.

You are a part of society whether you like it or not. If you are going to co-exist, then you are going to have to play by the social norms of that group. That, or isolation.

In a stateless society, everyone else would be trying to bring stability to the madness, and you would still be the outsider. Because people like stability and structure. As I argued before.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 01:33 AM
I realized after I posted that my Katrina reference was ambiguous. Apologies.

The point I think i was trying to make was that people in a stateless existence are prone to act out in violence and not work together in a loving circle jerk of awesomeness.


I'm bigger than you, so I have no reason not to punch you in the face and take your apples. You go get a gun, shoot me, and take your apples back. Now all trade is done at gun point, and those without weapons get raped. Those with weapons develop inherant rules of conduct to determine who gets shot for what. Steal my apples, I shoot you. Don't steal my apples, I don't shoot you. If none of these rules get developed, then we all just shoot each other for no apparent reason. Rules are created organically between individuals to establish norms of conduct, so that I know if I steal your apples you'll shoot me, and vice versa. Without these community rules, the system breaks down into constant warfare between all parties, as no one is able to trust the other, due to the lack of established customs, rules, and expectations. If I don't know what actions will get me shot, then I won't trade with you. I'll just shoot you and take what I need and then shoot others so they don't do the same. I could attempt to trade, but I have no expectation that you will honour our agreement, because such customs are "rules" and therefore do not exist.

"Laws" are just the official codification of many of the rules and customs we would have without the government to make them official. Yes, I just gave you an argument there, but I'm waiting with the comeback already.

The violence of places like Somalia and sans-government New Orleans seem to me to be much more excessive than any of the violence I see in my life. And I lead a relatively violent life compared to others I know.

The key there is also the reason why state violence is done. It's considered "justified" (but not in all occasions). What a society deems "justified" and how the state enforces them is subjective and methods differ in determining them. Can we both agree that societies are subjective in their determination of "justified violence"? Would you agree that some violence IS justified?


I ask loaded questions on purpose. I never said that social norms result from legislation. I assume the opposite, and that the legislation you oppose is just the codification of the norms societies develop (obviously not in all cases). I also should point out that your definition of a "State" is rigid and outdated, and that a "State" can exist in many scales and forms. Tribal societies can be considered "States", although not Nation-States as the Modern definition fits, and the one you are using.


I partially agree with you but not to the extent that you take it to. I think the majority of government systems are historically much worse than what we have in Liberal Democracies today. We have a plague of problems in many of our government systems today, but we have today better means of protesting and changing them, non-violenty, than in any time in history.

Can you explain why there are so many strikes and protests that are NOT settled violently by the State? One would think that with such a monopoly of force that the State would silence ALL forms of protest, instead of allowing so many to go unhindered.



You are a part of society whether you like it or not. If you are going to co-exist, then you are going to have to play by the social norms of that group. That, or isolation.

In a stateless society, everyone else would be trying to bring stability to the madness, and you would still be the outsider. Because people like stability and structure. As I argued before.

I'm a bit confused by what our disagreement is here. I have no problem with rules and norms that evolve organically. I advocate anarchy, not chaos, I don't like laws because they are so much more than natural norms and rules that are codified. They are set up to allow the system to allow much to a few and little to everybody else. Without a state supporting them a small minority couldn't hold so large a share of the world's wealth. Not with how outnumbered they are by those they've expolied to do so.

And your last part is exactly my problem. If I don't wish to participate in your society I should be allowed to opt out and have no part of it. Controlling willing ppl is one thing.But saying that all those existing on what they claim as their turf must be subject to their rules, I find that vile. If belonging to the government is so wonderful, why must you be forced to participate simply because of where you were born and live?

taijiamn
20th January 10, 07:37 AM
Its actually my fault. I'm a quite classist and put little stock in middle and upper class values. I understand that to the middle class, your job is such an important part of who you are that ppl will ask what you do before asking almost anything else besides your name.

In the words of Dr. Rudy Payne: " ... generally, in middle class, work and
achievement tend to be the driving forces in decision-making. In wealth, the driving forces are the political, social, and financial connections. In generational poverty, the driving forces are survival, entertainment, and relationships."

I instinctively dismiss this in the same way that many here instinctively accept t. Also, I like to quote fight club once in awhile.

I think you've managed to confuse me again.

A classist anarchist? I'm not sure how that works...

But, putting your distaste for posessions aside; a farmer, if he owns the land or not, is a farmer because that's what he does, he is not a deep sea diver.

I do not know what your goals in life are, but currently you are a service drone, yes? While you may be some other things, in addition to this, assuming full time work, a third of your day revolves around being a service drone. And untill your work, you know, the things you do, changes you will continue to be a service drone and not a pretty pretty butterfly or whatever you may wish to be.

To add in materials, you may not be a service drone looking to improve upon your stuff, you might just do it to eat, fine, but you're still a service drone.

Even with your quote on the achievement desires of classes, I don't see how you're not what you do.

Zendetta
20th January 10, 11:44 AM
I advocate anarchy, not chaos

HAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITI HAITIHAITI

Zendetta
20th January 10, 11:52 AM
If I don't wish to participate in your society I should be allowed to opt out and have no part of it.

Goddam it. I was worried that if I argued with you long enough, we'd wind up agreeing about something.

grumble grumble...

Kein Haar
20th January 10, 04:15 PM
If I don't wish to participate in your society I should be allowed to opt out and have no part of it.

You can. Go buy some land in south Texas which is so remote and retarded that it isn't even part of an unincorporated township. No fire protection districts, no nothin'. You don't even have to leave the country.

Nobody will give a damn what you do. I absoloutely promise you that.

Oh,....OH...oh yeah, you want all that infrastructure and stuff which was the product of this interface between public and private administrations which is protected by these common authorities.

Yeah, you want all that too.

Nevermind.

Zendetta
20th January 10, 04:21 PM
Yeah, Man, but buying land is, like, participating in the Exploitative Western Imperialist Capitalist System.

Kein Haar
20th January 10, 04:27 PM
The Amish would welcome some fresh genes, but...man...all those rules. They literally tell you how to dress!

But they're off the grid, don't pay into SS etc.

But again...all those internal rules.

"Yeah, but I can opt out. Cloistered, self-sufficient socities are all flexible and stuff."

Yeah, but you can't get in unless you pledge and promise and devote this and that which makes things, actually, pretty rigid. YOu don't get thousands of people to wear monochrome clothing and wierd beards by a laissez-faire approach.

Which would make you, predictably, a basically dishonorable creep if you considered that situation optional and flexible. But we knew that.

Zendetta
20th January 10, 04:50 PM
An author I like tells about living with a group of straight edge vegan anarchists.

It eventually dawned on her that these dweebs had more rules than anyone else she knew.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 05:27 PM
I think you've managed to confuse me again.

A classist anarchist? I'm not sure how that works...

But, putting your distaste for posessions aside; a farmer, if he owns the land or not, is a farmer because that's what he does, he is not a deep sea diver.

I do not know what your goals in life are, but currently you are a service drone, yes? While you may be some other things, in addition to this, assuming full time work, a third of your day revolves around being a service drone. And untill your work, you know, the things you do, changes you will continue to be a service drone and not a pretty pretty butterfly or whatever you may wish to be.

To add in materials, you may not be a service drone looking to improve upon your stuff, you might just do it to eat, fine, but you're still a service drone.

Even with your quote on the achievement desires of classes, I don't see how you're not what you do.

Just depends what means something to you. If I asked you about yourself and you told me you sleep, it really wouldn't tell me much.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 05:29 PM
You can. Go buy some land in south Texas which is so remote and retarded that it isn't even part of an unincorporated township. No fire protection districts, no nothin'. You don't even have to leave the country.

Nobody will give a damn what you do. I absoloutely promise you that.

Oh,....OH...oh yeah, you want all that infrastructure and stuff which was the product of this interface between public and private administrations which is protected by these common authorities.

Yeah, you want all that too.

Nevermind.

I can do without infrastructure. What I don't think I can pull off is being a hermit.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 05:33 PM
HAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITIHAITI HAITIHAITI

Haiti isn't a stateless society. Its a society that has a state, but is suffering the horrific aftermath of huge fucking earthquake.

What, did your news tell you all that suffering was happening because the Haitian government resigned? I could see how that would be confusing.

TheLordHumungus
20th January 10, 05:39 PM
An author I like tells about living with a group of straight edge vegan anarchists.

It eventually dawned on her that these dweebs had more rules than anyone else she knew.

I don't mind rules as part of group membership, even numerous ones.

That said, living with straight edge vegans sounds mind numbingly awful.

Zendetta
20th January 10, 06:28 PM
Haiti isn't a stateless society.

It is now.

Civil society has broken down, and the worst aspects of mankind have been let loose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/7030248/Haiti-earthquake-police-admit-gangs-have-taken-over-Port-au-Prince.html

GuiltySpark
20th January 10, 08:33 PM
Anarchist's going to work paying taxes and being little worker drones are like islamic terrorists bitching about the west and all it's technology while being video taped with a cell phone in a cave wearing timex sending it out over the internet.

Honestly anarchist's going on about how anti-government they are is a step below Aikido students going on about how they are pacifists.

bob
20th January 10, 11:21 PM
What happened to teh r34l anarchists? Those bearded 20th century dudes who threw bombs at world leaders and loved to ally with the communists and see who could betray who first when the revolution was underway.

Those guys had stones. They were anarchists you could fear and respect, not like these pewling middle class modern types. "Give me liberty or give me death, unless it involves giving up my colour tv y'know because that would be an inconvenience."

Zendetta
20th January 10, 11:30 PM
You can't understand today's anarchists without understanding White Guilt.

Ajamil
20th January 10, 11:33 PM
The presence of a nation can help and hurt disaster responses. They provide good infrastructure as a preventative measure - a st procedure to follow to avoid the confusion and lack of common purpose in the beginning of a disaster. Yet they can also hinder response - both through corruption and by the simple fact that they've drawn artificial lines across the world. Consider the disaster in Burma - most of the aid was turned back by the state because it came from other states. There is concern that pledging money through any govt. - US or Haitian, but mostly Haitian by the sane) - will disappear into the pockets of those who were affected least and in the best position to acquire power after the earthquake.

elipson
20th January 10, 11:47 PM
Can you explain why there are so many strikes and protests that are NOT settled violently by the State? One would think that with such a monopoly of force that the State would silence ALL forms of protest, instead of allowing so many to go unhindered.
You forgot to answer this one.


They are set up to allow the system to allow much to a few and little to everybody else. Without a state supporting them a small minority couldn't hold so large a share of the world's wealth. Not with how outnumbered they are by those they've expolied to do so.
I think you over-estimate just how oppressive the society is that we live in, and GROSSLY under-estimate a people's ability to enact change within Western democracies. I could name off some of the biggest changes we have gone through, but you wouldn't really care and would ignore the point I was making by talking about them.


And your last part is exactly my problem. If I don't wish to participate in your society I should be allowed to opt out and have no part of it. Controlling willing ppl is one thing.But saying that all those existing on what they claim as their turf must be subject to their rules, I find that vile. If belonging to the government is so wonderful, why must you be forced to participate simply because of where you were born and live?
I sympathize with you here, but it's one of these things in life that is just unfair. Like others have said, there are places you can go and live by yourself. There are many countries you could move to as well. But you like being in society. Deal with it.

Cullion
21st January 10, 07:03 PM
I can do without infrastructure.

Let's get to the crux of this.

What precisely do you wish to do that your current society forbids you from doing ?

Vieux Normand
21st January 10, 07:34 PM
Let's get to the crux of this.

What precisely do you wish to do that your current society forbids you from doing ?

Whaddaya got? --Marlon Brando

Zendetta
21st January 10, 08:22 PM
from Rebel without a Clue

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 05:16 PM
It is now.

Civil society has broken down, and the worst aspects of mankind have been let loose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/7030248/Haiti-earthquake-police-admit-gangs-have-taken-over-Port-au-Prince.html

However, the food, shelter and water shortages aren't due to the state breaking down but to the natural disaster that hit them. And its those shortages that seem to be the cause of the chaos down there.

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 05:20 PM
You can't understand today's anarchists without understanding White Guilt.

There are no anarchists who aren't white? Or are they suffering from sympathy guilt?

Let me know, cause I have a few buddies who are gonna be let down to know that their ethnicity means they were never really anarchists.

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 05:41 PM
Can you explain why there are so many strikes and protests that are NOT settled violently by the State? One would think that with such a monopoly of force that the State would silence ALL forms of protest, instead of allowing so many to go unhindered.

For the same reason they let you vote. In the case of voting, you can pick which cadidate you want as long as you're only choosing from the very small group they let you pick from. The system just isn't set up to give a fair shot to anybody from a party not bought and sold by corporate interests. But voting makes people believe they have a real say in the direction their government is going. The can then contentedly sit back and figure they've done their part and return to their role as passive consumers.

Same with some strikes or demonstrations. As long as they don't in any way threaten/hinder government or corporate interests, there's no reason to break them up. Better to let people think they're making a difference and go home happy, all the while turning a deaf ear to their pleas. Its once a demonstration scare officials or costs wealthy ppl money that it becomes a tear gas and baton party.


I think you over-estimate just how oppressive the society is that we live in, and GROSSLY under-estimate a people's ability to enact change within Western democracies. I could name off some of the biggest changes we have gone through, but you wouldn't really care and would ignore the point I was making by talking about them.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. They're not even trying to pretend the average person has a say. I'm not sure if the brazen honesty or the lie is more infuriating



I sympathize with you here, but it's one of these things in life that is just unfair. Like others have said, there are places you can go and live by yourself. There are many countries you could move to as well. But you like being in society. Deal with it.

Being a hermit isn't much of an option. And going elsewhere requires you have the means to do so, and that the government of that other place will allow you entry. Not as easy as love it or leave it.

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 05:47 PM
Let's get to the crux of this.

What precisely do you wish to do that your current society forbids you from doing ?

Lead my own life as I choose without interference from an unjust state.

More specifically? Never seeing a pig again would be nice.

I don't understand the point of your question. Is tyranny okay as long as most of the time it doesn't stop you from doing what you feel like at that moment? And what percentage of the time does it have to interfere with your liberty before it can be considered undesirable.

Zendetta
22nd January 10, 05:50 PM
There are no anarchists who aren't white?

The vast majority are upper-middle class white kids. I know it, you know it, they know it. So don't bullshit.


I don't mean to sound like I'm calling the dude a liar, but if one source were all it takes to establish truth in a study, I could save a bunch of time and just quote Chomsky ad infinitum.

Back to this: how many sources would you need to see before you acknowledge the obvious?


I don't understand the point of your question... Is tyranny okay as long as most of the time it doesn't stop you from doing what you feel like at that moment?

The point is that there is a world of difference between the kind of abstract tyranny that you bitch about at the cafe and the actual tyranny that leaves your dead body in a ditch with a bullet in the back of your head.

Specifically: how is your liberty curtailed? No abstractions, we want real examples.

Cullion
22nd January 10, 05:53 PM
Lead my own life as I choose without interference from an unjust state.

More specifically? Never seeing a pig again would be nice.

I don't understand the point of your question. Is tyranny okay as long as most of the time it doesn't stop you from doing what you feel like at that moment? And what percentage of the time does it have to interfere with your liberty before it can be considered undesirable.

The point of my question is to try to understand the kind of society you would prefer to live in. I'm trying to get into that by asking what sort of things you would be allowed to do that you aren't allowed to do now.

Perhaps I should widen this, maybe you feel you are currently forced to do certain things that you wouldn't choose to do if there were no government.

I'm trying to understand what you're for, rather than what you're against.

P.S. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK most 'anarchists' are middle class white kids (often university educated) with imitation punk or rasta hair.

They tend to go one of three ways (in no particular order):-

i) Join the corporate herd (often whilst maintaining some connection to their past life in terms of cultural/musical preferences. i.e. attending 'world music' festivals and maintaining some degree of illegal drug use). They tend to try and get jobs in what they consider slightly 'hipper' environments, like media, or some left-wing bastion of a government department , or something relating to third world development.

ii) Gradually settle into some calmer form of modern hippydom involving some combo of hand-crafts, hobby-farmer self sufficiency, market stalls, alternative medicine, peaceful environmentalism etc..

iii) Horrible substance abuse burnout in their late twenties or 30s that they never really recover from and bounce around between menial jobs and unemployment as one of the embarrassments of their middle class family and peer group.

I personally know people from all 3 groups. The ones from group ii) tend to be the ones I relate to best and seem to be the best at becoming functional, caring parents.

bob
22nd January 10, 06:32 PM
There are people who could make anarchy work in small groups. Clever, creative, skilled and diligent people who have drive and the kind of real life smarts you'd need to live stateless. I'm not sure I've ever met a self identified anarchist who actually fulfills these criteria. Antifa sounded like he probably could have. Ironically from the little I know of either of them I would pick Goon to be in my anarchist commune over TLH any day.

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 11:48 PM
The point of my question is to try to understand the kind of society you would prefer to live in. I'm trying to get into that by asking what sort of things you would be allowed to do that you aren't allowed to do now.

Perhaps I should widen this, maybe you feel you are currently forced to do certain things that you wouldn't choose to do if there were no government.

I'm trying to understand what you're for, rather than what you're against.

P.S. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK most 'anarchists' are middle class white kids (often university educated) with imitation punk or rasta hair.

They tend to go one of three ways (in no particular order):-

i) Join the corporate herd (often whilst maintaining some connection to their past life in terms of cultural/musical preferences. i.e. attending 'world music' festivals and maintaining some degree of illegal drug use). They tend to try and get jobs in what they consider slightly 'hipper' environments, like media, or some left-wing bastion of a government department , or something relating to third world development.

ii) Gradually settle into some calmer form of modern hippydom involving some combo of hand-crafts, hobby-farmer self sufficiency, market stalls, alternative medicine, peaceful environmentalism etc..

iii) Horrible substance abuse burnout in their late twenties or 30s that they never really recover from and bounce around between menial jobs and unemployment as one of the embarrassments of their middle class family and peer group.

I personally know people from all 3 groups. The ones from group ii) tend to be the ones I relate to best and seem to be the best at becoming functional, caring parents.

I would like to see a union be able to stand up to the petty capitalists who profit off of their labor and take from them the compensation they are due, by any means necessary. I would like to see this happen without the assurance that these profiteers will be able to call upon the powers that be to send out their brutal, uniformed thugs to ensure that the excess of the monied classes is in no way threatened by those who earned them said excess.

And if it makes you feel better, I have no plans on bringing any more people into the world. For many and varied reasons. So you may put your mind at ease.

TheLordHumungus
22nd January 10, 11:57 PM
The vast majority are upper-middle class white kids. I know it, you know it, they know it. So don't bullshit.

All those gringos in the EZLN are gonna be pissed to hear that.


Back to this: how many sources would you need to see before you acknowledge the obvious?

Three additional credible ones who provide sources would do nicely.


The point is that there is a world of difference between the kind of abstract tyranny that you bitch about at the cafe and the actual tyranny that leaves your dead body in a ditch with a bullet in the back of your head.

Now you're being silly. Police haven't killed any innocent ppl in the streets lately?


Specifically: how is your liberty curtailed? No abstractions, we want real examples.

Who the fuck is "we"? Are you using it in the royal sense, or is this because you've decided to ride Cullion's nuts?

Cullion
23rd January 10, 07:27 AM
I would like to see a union be able to stand up to the petty capitalists who profit off of their labor and take from them the compensation they are due, by any means necessary. I would like to see this happen without the assurance that these profiteers will be able to call upon the powers that be to send out their brutal, uniformed thugs to ensure that the excess of the monied classes is in no way threatened by those who earned them said excess.

And if it makes you feel better, I have no plans on bringing any more people into the world. For many and varied reasons. So you may put your mind at ease.

Essentially you want to just be able to take money from your boss at gunpoint without him being allowed to fight back.

hahaha. That's pathetic.

TheLordHumungus
23rd January 10, 01:56 PM
Essentially you want to just be able to take money from your boss at gunpoint without him being allowed to fight back.

hahaha. That's pathetic.
I have no problem with him fighting back. Its the fact that the opulent only get to maintain their largess because the state allows them to rob blind those who actually put in the labor. And ten the government claims to not only represent the thieving capitalists, but also those they're exploiting.

You insist on calling what I propose theft, and that's fine. I don't consider taking back what was stolen from you theft, but justice.

Essentially, I want our bosses to not be able to continue just taking money from us at a cop's gunpoint without us being allowed to fight back.

Cullion
23rd January 10, 01:58 PM
You think you're being robbed ? Why not quit? Did somebody make you take the job at gunpoint ? You think your employer is stealing from you ?

No. What you really mean is 'I think I should be paid waaay more, my pool of potential employers don't agree, and I'm not prepared to negotiate or figure out how to make my labour more valuable because I'm an angry child'.

SFGOON
23rd January 10, 02:12 PM
Yeah. if you don't like the job, if the manager is such an asshole, why not get another one?

Or, if you can't find a good job for which you're qualified, why not return to school? It's not like you have kids or anything.

If you're desperate to get into a union, why not a good one like the UAW?

If you work at Rite Aid you could join the Teamsters if you want to go the menial route.

Also, what union are you a member of? I'm not aware of a waiter's union. What do you do, picket the customers for not giving you a good enough tip?

TheLordHumungus
23rd January 10, 02:45 PM
Yeah. if you don't like the job, if the manager is such an asshole, why not get another one?

Or, if you can't find a good job for which you're qualified, why not return to school? It's not like you have kids or anything.

If you're desperate to get into a union, why not a good one like the UAW?

If you work at Rite Aid you could join the Teamsters if you want to go the menial route.

Also, what union are you a member of? I'm not aware of a waiter's union. What do you do, picket the customers for not giving you a good enough tip?

Waiters (and anyone else) can join the IWW. I've belonged to other unions through other jobs I am (or have been) working at.

And the point isn't that I need to be paid more, I'm actually quite comfortable. Its that ppl should be compensated fairly for their work. And those that profit off the labor of others aren't earning the enormous share they're taking.

taijiamn
23rd January 10, 06:33 PM
Waiters (and anyone else) can join the IWW. I've belonged to other unions through other jobs I am (or have been) working at.

And the point isn't that I need to be paid more, I'm actually quite comfortable. Its that ppl should be compensated fairly for their work. And those that profit off the labor of others aren't earning the enormous share they're taking.

How do you determine fair compensation? Is it fair compensation to make money off of venture capitol (or is it capital, I always forget)? If so, for how long? I know you're not big on property rights, but what's fair compensation for use of properties? Again, for how long?

Cullion
23rd January 10, 07:20 PM
Waiters (and anyone else) can join the IWW. I've belonged to other unions through other jobs I am (or have been) working at.

And the point isn't that I need to be paid more, I'm actually quite comfortable.

Alright, I can respect this more. You aren't complaining about your own conditions, but you want to protect others. Fair enough.



Its that ppl should be compensated fairly for their work.

Well, what's your definition of 'fair' ?


And those that profit off the labor of others aren't earning the enormous share they're taking.

What share do you think they should earn ? You sound like you're flirting with the Marxist fallacy of pricing capital at zero and then declaring it a public good.

TheLordHumungus
24th January 10, 12:12 PM
What share do you think they should earn ? You sound like you're flirting with the Marxist fallacy of pricing capital at zero and then declaring it a public good.

In a society where the capital required to start up a successful enterprise rests in the hands of very few, It does require there be some kind of return on their investment. I don't believe it entitles them to a cut of everything a business brings in for the life of that enterprise.

I think that the initial capital should be repayed with some interest. But if you want a steady stream of income, you should have to actually physically earn that money within the enterprise.

It should be clear that I do not find it just that a vast majority of wealth rests in the hands of an unimaginably wealthy minority, but this is the case as it stands. I figured I'd answer this one pragmatically.

Cullion
24th January 10, 12:20 PM
In a society where the capital required to start up a successful enterprise rests in the hands of very few

That's not true.



, It does require there be some kind of return on their investment. I don't believe it entitles them to a cut of everything a business brings in for the life of that enterprise.

Why not, if that's the deal that was struck?



I think that the initial capital should be repayed with some interest.

Why ?



But if you want a steady stream of income, you should have to actually physically earn that money within the enterprise.

Why?

elipson
24th January 10, 02:08 PM
All those gringos in the EZLN are gonna be pissed to hear that.

Are you joking? That movement got nowhere in a hurry and now exists more as an annoyance on mexican society than anything substantive. They also don't describe themselves as anarchists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezln

SFGOON
24th January 10, 02:18 PM
I still maintain that ELZN is a narcotrafficker subsidized means of ensuring an easy land route for drug shipments through Mexico. Those spoiled, stupid white kids are bringing warfare down upon those indeginos when what they really, really need is increased access to government services.

It's fucked. It's sick and it's fucked.

Don't like the oppression of indigenous peoples? Don't do cocaine.

elipson
24th January 10, 02:25 PM
LOL. No dispresepct Goon, but the EZLN are far too inept to be an actual player in the smuggling game. The other cartels are far more advanced and organized than the Zapatistas.

Ajamil
24th January 10, 03:17 PM
I think that the initial capital should be repayed with some interest. But if you want a steady stream of income, you should have to actually physically earn that money within the enterprise.What if the business dies in a week, and the loanee can't pay the whole thing? What if they refuse? How long should they be allowed to pay? Is it alright if the loaner says, "Fine, give me your tv/car/house/arm/wife/child?"

Zendetta
24th January 10, 03:36 PM
I think that the initial capital should be repayed with some interest.

lolololololololololololololol

elipson
24th January 10, 03:54 PM
Guys, lets stop bothering TLH with "details". Those kinds of things are trivial and beneath him.

TheLordHumungus
25th January 10, 12:20 AM
That's not true.

You live in a world where a majority of ppl have those kinds of excess resources to stash away?


Why not, if that's the deal that was struck?

Its exploitative.


Why ?

Because in this society there are violent groups that keep the people from just seizing the means of production. And the possibility of more money seems the only way to loosen the grip the wealthy have on their hoards of wealth.


Why?

Because, as conservatives keep telling me, this system fosters dependency. We've allowed the wealthy to become social parasites.

TheLordHumungus
25th January 10, 12:23 AM
What if the business dies in a week, and the loanee can't pay the whole thing? What if they refuse? How long should they be allowed to pay? Is it alright if the loaner says, "Fine, give me your tv/car/house/arm/wife/child?"

Then I shall die a little inside and cry myself to sleep. If those who made their wealth by exploiting the poor happen to lose some of their ill gotten gains, I'll try to sleep at night.

taijiamn
25th January 10, 06:58 AM
...

Because in this society there are violent groups that keep the people(other violent groups) from just seizing the means of production. And the possibility of more money seems the only way to loosen the grip the wealthy have on their hoards of wealth.



....

That makes sense to you as ok?

But anyway, I'm more interested in "I think that the initial capital should be repayed with some interest. But if you want a steady stream of income, you should have to actually physically earn that money within the enterprise."

How much "physical" work should there be? If I own the building, and am therefore responsible for it's upkeep, I'm assuming you think I should have to clean/repair/maintain the entire damn thing myself to make any money off of it? Hiring someone to help/ do it for me is just exploitation?

elipson
25th January 10, 10:46 AM
Then I shall die a little inside and cry myself to sleep. If those who made their wealth by exploiting the poor happen to lose some of their ill gotten gains, I'll try to sleep at night.

And if the loaner was made by someone who actually helped people? What if he made his wealth by out producing mega-farms by being more efficient, thereby lower the price of food for the poor and making it affordable for third world people? What if HE were the creditor and lost his money?

TheLordHumungus
26th January 10, 05:52 PM
And if the loaner was made by someone who actually helped people? What if he made his wealth by out producing mega-farms by being more efficient, thereby lower the price of food for the poor and making it affordable for third world people? What if HE were the creditor and lost his money?

And he made enough to invest in other enterprises without resorting to wage slavery or other exploitative work practices? That would be something.

elipson
26th January 10, 11:58 PM
Ha! That answer was the biggest cop-out I've ever heard!

TheLordHumungus
29th January 10, 03:51 PM
I'm just trying to establish if he's "helping ppl" by exploiting other ppl. The one does not make the other righteous.

Like selling products cheaply in a large warehouse so that lower income folks can buy them, but doing on the backs of your employees and third world manufacturing workers.