It isn't utopian, I don't even claim to know what it would look like, I cannot predict what a world would look like with 7.6billion free minds in play. All I can claim is that it is logically derived and for me, intimately tied with morality. The very basic premise of Anarchism is self-ownership, everything else is a derivation of that premise. How do I maintain my self ownership? By acknowledging and defending others in their self ownership. What is stopping the government from marching in and claiming it owns all our land? Hopefully it is you, your fellow man and his fellow man, on down the line. When you talk about organized aggressors, I don't know if you know what you mean. You can just say the term, sure, but it has to be reasonable no? Why would any organization have any motivation to aggress? They couldn't just swoop in, hinack the elections or buildings of centralized power and start to control the population. If they want the land, for what? They want to farm it? They going to convince anarchists to farm it for them? Murder them all and bring in other slaves to farm it for them? Or would it be easier and cheaper to just trade? I mean, we can make things up ALL day, and kick the moral can down the road for eternity with hesitance for hypothetical scenarios. Or, people like you, CAN support the liberation of an area and see how it goes for the anarchist that decide to inhabit it. Let people be free and give it a shot, let us be the lab rats, we are willing, at basically no risk to you. If you want to be a slave, I can only offer you words of wisdom, I cannot convince you to wish to be free. But I don't eant to be a slave and I detest anyone that supports the systems that suppress me and the other people who wish to be in a state of freedom. You all are the enemy of humanity, I just ask that you don't support my suppression and slaughter when I try to live my life freely under the systems you people support. Make sense?
Rubish. A privately financed armed forces is the answer. We anarchist want to eliminate monopolies of every kind, government sponsored armies dont have the best records. To be honest they always over charge and under perform. They never meet deadlines and never reach their stated goals. Ever! The collateral damage is not even fully grasped by any one person. I have zero doubt the private sector would provide better security for you and your loved ones. All the while having way less of a footprint on foreign soils which instigate 90% of all conflicts abroad in the first place. It's just like NASA, people on these very forums will tell you private space exploration was a impossibility just 15 short years ago. Fast forward to today and we have private owned companies not only launching rockets but also landing their booster rockets back at the launch pad for reuse. Competing, privately ran business will surpass the last 50 years of a public ran space exploration shortly if it hasn't already. PS. Can you site a example where a organized army as you call it successful attacked and won against a group of loosely organized nomads? You could site Afghanistan perhaps but that was caused by instigating a organized army albeit wrongly directed. It wasn't initiated by the organized army because it would not justify its expense. Another words a large organized army wouldn't go around waisting it resources on individuals of a loosely knitted community with no top down rule that it couldn't ultimately control. Also it wouldn't totally destroy a land just to claim the destroyed land as their own. This is done over patriotism, a demented view that you're part of a collective group of owners over land for which most you have never set foot on or even seen. Its absurd. I know you are familiar with the arms race and you should be aware of where 99% of all those nukes are pointing..... it's not at countries with small standing armies. Sent from my SM-G935V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You're a joke anymore GW. Thanks for making my point. You were one of the people I was thinking about when I made this statement. Kinda reminds me of the net neutrality thread. . Where you have been 100g wrong... as usual Sent from my SM-G935V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Your point was private space industry is better than NASA. Over half of space X income come from government contracts. Whose the fucking joke now you fucking anarchist? You lost the net neutrality argument dude.
On vacation w family in the fatherland for a few more days. I'm not done with you two cats in a basket, I've got bones to pick with both of these posts!
Have a great time on vacation VT. PS. Im glad the conversation has moved passed the "But who will make the roads?" stage.
My point was the private sector outperforms nasa in both cost and abilities, and soon will offer rides to ordinary citizens if government doesn't get involved and stop it. My second point was that people (like you) just a few short years ago thought space exploration not only died with NASA, but would have not been feasible in the first place, which is false . The fact that government now pays the private sector to do the job because it does it better illustrates this fact beyond doubt for those who aren't biased against the private sector. And ironically the same dude who made the government look inept in building rockets is one of the same dudes who is going to make me right yet again concerning NN. You and a few like you said that the internet is controlled by a monopoly and had to be made a right..... now that I think of it is this the left's answer to everything, to make it a right? You said there is only so much bandwidth and infrastructure and that no one could possibly compete. That content would be throttled or censored (maybe you meant by the progressive left?) and that our access to information is at risk. Your answer? More government interference and power. My answer as always? The free markets will always exceeded our expectations and we have no idea what is instore for us if humans are left free. Its gotta suck to be you lately. Politically and philosophically speaking of course.
Tulsi has always been rad, Andrew Yang has been super rad.. While those are my two favorite demorats at the end of the day They arent nearly a well rounded enough of a democrat candidate. Trump 2020 easy
Inept at building rockets? Talking about stretching the truth to fit your beliefs to the point of delusion and dishonesty. Net neutrality is more about freedom of information than the number of service providers. As far as bandwidth goes, 5G could possibly cause problems with weather satellites as there's frequency overlapping. Not sure what frequency Elon's system uses but my guess is the defense department may have to lease some bandwidth in order for it work. Oh, and 5G only penetrates a couple of inches into the human body. A fiber optic cable internet system would be way more efficient and cost way less to implement and maintain. But nooooo. You wanna buy land from Elon on Mars. lol Bon Voyage mfer
Well, to start off, I consider myself a pragmatist over an idealist. I think logic works in both realms - you can use logic to construct an ideal society, and you can use logic to construct a pragmatic society. By pragmatic I mean - what may not be best, but what works rather than what may not work, but is best. As I see it, that is the cornerstone of our disagreement, and why I identify with a level of statism (immoral, I admit, but more solid than the rest) over anarchism (moral - but fragile, and completely trampled in history). You can just say the term, sure, but it has to be reasonable no? Why would any organization have any motivation to aggress? They couldn't just swoop in, hinack the elections or buildings of centralized power and start to control the population. If they want the land, for what? They want to farm it? They going to convince anarchists to farm it for them? Murder them all and bring in other slaves to farm it for them? Or would it be easier and cheaper to just trade? Why would any organization have the motivation to aggress? For power, resources, influence. Maybe it would be easier and cheaper to just trade - but human nature does not follow reason. To expect it to is to be naive, I think. I think anarchy is extremely naive towards the desperate, primal, insidious, malicious and short-sighted violent greed of humanity, and how easily people of ambition, capability and intelligence can attain power and influence others. All the things you mentioned have been done on repeat constantly throughout human history - organized forces invading other areas for all kinds of reasons, and crushing inferior forces, dispensing great misery on them for material gain or power. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The only way to stop an organized, well-equipped, dedicated full-time army is with the same. History has countless examples of this - it's mostly comprised of it. You can call me the enemy of humanity all you want - that's okay. I don't think you anarchists understand or respect how wicked and senseless humanity is. To me, there is no true freedom - it will always be subjugated by power. The best possible solution at the moment - and it's not an ideal solution - is to form states and governments around people who share somewhat similar ideals, and to have organized forces to protect that society. Individuals will always be crushed by groups. It's the nature of our species - our strength is in teamwork and hierarchy. Do I misunderstand you?
I know you are familiar with the arms race and you should be aware of where 99% of all those nukes are pointing..... it's not at countries with small standing armies. It doesn't need to point nukes at those small countries. Those small countries are usually vassal states of the nuke-carrying ones, as Norway is to USA. The big nuke-pointing country can dominate with the mere threat - we have nukes, you don't. Our army far outclasses yours. Do as we say, or we'll destroy you. Extremely effective. "We don't have much so don't fuck with us" does not work - it's simply an invitation to be dominated. Nazi Germany's expansion across Europe - including to Norway and Denmark - is exemplary of this. Denmark has little to offer, and Norway had no oil at the time - and yet, Nazis came by anyways, stomped on our shitty little armies, and instituted Nazi regimes which were horrifying. These were not removed until massive organized armies - more massive than the Nazi one - came and liberated us from that occupation. I have said before that I think you guys living in USA which has never been invaded successfully really warps your view of human nature. Defeat and domination seems to be something alien to all of you. Do you think there is something to that? I have zero doubt the private sector would provide better security for you and your loved ones. All the while having way less of a footprint on foreign soils which instigate 90% of all conflicts abroad in the first place. It's just like NASA, people on these very forums will tell you private space exploration was a impossibility just 15 short years ago. I'm certainly not going to argue against private sector outcompeting public. The private sector is even more ruthless, authoritarian and well-organized than the public - a tyrant (CEO) dominates a bunch of workers in a strict hierarchy. Cite me some examples where private military out-competed organized nations? PS. Can you site a example where a organized army as you call it successful attacked and won against a group of loosely organized nomads? You could site Afghanistan perhaps but that was caused by instigating a organized army albeit wrongly directed. It wasn't initiated by the organized army because it would not justify its expense. Another words a large organized army wouldn't go around waisting it resources on individuals of a loosely knitted community with no top down rule that it couldn't ultimately control. Also it wouldn't totally destroy a land just to claim the destroyed land as their own. This is done over patriotism, a demented view that you're part of a collective group of owners over land for which most you have never set foot on or even seen. Its absurd. I can name lots of examples of organized forces beating nomads, and exterminating them entirely. That was very specific of you by the way - are anarchists nomads? I think not. In either case, how many would be enough to satisfy you? More than happy to rile off a few dozen groups of people who no longer exist because organized forces destroyed them. Maybe a few dozen from different points in history is enough? I don't think your minds can be changed on the topic, no matter how long a list I procured, and let me be blunt about why; One of the great things you guys have done for me is demonstrate that my favored ideology - social democracy - only works because of a series of prerequisites, that can change over time, and are fragile. It's a political system that works only because of XYZ, and would fall into chaos if ABC. Thus, I don't preach social democracy as some holy final solution that has no flaws and works no matter what. @JohnnyWeedSeed @NorseMythology and you Mr. Raider: What are the flaws of anarchism - what are it's weaknesses, it's prerequisites, how could it be fucked with? And would you be suspicious of yourselves as being zealots if you couldn't name any? That you think you've found the final solution - but maybe you don't yet have enough information or experience to warrant your total certainty?
I won't debate every aspect I take issue with, well, I would gladly, but I worry I become tiresome to listen to. I will say, search! There needn't be any distinction between what works and what is best. Why should there be? Think about it, we collectively participate in the creation and perpetuation of reality, the reason it is one way and not another is because not enough people WILL it to be better. You MUST know and understand this alchemical process. Why imagine a flying saucer when we can just tweak the automobile? You say anarchists are naive about people attaining influence and power, when WE are the ones that wish to deconstruct the very ediface that allows for them to gain such influence and power, that is, centralized regional monopolization of power, I.e. statism. So no, I would say we are not only keenly aware, but wish to address the problem at a more fundamental level. Statism is a religion of fear, the pretext for it's existence comes down to 'fear your fellow man' keep the minds of the populace in a suggestable state of fear, paranoia, suspicion, greed, insanity, and the devotees will preach the necessity of perpetuating evil to protect against evil. I want to see that whole situation flipped upside down, I want to see what happens when we have multiple generations of humans who haven't been preconditioned within this religon of fear. Cult members have a very hard time stepping beyond their conditioning to see what is actually going on, I submit this is why most people are statists. Not because they are immoral, most of them know it is immoral, and employ the most astounding degree of cognitive dissonance to sustain their belief system. Meh I better stop there.
The questions you asked demonstrates perhaps your misunderstanding of what anarchism fundamentally is. It is simply 'no rulers', I.e. pro-freedom/anti-slavery. It has philosophical pre-requisites, many of them, but I don't get the impression that is what you meant. You (i think) are thinking of it in terms of a political movement, when, in my mind, it is apolitical, or anti-political. It stems from the belief that we humans have an inherent right to self-ownership, or in my unorthodox opinion, stewardship. If that as an ideal, which it is in my view, then the goal or question becomes, how do I make that a manifested reality? I obviously don't know how to bring about such a state, but I do believe that the same metaphysics that I derive anarchism from must also be adhered, in other words, I personally cannot violate you in order to bring about a state of anarchy. I did already recognize that you are an enemy of free humanity, but I have mercy and forgiveness inside me, I hope to bring about such change by winning over your heart and mind, not extinguishing it. This reality is ultimately a war of life vs death, I am pro-life. I might say, for some anarchist, those whose belief is ungrounded, they may not adhere to any other metaphysical system, and killing you would not only be justified but prefered or authorized. Some people may just be anti-humanity, and may shield themselves under the black flag of anarchism and do terrible acts. I am, without a doubt, an unabashed zealot for life and freedom.