Let's talk about anarchy!

[Mediumrarechicken]

it was a joke. and no more offensive than your reference to former president obama's heritage. you don't get to claim butthurt after saying that, sorry.



it's very telling that everything you have to say here is a criticism of me directly, rather than the ideas being discussed.

it doesn't really matter that you think it's not possible; it's already happening. just not in montana.

it's not perfect, but if the status quo were perfect, we wouldn't be trying to find other solutions.

Not butthurt at all. It's just funny that you assume that I'm a white racist. Jumping to conclusions isn't a good idea.

[mbonder]

Your post has me somewhat cornfuzzeld, what you describe is the system of governance that this nation was founded on and the intentions of the founders themselves when forging the republic from nothing and the ashes of left by the Revolution. You allude to this with the mention of the Founders, but seem to not realize thats what your talking about. Local levels govt with the power vested in the people with a weaker centralized govt to provide the services that are for the good of all society.

No, I know exactly what I'm talking about, however, the set of Founding Fathers that eventually won the day, the Federalists (Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Jay especially) actually fought and got a stronger centralized government than what had existed under the Articles of Confederation. That stronger centralized government has led to where we are today, with the Federal government having authority over the state governments and by extension all of the people in the country. We can sit here and argue that the Constitution doesn't vest those powers explicitly in the Federal government, but the reality is that effectively that's what is happening. To say that the Federalists wanted a weak Federal government is simply revisionist history, or a lack of understanding what guys like Hamilton and Madison were fighting for (Madison at that point wanted a strong executive and a strong Federal government. He would eventually turn away from this idea before becoming president and siding with Jefferson).

To call America a Republic or a Representative Democracy is sort of a misnomer at this point (which I think is what decay has been getting at--the real results of this). Sure I can go to the polls every so often and vote for someone to represent me, but in reality there are only a few individuals that have the wealth and power to get on any given ticket and the participation of the average person in their governance is next to nothing.

Which I guess brings me back to the idea of scaling down the size of government as the average person doesn't participate in it anyway or it fails them in some way (poverty stricken areas that have high crime have been mentioned), and instead relying on individual citizens to do the work for the community. As previously stated, this more "hands off" approach seems to align more with a libertarian or utopian viewpoint depending upon how you view private property rights.

[decay]

Not butthurt at all. It's just funny that you assume that I'm a white racist. Jumping to conclusions isn't a good idea.

again, that was a bit of kidding to keep things light-hearted.

i'm whiter than a freshly washed bedsheet, so like i said- irony in me calling someone a cracker.

i thought us lefties were supposed to be the easily-triggered ones? :P

[marshallnoise]

again, that was a bit of kidding to keep things light-hearted.

i'm whiter than a freshly washed bedsheet, so like i said- irony in me calling someone a cracker.

i thought us lefties were supposed to be the easily-triggered ones? :P

Back back back back back back, waaaaay back pedalling.

[decay]

right. i've been arguing for anarchism this whole time, but really i'm a white supremacist.

*looks over at non-white girlfriend in his bed*

...

contribute something to the discussion or shut up, marshall.

[marshallnoise]

right. i've been arguing for anarchism this whole time, but really i'm a white supremacist.

*looks over at non-white girlfriend in his bed*

...

contribute something to the discussion or shut up, marshall.

Who died and made you King?

[decay]

well it took 14 years, but someone finally made my ignore list.

[decay]

now that that mouth-breathing pile of redundant skin and fat is out of the discussion (at least for me), i'll happily continue discussing with anyone who wants to do so in a non-inflammatory fashion.

property rights came up as a talking point- i'd like to explore this a little.

as said in the wikipedia article, socio-anarchism retains the concept of personal property. being an adherent does not mean that my car, my laptop, my tv and my playstation suddenly belong to everyone. (i will probably share any of the above if you ask nicely and bring beer.)

there's a commune in southern california called slab city. i visited it as one of the stops on a vacation a few years back, and it's the best example of anarchism at work that i can think of at the moment. a bunch of people moved onto BLM land, and the BLM doesn't care about it enough to kick them out. they're not bothering anyone (ok except the military, some of the crazier ones like to harvest UXO from nearby mortar/artillery ranges, but they definitely do so at their own peril), they are generally self-sustaining, and i don't think it would be a worthwhile effort or use of funds to have a bunch of fedgov go in and oust them.

given that it would be otherwise sitting unused, in the middle of the desert, why should they not be able to occupy it as long as they're not causing any harm to anyone else? what would be the purpose of the federal government saying "we're not going to use this land for anything, but it's off-limits because we said so, and we're willing to spend money/resources to enforce that"?

i think the anarchist's viewpoint would be that they don't want *your* house, but if there's an unused parcel a mile away from an inland sea that smells like a giant bag of ass and nobody else wants to go there- fuck it. let them live there if it works for them. why do we need to assign/track ownership of something that almost nobody wants? that's the deal at slab city. if you can drag an RV out there, you've got a place to live.

[z31maniac]

The only problem I see with that, is that their sovereignty is still protected by my tax dollars and the protection of the Feds/Military from outside influence.

(forgive me if this has been covered already, I skipped over a lot of the inflammatory stuff)

[marshallnoise]

Never been able to troll a troll so hard. I am actually proud of this moment. It's ok decay, I know it's hard to get called on your bullcrap. It's not fun, doesn't feel good and it points fingers back at you.

I still, 100% believe we are not using anarchy in the correct manner here. Am I flat out wrong?

[decay]

...i suppose they would be if southern california were invaded? but that doesn't seem likely, and it's not like the salton sea is a high-value target.

counter-argument: they are not consuming law enforcement resources that cost tax dollars at the local level, because they self-police. the county sheriffs know where they are and what they're doing and their position is "you fuckers are on your own, don't call us." which is exactly what anarchists want.

but the people out at slab city like their beer. they have to go into the neighboring towns to get their nightly half-rack of natty lite. i guess i think them paying sales tax on alcohol and gasoline and toilet paper is a fair trade for "if war happens, we've got you, otherwise fuck off"?

[Mediumrarechicken]

...i suppose they would be if southern california were invaded? but that doesn't seem likely, and it's not like the salton sea is a high-value target.

counter-argument: they are not consuming law enforcement resources that cost tax dollars at the local level, because they self-police. the county sheriffs know where they are and what they're doing and their position is "you fuckers are on your own, don't call us." which is exactly what anarchists want.

but the people out at slab city like their beer. they have to go into the neighboring towns to get their nightly half-rack of natty lite. i guess i think them paying sales tax on alcohol and toilet paper is a fair trade for "if war happens, we've got you, otherwise fuck off"?

What happens when there is a murder, serial arsonist, or rapist on the loose? Say you catch the person what do you do?

[decay]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/15/copycat-second-emeryville-fire-started-in-same-spot-inside-building-oakland-developer-says/

this was about 5 miles from my house.

we can't catch serial arsonists with our existing system.

[marshallnoise]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/1...eveloper-says/

this was about 5 miles from my house.

we can't catch serial arsonists with our existing system.

Has the developer heard of private security? Its not the responsibility of the state ("existing system") to catch arsonists in the act; rather it is the responsibility to investigate and prosecute if they can be caught afterward. Justice is inherently retroactive and it should be.

[decay]

I think P&R is about to become much more entertaining for me, because now I can see that marshall is responding but don't have to force my brain to process the utter bullshit he spews.

The image in my head right now is the alt-right's version of Michael Moore- a fat neckbeard, screaming impotently at a brick wall.