Let's talk about anarchy!

[Hooffenstein HD]

i'll just take the bench while you and marshall make a show of sucking each other off thinking about how you'd rule a post-apocalyptic scenario.

We're not the ones advocating for socialism under the guise of anarchy, friendo. Nor do I agree with Marshall on all topics, however, his posting doesn't decay into slinging shit and calling people mouth breathing neckbeards when he fails to articulate a point, or lack thereof. If questioning an idiot is likened to sucking somebody off, then I must be as gay as your Antifa SJW friends.

and since you've ignored him.

YOU are the one acting as if you would be King of the post apocalypse. Everything shit you think of me and Hoof is 10x more true of yourself. So blind man.

[decay]

it's not my fault that you can't understand the difference between the two ideologies.

marshall's posts don't decay into shit-slinging, they start there.

i've discussed the ideas that people had questions about calmly, in this thread, when i've been addressed in the same fashion.

[mbonder]

Ok so page nine is a clear throwaway, but there was a good question tucked in there at the top by Hooffenstein, still on the subject of private property. Let's take a couple steps back and see if we can't get back to this:

decay, your example about private property was in relation to tracts of government owned land that aren't being utilized. That land has been occupied (at least in your example), by people that are living largely outside of the general community.

Hoof's question was, what happens when instead of occupying an unused piece of federal land in the middle of no where, people begin to occupy lands that are clearly being used and owned by others? Should people be able to setup camp in the middle of my grocery store parking lot because at the time of occupation those spaces weren't being parked in?

The point here is that if occupation in one instance is allowed, shouldn't it be allowed in all instances as well? You can't really pick and choose when to ignore the law and when to accept it, that type of muddling doesn't lead to anything peaceful or prosperous.

[decay]

Ok so page nine is a clear throwaway

yes, and i hope it's clear that i have been trying to discuss the subject civilly, but i sort of need an equal commitment to that from those who subscribe to differing ideologies.

let's get this out of the way- i don't advocate anarchism as something that everyone should subscribe to or live by. i just think it should be an option for those who want it.

that seems to be a point of confusion for some of the more adversarial participants in this thread; whether we're talking about "soft" anarchism like mine or the hard-liners who are:

- squatting in abandoned buildings
- getting in fights with assholes from montana who want to ride their harleys into Berkeley and tell us how we "oughta do things" while they hate all the californians who retire in Butte
- burn down condo developments as an act of protest against gentrification and displacement of lower-income residents

the golden rule is sort of a basic tenet- we think this way because we don't like being told what to do or how to live.

it follows pretty directly that anyone who's a subscriber doesn't get to mandate those things for anyone else. you can advocate, but you absolutely cannot enforce unless your own rights are being infringed upon.

decay, your example about private property was in relation to tracts of government owned land that aren't being utilized. That land has been occupied (at least in your example), by people that are living largely outside of the general community.

Hoof's question was, what happens when instead of occupying an unused piece of federal land in the middle of no where, people begin to occupy lands that are clearly being used and owned by others? Should people be able to setup camp in the middle of my grocery store parking lot because at the time of occupation those spaces weren't being parked in?

ok, i don't think that's quite a fair analogy. if a given landspace is functioning as a parking lot for a commercial business, it is by definition in use, whether or not there happen to be vehicles parked there at the time.

that's not the same as land that is so unpleasant and generally uninhabitable that even the military abandoned a work-in-progress on it and the BLM has decided they just DGAF.

The point here is that if occupation in one instance is allowed, shouldn't it be allowed in all instances as well? You can't really pick and choose when to ignore the law and when to accept it, that type of muddling doesn't lead to anything peaceful or prosperous.

no, i don't think so. it's not a matter of picking and choosing when the law applies; it's an application of conditional logic. isn't that the reason the libertarian crowd likes the states' rights argument so much? what works in metropolitan los angeles is probably not an ideal solution in cheyenne, wyoming.

[marshallnoise]

Ok so page nine is a clear throwaway, but there was a good question tucked in there at the top by Hooffenstein, still on the subject of private property. Let's take a couple steps back and see if we can't get back to this:

decay, your example about private property was in relation to tracts of government owned land that aren't being utilized. That land has been occupied (at least in your example), by people that are living largely outside of the general community.

Hoof's question was, what happens when instead of occupying an unused piece of federal land in the middle of no where, people begin to occupy lands that are clearly being used and owned by others? Should people be able to setup camp in the middle of my grocery store parking lot because at the time of occupation those spaces weren't being parked in?

The point here is that if occupation in one instance is allowed, shouldn't it be allowed in all instances as well? You can't really pick and choose when to ignore the law and when to accept it, that type of muddling doesn't lead to anything peaceful or prosperous.

And thus violence is the natural outcome of anarchy. It will always devolve to that lowest common denominator. You have socialism or communism, and then when the structure of the state disappears or erodes, you have anarchy and then its every man for himself. Even people who live in communes kick the lazy bastards out eventually. You know, like Bernie Sanders.

[decay]

And thus violence is the natural outcome of anarchy.

i unblocked you since people are quoting you at me anyway (which should be a bannable offense, agent).

given that america has been at war or at least involved in conflict for about 90% of its existence, please explain to me how violence is specifically isolated to anarchism.

[marshallnoise]

i unblocked you since people are quoting you at me anyway (which should be a bannable offense, agent).

given that america has been at war or at least involved in conflict for about 90% of its existence, please explain to me how violence is specifically isolated to anarchism.

Banable offense? Really?

I am not saying and have never said violence is specifically isolated to anarchism. Just the natural outcome of a lawless society is violence.

[decay]

Banable offense? Really?

i've been banned for less.

I am not saying and have never said violence is specifically isolated to anarchism. Just the natural outcome of a lawless society is violence.

if you look at the world around us, it's pretty clear that violence is the natural outcome of any society. why single out anarchism?

[coldweatherblue]

Decay, it seems your descriptions of anarchical living lies in the context of being a citizen of a successful constitutional republic with a great amount of wealth as a result of capitalism aka living in the USA. A person can believe nearly anything and still have a good life here, but it doesn't mean it would work as a political system. Say what you want about America, but anyone who was born here is exceptionally lucky.

In a discussion of the pros and cons of anarchy, I would assume that as an anarchist, you believe the greater population would be better off if the entire country/world were in anarchy. I strongly disagree with this for many reasons.

If instead you're just saying that you like living in the US with a bunch of other people, sharing possessions, being self sufficient, living in a community that succeeds without much outside help, putting to use land that's fallen by the wayside, and you like to call this "anarchy"; I would say that's great, and it sounds a lot like the principles upon which this nation was founded. The people who settled and populated the States we now live in existed much the same.

And yes, the US has been involved in conflicts over the years, however compared to the vast majority of other successful empires/nations/eras in human history, citizens of the United States have been remarkably spared from conflict, aside from 1861-1865.

Are we discussing:

1. The advantages of anarchy as a nationwide political system?

or

2. The advantages of your lifestyle within the context of a massively successful, wealthy constitutional republic founded on the protection of speech, religion, and press?

To me, this entire thread just reminds me how blessed we are to be US citizens..

[marshallnoise]

i've been banned for less.

You get banned for not having control over your temper and getting super personal, instantly. Not the same offense.

if you look at the world around us, it's pretty clear that violence is the natural outcome of any society. why single out anarchism?

Because society's natural inclination is not towards the promulgation of violence but the protection from violence and offenses against personal property, his life and his liberty.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Of course, this whole argument breaks down if you don't mind being killed for annexation of your life, property and liberty.

[decay]

In a discussion of the pros and cons of anarchy, I would assume that as an anarchist, you believe the greater population would be better off if the entire country/world were in anarchy.

and this kind of assumption has been the main generator of conflict in this thread.

just a few messages ago...

let's get this out of the way- i don't advocate anarchism as something that everyone should subscribe to or live by. i just think it should be an option for those who want it.

is it really that hard to read? i'm doing my best not to be adversarial myself, but this is frustrating.

[decay]

You get banned for not having control over your temper and getting super personal, instantly. Not the same offense.

pot, kettle. i'm just better at insults than you are :P

[marshallnoise]

and this kind of assumption has been the main generator of conflict in this thread.

just a few messages ago...



is it really that hard to read? i'm doing my best not to be adversarial myself, but this is frustrating.

You do understand that you don't really believe in anarchy if you only are anarchistic for your own person, right? You can tell yourself you are an anarchist and that you live that way, but you can't even have a pocket of anarchy within this country. All a pocket of anarchy is in this country is a group of people who the law has not prosecuted yet.

Yet.

[marshallnoise]

pot, kettle. i'm just better at insults than you are :P

Nahh, I think insulting you without getting caught makes me the better shit-slinger.

[coldweatherblue]

So you admit, anarchy would not work as a political system. The only reason you're able to live the way you do is because as a US citizen you have the freedom to do so.

This is not a legitimate discussion of anarchy as a political system but an example of why the US is a great country.