Anarchy

[sadated_peon]

Originally Posted by elk

I'm not going to put a lot of effort into your shitpile of apost. I'll hjust say this.

Of course your not, because denial is so much easier.

Originally Posted by elk

We have differing views of Anarchy. I see a need in stopping people from oppressing others, you think stopping someone from taking away other peoples freedoms is less important than making sure those peoples freedoms are respected.

So you believe in anarchy with an authority. That is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by elk

Both of our definitions of Anarchy seek to maximize freedoms in their own way. The Anarchy you are promoting is an anything goes, extreme version of Individualist Anarchy, where rape and murder is ok because it is what that person wants to do, and stopping them would be oppressing them.

No, my definition of anarchy holds true for all definitions of anarchy and that is no authority. It is not about stopping someone who would be oppressing them, it is has having a system to stop them or a system to punish them after they have done it, or a system to stop them before they do it.

You putting this in only the context of present tense is nothing but an attempt to warp the argument.

Originally Posted by elk

The Anarchy I am promoting is a collectivist view, extreme in its anti-property stance, making it communist, only allowing for small things to be owned, and an individualist stance over ones own body and action, so far as they aren't overstepping other peoples freedoms.

As I pointed out before "so far as they aren't overstepping other peoples freedoms" this is a subjective line in the sand. As most people in the US would agree the owning land is not overstepping other people freedoms. Owning a car, tools, etc, is not overstepping other people freedoms.
Also that owning personal objects, having your own children, or declaring bodies as personal objects is overstepping other peoples freedoms.

The logic that YOU USE does not lead to your system of government. I argued why your idea of communism is flawed, but like all things here you just gave up on the argument and went into your standard pattern of denial

Originally Posted by elk

You just don't seem to understand there is more than one type of Anarchy. There are many, I've said this already. Two basic types, individualist, and collectivist, which range from isolationist anarchist hermit types, to full blown communism where the community is the primary force. I have My own personalized view of the communist approach to Anarchism here, and have defined it in my own way. If you want to pretend there is ONE anarchy, and that isn't mine, fine. However, by saying my Anarchy isn't anarchy, arguing AGAINST anarchy IS a strawman, as you yourself say what I propose isn't Anarchy.

Let me try and explain it again, there are many definitions of anarchy. But there all share a common aspect, and that is no authority.
like there are many different types of theism, but they all share a common aspect, a belief in god/s.

I have attacked your position based on this principle that is common to all forms of anarchism. I have also pointed out where your interpretation deviated from this fundamental tenant of anarchism.

Originally Posted by elk

So if you want to call what I propose something different, and have ACTUAL concerns about my system, and not rhetorical wordplay, please, feel as free as everyone else to respond. I don't understand why Tony and Raf would thank you pile of shit post, as it really does nothing but reinforce the fact you aren't debating the topic here, but are just playing with words. You're worse than Cane when we get to talking about fetuses.

I have brought up ACTUAL concerns about your system, and your denial of them has been consistent. It has nothing to do with rhetorical wordplay, it deals with logic and reason.

They thank me because they also realize the inherent flaws in your position and thank me for continuing to argue them.

Originally Posted by elk

I'll call my system Anarcho Communism. You can disagree with it, and call it something else, I understand you have an ignorant narrow view of Anarchy. However, instead of playing the word game, argue against whatever it is YOU think I'm promoting, and not against my definition of it, since your definition is different.

You say that your system is anarchy, and based on this my arguments stand.



But really what this is about is the imaginary world of elk, where everyone thinks the same as you does the same as you, and the only reason they don't is because they have been tricked by their "masters" or have some sort of mental illness. The idea that people won't conform to your imaginary future is impossible to you therefore anyone who brings this up is being dishonest. That someone showing the reality of your little world is disastrous to civilization must be lying, because that is not what you pictured.

Let me break it to you, what you picture won't happen, what you picture won't work, and if enacted your system would destroy the last 1,000 years of civilization.

[AnarchoElk]

Originally Posted by Sarah

lol So you get to live by your own rules completely protected by the US? You don't have to follow laws, but are still entitled to all the benefits. Why would a country ever allow that? What makes you so special that you wouldn't get crushed by the country that evidently supports you?

I'm not saying anarchy and pedophiles mix, but its the same principle. People getting to just make there own country whenever they don't agree and then expecting to still reap all the benefits and have to do nothing for it. I don't really understand what makes anarchy special that it gets privilege over every other belief system.

This whole concept has become absurd I guess I'm going to be one of the idiots that can't envision this perfect society nestled protectively in a big bad horrendous nightmare of a place.

When did I say anything about being entitled to the benefits. In fact, I think I said something rather opposite to that. The only benefits are byproducts. I'm "protected by the US or Canada" in the sense that any hostile force would need permission to go through the country to get to my community.

I KNOW I'd get crushed by Canada or the US, without a team of lawyers to protect me, which would cost a lot of money (unless I found some communist lawyers to join the commune) Thats why I would want to stay hidden as possible, at least location wise. Secretly declaring my own little sovereign commune so as to not get the attention of the government, and passively living by my own rules (which for the most part, would be acceptable, minus the not paying the government what they think they deserve) wouldn't really fly as an excuse if I were found out.

I don't think it WOULD be allowed. Do I think any group of people SHOULD be allowed to declare sovereignty, yes. I don't think the government should be able to control a person based on imaginary lines, if they don't consent to it. Using a group of pedophiles as an excuse to stop people from seeking freedom is a bit ridiculous. But I'm sure if the no grannies allowed nation of pedostan were to be formed, it would be quickly attacked.

Am I talking about actually declaring sovereignty myself? Of course not. That would be saying "Hey look at me, make sure I don't cross the "border" of my commune, and charge me tariffs on any trade etc!"

And again, please, what benefits are you talking about?
And I wouldn't call you an idiot. SP is a different matter, but at least you've been making serious posts, and I respect that, even if you're seeing things from a completely different angle.

Main Page - Anarchopedia

While I don't support every last idea on this wikipedia knowingly, as I haven't read it all, this is a fairly good primer for learning about Anarchy, instead of taking quotes out of context, or listening to willfully misinformative propaganda.


Mod Note: Typically double posting is not allowed, but due to being a week and a half bump, I'll allow it.

^k_r^o_z^a_r

-Merged

[nejix321]

It's not that your system is bad, it's just human nature is imperfect. I just don't think it would work out. People and they're negative traits would be it's destruction.

You can try your hardest to plan ways to solve problems without rulers and laws, but eventually people will become tired of solving problems. Nothing will ever stay solved unless an authoritative(governing force-Government) figure takes place, that makes sure it stays that way(Even then it wouldn't work perfectly).

That's exactly way there are prisons and probation officers(criminals are a big problem, it's impossible to eliminate reasons for crime). It's also probably why modern society exists as it is today. So no system is perfect, but yours is less effective then the current one. There most always be an opposing force, to keep people in check.

[AnarchoElk]

first off, stfu kroz, lol. I see people double posting all over with no mod edits, when there isn't a delay. I just want the participants of this debate to at least have some knowledge of Anarchy, so they don't come out here and make fools of themselves taking quotes out of context etc. I just want an informed group to debate here.

Originally Posted by nejix321

It's not that your system is bad, it's just human nature is imperfect. I just don't think it would work out. People and they're negative traits would be it's destruction.

You can try your hardest to plan ways to solve problems without rulers and laws, but eventually people will become tired of solving problems. Nothing will ever stay solved unless an authoritative(governing force-Government) figure takes place, that makes sure it stays that way(Even then it wouldn't work perfectly).

That's exactly way there are prisons and probation officers(criminals are a big problem, it's impossible to eliminate reasons for crime). It's also probably why modern society exists as it is today. So no system is perfect, but yours is less effective then the current one. There most always be an opposing force, to keep people in check.

I think you put too much weight to "human nature" Also, you're ignoring that people aren't inherently "bad" Even if you subscribe to the flawed notion people are born with their personality, everyone has a mix of good and bad. People all have negative and positive traits, and regardless of what you think, even in capitalism, people work out their problems without resorting to the government or violence every day. Besides, I'm not saying take Bill gates, and some alcoholic douchebag who solves everything with drinking and fighting and creating a commune with them. I'm not saying Anarchism should take over everything, thats counter intuitive. I'm saying it should be allowed, and people who WANT to. Thats what Anarchism is, A voluntary collection of people with similar or differing views on different subjects, which is why I CAN'T always say how a certain commune would decide things. Each commune decides on its own, I could say what my personal beliefs are, and there ARE people out there who would agree with most if not all of what I'm saying, and those would be other founding members, or people we'd invite, besides trying to show others how our way would work by inviting them to visit.

No, I've said as much, but you CAN eliminate MANY of them. And the rest you could downplay and attempt to treat. You won't catch all them, but its ALWAYS better to treat the illness than the symptom. If you think people need an opposition, a government to "keep people in check" then you are disagreeing with many American greats of our past, who believed the government should be FOR the people, not against the people.

The system I propose I believe to be MUCH better than the current system and I'm sure if we could take statistics from all the similar communes in existence, and compared it t to the capitalist majority, the crime would be much much less on the commune side. How often do you here off murders at communes? Crime is nearly non-existent when you have your needs being taken care of. It happens, with personal disputes from time to time, but for the most part, there is no incentive for crime. And prisons don't help, prison becomes a rotating door for criminals, instead of rehabilitation like it should be. It's the stupid idea of "punishment > rehabilitation" that doesn't really effect the criminals, beyond alienating, and embittering them, and putting them in basically what amounts to be a school for crime where criminals can share tips.

[nejix321]

I guess I see what your saying now. I mean if it was small groups of people using this ideal, it would work out splendidly. I thought you meant completely convert America to Anarcho-communism.

By people in check, I meant more towards criminals and the negative personalities. Kind of sense that if you do this then there is this consequence. I guess I'm not as much of an idealist as other people, I'm alright with what America has now. I'm not really into politics either.

I guess I didn't read a lot of your other post. It was like 4am after all.

[AnarchoElk]

Originally Posted by nejix321

I guess I see what your saying now. I mean if it was small groups of people using this ideal, it would work out splendidly. I thought you meant completely convert America to Anarcho-communism.

By people in check, I meant more towards criminals and the negative personalities. Kind of sense that if you do this then there is this consequence. I guess I'm not as much of an idealist as other people, I'm alright with what America has now. I'm not really into politics either.

I guess I didn't read a lot of your other post. It was like 4am after all.

completely converting anywhere would be an impossibility, but getting everyone who would like to live that way that life style, and then living by example, and having an open invitation would go along way, as well as active recruitment for visiting, just to get the word out, I think a lot of people would enjoy it. Some people wouldn't, they are too connected with consumerism, and it would be unfair to force them into a lifestyle they wouldn't enjoy.

"negative personalities", that doesn't sit right with me. especially since I know people who have committed "crimes" who are wonderful people, and people who follow the law, at least so far as they don't get in trouble due to their class, who are nasty people. Honestly, the "if you do this there will be consequences" is treating the symptom, its better to figure out "why did you do this" and try to work out something acceptable to everyone. Like has been discussed thoroughly here and elsewhere, alternative justice sees a high rate of success where it is used, and removing motivation for crime instead of punishing the criminal will do more to ensure lack of recidivism. The system we have now is a revolving door of institutionalization, embitterment, alienation, and does nothing to lower crime.

[nejix321]

I understand what your saying about the negative personalities. What I mean by that is: I have met some seriously impossible people in my life, that were extremely defensive and offensive. You just couldn't say anything without them taking it as an insult.

I also see how investigating a criminal rather then just putting them behind bars, could be a more ideal way to deal with them. Most people who are multiple time offenders, have something wrong with them.