re: how i became an anarchist

[UcanbeGOD]

zzzzZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz

[buddhagem]

Great story. Only one problem: All Anarchists are Socialists; just not all socialists are anarchists. So I'm already there with ya on that one.

[overmind25]

How do you define Socialist Buddagem?

[Impulse799]

You are Tyler Durden.

[overmind25]

Perhaps we should go unto stickam. I can understand how some of this is confusing. How about tomorrow?

[overmind25]

If you want a direct democracy, public schools etc then all you have to do under anarchism is find others to join in with you. You do not have to vote beg. Seeing how many support some form of public schooling (as do I) then you do not need a state to acquire it. Just provide the best system and get your ideas across.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

we do it already by each state. some states, like the ones the make our food, dont have enough founds, so we willingly as a whole proved their education as well.

Some cleaning up needs to be done, sure. but if you think the same idea will have a a different outcome, you're mistaken

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

i seriously need to start proof reading, this is horrible! sorry lols!

hope you can make that out, full of tons of typos, woosheess

[TheNihilAdvocate]

"Can I practice giving blowjobs on you?" Lucky fucking bastard. "The law dosen't mean shit... the law is bullshit" Do you really think people will draw legitimacy from laws simply because they vote on them? Man, your like me. I used to steal styrofoam from wal-mart and use it to burn marks on the side of the building. My little poetic justice.

[napalmtube]

LMAO " can I practice giving blowjobs on you"

wow, I've had to beg for it my whole life

[oldhacks]

telling you dude. I could relive those memories for a thousand years.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Once you label yourself something. You draw a box around yourself, and now your ideals are prohibited, and you have to follow a set of beliefs, that others have lined out for you.

[oldhacks]

true enough. a socialists box is humanity. its limits and possibilities. anarchists box is the individual. and its possibilities. these anarchists tend to leave out the limitations in constructive behavior being manifested just by having self awareness though.

[overmind25]

Socialism like capitalism is almost meaningless now. It is has different meanings to different people. People have to be more specific and define what they mean. There are individualists who believe in collectivization and socializing all or almost all services and land but want it on a voluntary basis. There are anarchists that are socialists as we have been over many times before. Anarchism allows for pluralism.

[oldhacks]

socialism is anything but meaningless right now friend. while you may not be paying attention the people in the EU are fighting for referendums and rioting and going aboslutely NUTS for democracy. while we're over here dealing with yet another fucking wave of trendy nonsense. this anarchism crap is gonna come and go just like ron paulism, and NWOism did. its a bunch of people talking. thats all it is. thats all it'll remain until people start thinking about applying force on the feds.

[overmind25]

It is meaningless unless people define what they mean by it. Even democracy means different things to different people. It all has to be defined.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

democracy is being able to vote on the policies.

a republic is the same as anarchy. others decide the policies for you.

the constitution (minus giving the power to make laws only to the mob rule of a select few in the white house) protects personal liberties.

[oldhacks]

well democracy and repiblic actually mean teh same thing. instead of republic eveyone needs to say representative government. cuz thats what it is.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

They only mean the same to those that think they have one, but have the other.

I prefer to say it my way:

Democracy is the people voting on the policies.

A Republic is trusting only politicians to make all decisions for you.

Which is what new age anarchism is.

Anarchy is a tool. The rich elite have found an avenue to get the poor to suport their class war. It's the most ridiculous thing in the world.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

You got poor people screaming about paying taxes. But if one were to look at their education, the roads they use, the food they eat, etc

They haven't even paid enough in taxes to even pay for their own schooling they took for granted, let alone the rest!

[overmind25]

In a direct democracy or a Republic laws that are aggressing are decided for you. Anarchism is giving as much autonomy to the individual as possible.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

The constitution protects one's liberties.

Unfortunately, the republic can take them away.

we the people are not out to take away our own liberties, in fact just the opposite.

we're not out to pass unconstitutional laws, and since all initiatives have to be deemed as constitutional by the supreme court, before anyone could even vote on them. It's not even an issue.

It's a fantasy you dreamed up, and now you argue against your own fantasy.

[overmind25]

The Constitution was never consented too. Whether they would or not the ability is sanctioned to take them away. You should take a look at the polls in the past about how the public supports freedom of speech less than many in the government for atheists, homosexuals etc. That is a problem that will have to be addressed though to achieve anarchism as well.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

It's consented to now. It's perfectly legal now. It's the "supreme law of the land" FULLY accept as such. and 100% legal.

The constitution protects free speech. Each case is looked at separately, if there's a complaint, by the supreme court. They make the ruling. not us. and the judges views have historically reflected that of the society ie as a society changes, so do it's judges.

[overmind25]

There was not consent to the Constitution. This was a problem even some of the founder had with the document. The US education system is a failure and my parents, grandparents, etc were taxed to pay for it. The funny part is that I do not even oppose voluntary public services.  They just have to be consented too.

[overmind25]

I actually even favor a voluntary public healthcare, education, and pension program with choices, but I will not agree to the imperialist direct democracy way you wish to impose it without the consent of those involved.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

it doesnt even matter what you favor. It;s not up to you. You get no say in anything. Your ideals aren't even your own, you have to follow the creed you've been fed. It;s one that doesnt even have a first step, and cannot understand that small baby steps is how you would even begin to dismantle, and create your utopia without greed

[overmind25]

If people do not favor schools then direct democracy will not fix that. If they favor schools then you do not need a state. The state helps to impoverish people and non state schools have to compete with state run schools that are funded through theft. People wanting to do well for themselves is fine with me. I have no problem with it.

[overmind25]

Yes I do have ideas about how it could be dismantled. You have no idea where I have gotten my ideas and how much of them I have added on to myself. You are just blowing smoke. There was no consent to the Constitution.

[oldhacks]

you're right about the constitution. totally correct. it was written by a bunch of thieves ready to start killing indians and hording land. first thing they did after writing the constitution was to keep slavery legal. so that shows you where their aims were.

with Amending the constitution by ballot it will BE the peoples Constitution! thats how you make the constitution legitimate. is by Signing it yourself along with tens of millions of others!

[overmind25]

I have no problem with voluntary Constitutions that people consent to whether they be direct democracy in nature or Republic like. I personally favor the Constitutional direct democracy.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

"Constitutional direct democracy."

Is the key. The first step. which could very well lead to anarchism as a reality, if a majority would like, basically the very same system to be a voluntary one, only concerning taxes and or land ownership, and not the laws, which are pretty much the same. which is why here in my state medical marijuana is legal, prostitution is legal, gambling is legal, fire crackers and such, perfectly legal.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Not in all counties though, but can be, bec often we vote on those issues. I think the locals have more say, and authority than your giving credit to, perhaps I'm wrong about what you think. but me thinks not,lol

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Great. Please tell me what teh first step is. and be sure and not say educating people. That's just talk. it doesnt promises anything, because for one thing the it's not actually an educational agenda, it's trickery.

But here is your chance to list the first actual viable step. and please dont say have a revolution,lol

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

It doesnt even matter if the constitution was consented to back then. It is consented to now. You live in 2009. whereas teh constitution in your country is the supreme law of the land, and 100% accepted as such.

amendments to it,(oldhacks) reflect a changing society. making void silliness like slave owners wrote it.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Look dude, there will always bee corruption. Your system cannot remove corruption. It cant. It;s human nature, competition, greed...it;s gotten us this far, and served it's purpose well. It's also here t say and will advance us into the future as a whole.

The majority do pay taxes willingly, bec they want schools. You went to them, you live in this country, this system, yet....

[overmind25]

I am saying all corruption will end. It allows for more autonomy under anarchism to secede from corrupted system, therefore placing the incentive on the individual to be involved. . I never said greed will disappear. I am for getting rid of institutionalized aggressive violence so people can pursue their self interest and will have to provide a service others want.

[overmind25]

Education is the biggest part because without that you will only have a short lived change. Yes I can take my life for granted. I don't care for your permission or anyone else's (that I even want to take it for granted). I am for relieving the tax payer and those who are hurt by state granted monopolies. The Constitution was not consented to then and not now either.

[overmind25]

*(not that

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

taxes are the same as charity. Each have the very same outcome. (greed/corruption insure this)

The constitution is consented to now. and 100% perfectly legal.

Deny this fact if you wish. it's funny

[overmind25]

There was no consent. It was imposed by birth over people and the land that is tied to their labor. It was never consented too. If you let the state define what is legal then yes (then any government would be legal) I do not. There was no consent.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

You can pursue your self interest.

If you want to eat, and have a roof over your head, if your not handicapped, you do have to provide some sort of service to make money.

Charities do exist now.

There never were enough charities existing. yet we the people know that by paying out a tiny portion of our income (which is defined the same as free speech)

[overmind25]

Our education system is terrible. Finland has a great education system (rated number 1) because their citizens value education, not because of the state program (where it was tired in Canada and didn't work as well). People can form public programs under anarchism (a pot system). It just have to be consented too and people must value it.

[overmind25]

I am not saying corruption will disappear. However, if it becomes to corrupt and a new organization forms that people favor they can secede and join it. It places an incentive for people to learn because they have more control over their economic and political choices unlike statism.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

it's the same exact system

only you dont want the wealthiest to pay anything.

and some how think people wont be to busy in the future to care about what they pay for, when tehy already pay now, and do care about and are trying to fix.

your failing badly. stop listening t te rich man. and promoting his class war on YOU

wake up

[overmind25]

It is not rich men (which is irrelevant anyway). There is so much theft on the poor now through state sanctioned monopolies THAT WE HAVE GONE OVER ALREADY. It is not even close to the same. Parasitic state capitalists use the state in land, bank, corporate charter, barrier to entry, patent etc to block alternative political organizations and business competition.

[overmind25]

I want the poor to have their autonomy and what is tied to their labor without neo Manorialism. They will have their items tied to them and be more autonomous instead of the tax scraps that you want to feed to them making them dependent on some external system that just continues the theft of their labor to begin with.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Then you would want to promote fair trade. and not an open free trade unregulated frenzy for corporations to rape the poor, and not even have to pay taxes in doing so. lols!

[overmind25]

I am not for the existence of corporations. My god how many times do I have to say that. They are state charters of limited liability.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

but you are. you are for anyone to hire as many employees as they want. trade and deal with whomever they want, if the two agree to. It;s called a corporation,. regardless if you think you;re against them. The fact is you are not against them at all, and want free range for them to screw you over even more so than now. only fair trade can prevent this. not free market capitalism. only fair trade protectionism can remove the need for tariffs.

[oldhacks]

how do you stop businesses from socializing their capital without making it illegal? just hope for the best? let whoever has the most chips win every time regardless of whether or not its deserved? wal mart uses the government to forces itself into every major town and city. what makes you think wal mart would think twice about going all out blitzkrieg on us if there were no lawful way in which to combat them? we passed a law here in ca. that they cant open shop right off the highway. it works!

[overmind25]

People, just like any system would have to defend themselves againist those who would abuse them. Walmart would be violating the "nautral law" of negative liberty so it would be "lawful" to defend yourself with others and homestead their buildings and such.

[oldhacks]

defend themselves how?

if you dont make it a law then they'll just start doing it again just as soon as you beat them.. you make it stop by enacting laws. so then its like a warning. "keep doing the shit and we'll fuck you up" ya know? thats defending yourself. look at all the street signs. Neighborhood watch. no loitering. all that shit. its just warning labels. having laws in itself isn't oppressive . its whos making the laws that counts.

[overmind25]

I never said having laws in itself is oppressive. Enforcing aggressive laws that require positive obligations unto people without their consent is oppressive. By having defense organizations. You take them over if they invade others. You don't let them continue to exist. You and others and their homestead land can bar them from selling to you.

[overmind25]

Wal Mart as it is now could not exisit anyway in an anarchism because it is a corporation, it uses state aggression to build itself in places, etc.

[oldhacks]

right. so by ballot we should make corporatism an illegal practice and be done with it and then all be anarchists...

[overmind25]

Or form different organizations outside of the state and bleed it dry causing massive secession and new unions and federations of indiviuals to form.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

That is in no way true whatsoever.

IF there was open free trade.

walmart would be able to increase it's size.

open free trade capitalism, what you push for. Would allow walmart to profit more so from it;s slave labor imports. There is no law in anarchism philosophy to prevent any corporation from buying land, and put up as many businesses as they want. The whole ideal is that with open free trade you some how think this magically gives the small guy room to compete,

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

and walmart wouldn't have it;s monopoly. This is in no way true whatever. walmart does not disappear under free market capitalism, it expands. Your promoting the exact opposite of your fantasy, and dont even realize it. how cute!

You really need to put your listening ears on. and keep your mouth shut. Bec you keep stating things that are in no way true whatsoever, bec you do not think them all the way through.

[overmind25]

Decen. you are the one who is not listening and is not willing to listen. I am done with you. Slave labor for the last time would not be allowed under anarchism because it is involuntary. Wal Mart is a corporation and could not exist and it would not recieve stolen monies like it does now from the state.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

You can say that over and over. It only proves you have very little understanding of how free market capitalism works.

[oldhacks]

enforcing laws. what would be the point in passing a law if you weren't going to enforce it?

you mean taxes? well sales taxes aren't forced by mail. they're just everywhere where everyone can see them. flee markets and thrift stores of course won't be burdened by it and there's always a rebate option that you can apply for to get every penny you put in back to you in a monthly check. or a yearly check. like a savings fund. again none of this should be done by rep gov. should be done by US.

[overmind25]

You can enforce it if people consented to the law making body and the law depending on how it is set up. There has to be consent though first to a law that requires a positive obligation of a person that has not committed aggression.

[oldhacks]

so the only way you'd support being a democratic state among an entire world filled with representative states is if ALL three hundred Million people voted to enact it and if ALL three hundred million people vote in favor of it?

[overmind25]

No if they aggreed to the system.

[oldhacks]

law requires a positive obligation? you mean like hate crime laws? what do you mean positive obligation? like taxes for health care? positive obligation like housing for the homeless?

[overmind25]

Yes requiring a piece of someone's labor requires consent because it is requiring a positive obligation,.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

It is exactly the same.

You want to believe if the very same things we have now, if it was done voluntarily, that the same problems we have now with corruption would just vanish. it wont.

[overmind25]

The current system has massive thefts on the poor that we have been over. I am for abolishing that form of slavery as well. If people want public education ,direct democracy etc then all you have to do is convince people to sign on. You would have to do that to have a direct democracy anyway now by convicting people to support it.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

any system that deals with large amounts of money will have thefts, corruption, etc etc

period. voluntary or not. we're talking about millions of people, and billions of dollars. corruption and greed with exist in ANY SYSTEM

understand that!

[overmind25]

I accept greed and corruption (which I do oppose) will exist in any system. I never denied that. Please read my comments.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Yes, but you for some reason think if it's voluntary (even though taxes are voluntarily and gladly paid now) people will some how magically care more. They wont. They're to busy struggling, bec we dont have fair trade. we have trade deficits in teh trillions each year. this cause our own dollar value to drop, which is inflation. fair trade forces each country to be producers. not having one buy up the world's resources and labor, for a debt. that is never going to be repaid.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

and we each want to clean it up, and set our priorities in order.

Only your problem is to abolish the entire system, first. and that's not in reality. so you are wasting my time.

good night

[overmind25]

Good night

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

night :)

we can pick this up another time.

catcha later,. thanks for the conversation

peace

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

we have created a system that educates our children, brings us safe foods, etc etc Corruption exist in charities. and it will exist when ever money, or law making, is evolved. It's a problem. and always will be, in any system. and today individuals do get caught, read about the arrest made in New Jersey today.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

you're not stupid. In fact no one is. Each person does what they do, and they do it well. Doesn't even matter what it is, good or bad is an opinion. We learn from it, we all do.

The goal is to have our taxes that are willingly paid by the majority, to actual go towards what we want. We can afford better schools, health care, etc

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

we're trying to get what we ask for, we're not being represented. money is being spent on imperialism. not protectionism like it should. You want a smart, healthy, nation. whereas everyone must chip in to make that possable. Equality must be enforced, at gun point if necessary. You have no right to take your life for granted. to many willingly tax payers have fought for you to have this life,

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

do not be so quick to bite the hand that made you who you are. Because some rich guys got you to believe that a utopia without greed is possible. It's not.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

It's consented to now. It's perfectly legal now. It's the "supreme law of the land" FULLY accepted as such. and 100% legal.

If you think the world doesnt measure success by how much one can hoard (money/resources) you dont live in the real world. This is why you are the tool for greed, only it's not even your greed.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

No one should ever be allowed to live here and not pay their taxes. ever. They cannot take what everyone else has given them for granted. greed prevents charity as any sort of viable, voluntary, option. Charity can step in at any moment they want, and build better schools. This does happen. but certainly not on a large scale like the fantasy lie you been fed. ie If it were even remotely true that charity would replace public services,

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

it already would have, but it hasnt. because greed prevents it from ever happening. welcome to the real world son

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

You're only fighting for the right to have a class war. You've been duped. how can we get the poor to fight for inequality. you been duped.

[overmind25]

Taxes are a form of exploitation. I favor liberty and equality of autonomy more than equality of results. Direct monetary taxation is just a way to hand on scraps to the poor by using theft and hoping it hits the right thieves. Direct taxation is not even close to the only item or main item I am against I am for abolishing the monopolies in land not tied to labor, patent, corporate charter, and money making/banking monopoly of providing a means of exchange

[oldhacks]

either you have government tax you or you live with all the hidden taxes that we do so that you have the illusion that you pay low taxes.

big business. keeps you trapped in a car. so they're forcing you to pay gas, insurance, licensing fees. those are all taxes from the government of big oil and big industry. they own you. go watch the video of mike explaining why he's not afraid of a national ID card again. its a very important video he makes it plain. "THEY'VE ALREADY GOT YOU"

[overmind25]

I don't view many of their practices as legitimate either as I have already told you. You keep arguing that if I don't support state taxation then I somehow support the aggressive practices of big businesses which I do not. You are arguing against a phantom of my position.

[oldhacks]

big business already has you though. they've got your government and they've got you commercially in all your actions.

how is boycotting taxation going to stop big business? it can't. all you're going to do is end up hurting the little guy. you won't effect the big fish in any way shape or form by just disavowing your citizenship and acting as a lone unit. you won't stop taxes. you won't stop big business. you won't do anything beyond breaking the law. so we have to Change the law. its simple

[overmind25]

Boycotting direct monetary taxation is not all I am advocating. You need to come to stickam and we can sort this out. You are misunderstanding and conflating tons of issues. Come on tonight. Pm me.

[oldhacks]

email me the addy dude. I asked you before

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

It's a fantasy. Its not how the real world works.

You are perfectly fine with the farm boys growing your food. but no wealthy person must ever pay taxes to give poor farm boy an education. You been duped. You take your daily life made possible by taxes, completely for granted.

We the people have no problems in paying taxes, bec it's not even that much. The problem is what the money gets spent on- unconstitutional acts.

[overmind25]

You keep arguing against a fantasy. You act as if all I oppose is direct monetary taxation. That is only part of it. The poor are roped in the land, money, patent, and corporate charter monopolies that I am for abolishing.

[overmind25]

If that wealth was made through voluntary trade and their land was acquired through homesteading then no they do not owe a farm boy an education. I do not oppose public services though that people agree to pay into and access them when they need them depending on the agreements. However, they have to be consented too.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

only the fool doesnt want to better his own country and his fellow americans that make his entire life even possable.

keep taking your existence for granted, it's really cute!

[overmind25]

People all around the world, including what is deemed the US, have made my life possible through trade and interactions.  I don't just trade or interact with Americans however. I don't support the idea of countries so I have no idea why you would even bring that up.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

answer the question

[oldhacks]

"what is deemed the US"

jesus christ dude. "the united states of America" was created by free trade. the name the land the genocide the wars. all of it came from a lack of regulation by the people. the people stood by and watched as Wilson instituted the income tax and then used the money to go into WW1.people stood by and watched as the oil tycoons made and lost fortunes. they stood by and watched as Bush sent us to Iraq.they stood by and watched us go into vietnam. its the people. not the gov

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

the fantasy is you thinking americas must want to take away their liberties. they dont

the taxation provide for you the life you have, stop taking it for granted!

where did you go to school at? you better say your schooling was all private, and your parents paid for it!!!

[overmind25]

Many of them currently do not challenged the system and oppose different beliefs. That is something that has to be changed. The state cannot create wealth out of thin air. It would exist without the state and there is a large amount of robbery with what the state protects.

[overmind25]

*chanllenge

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

If each country acted in it;s own self interest, as the UYS does in creating bubbled economies that feed people and keep them working. If other countries did this, it would create equality. The other nations haven't figured out a response to carrying US debt buy purchasing bonds.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

US*

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

check it out: pleas watch this, and listen as the student, not teh know it all. (this will only benefit you, so I highly recommend you watch this, economist expert Michael Hudson)

"America: Host or Parasite?"

watch?v=Ertii-36Rzs

[oldhacks]

the poor are roped in because big business has a monopoly on law making. the only way we can abolish Anything is if we enact a ballot initiative process in this country. that requires introspection and serious analyzing because its giving the power of law making to the entire country. which is serious business. once you see everything through the para scope of democracy you start to think about things we DO need as a nation and that we're not getting. its a long process.

[oldhacks]

are laws against rapists and murderers aggressive or defensive?

anarchism is obtainted by ballot. we have to abolish the laws in order to have more anarchy. in order to abolish the laws we have to mandate a ballot initiative process. ya know not every anarchist is against direct democracy. only the ones that think they stand to lose by applying it to their platform act as stubborn about this as you do.

[overmind25]

I am fine with a voluntary direct democracy. Defending yourself against murderers and rapists is not aggressive.  .

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

Yeah, they're also unconstitutional, so we dont have any problem with that at all, none whatsoever.

So it's pointless to even argue about being aggressive to uphold constitutional rights and liberties. ie aggressive towards that infringe on these already laid out rights we have. The very same you would want to protect as well. only voluntary. which we already have anyway. and pay willingly. Only those that have been duped by the wealthy, complain. along their side as they hold your hand

[oldhacks]

voluntary direct democracy is what we have NOW. its meaningless if its not enforced.

[oldhacks]

you know what democracy is. it's the people.

representative government is a representative government. democracy is when everyone has a say.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

no dude. if you aren't sure about something, on how your labeled box is supposed to think, you have to look up what others tell you your own stance is.

That's not freedom, it;s not individuality. It's you being in a group (BOX) and not being allowed to think for yourself.

Take someone like me. My views on each issue, sepperately. Our my own thoughts on them, and they vary, and change. and it;s near impossible to label myself as any one anything. It;s would be a waste of time to even try.

[overmind25]

Neat 5 stars.

[oldhacks]

haha. I'm with you guys. I just have a different map.

[KagarBeardtooth]

I think the main problem between you and anarchists is with the terminology. You define anarchy differently than they do.

Your anarchy is being a rebel without a cause; their anarchy is existing without the state.

By your definition, none of them are anarchists.

[oldhacks]

they're just trendies talking shit. none of them have ever lived out a day of anarchy in their life. and here I am from the inside trying to explain the REALITY of the situation and they all scoff because I'm not trying to be a part of their gay ass little club. in other words I'm approaching them in an anarchist fashion and because I refuse to follow THEIR orders they're trying to banish me.

doing everything I'm trying to get them to do. except against me. its fucking bizarro world

[overmind25]

Exactly. I am opposed to this

an aggressive violent monopoly or near monopoly of certain services over land not tied to labor or over individuals who have not consented which, by the general public conception, does so in a manner not considered to be legitimate for other groups or individuals to engage in.

[oldhacks]

you're opposed to decision making? you're opposed to collective wisdom? you're against all given societies that live culturally as societies to have the ability to have a mandated public discussion about the issues they may be dealing with? all having a vote is is coming to an agreement. if you disagree then you can always do whatever work it takes to get whatever law you're against Reversed. no law is concrete. the constitution is a living document written to be changed whenever need be.

[overmind25]

Yes I am against institutionalizing and sanctioning some majority rule over items and land that is not theirs and people who do not consent. What needs to be decided upon is how property is acquired legitimately and once it is acquired through a voluntary process or homesteading then it is that person/persons. In some sense majorities get what they want and in some sense they do not.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

If two parties consent to put one nation in debt (unbalenced trading) and not the other. it effects you, and everyone else.

[oldhacks]

whats the big dream behind living without a state?

more money? more freedom? whats the gimmick? power exists within societies regardless of who controls it. the majority of people will get their way whether we make it official or not. so why not just explore the possibilities that exist with giving said population the power to govern themselves? someones/thing is going to take control. its better when the people control themselves and dont allow minorities to control them.

[overmind25]

I am advocating individuals taking control over what is theirs and themselves. They can form organizations for mutual protection of their liberty and to provide services public or private that they wish. If a certain number of people what to put themselves and their land under the jurisdiction of a direct democracy then they may do so. If not then fine. More freedom.

[oldhacks]

you're just being selfish then. its immature.

10 people.

4 people have enough medicine for all 10

6 people say "hey Share the medicine"

the minority says "fuck you"

the 6 people say "no Fuck you"

and because they out number them they get their medicine. but they share with the 4 that had it at first to show them that they just wanted the right thing to be done. to keep them from wanting to get revenge.

[overmind25]

I have no idea what you mean by selfish. I do not demonize the self as I said in my reply to you. It is "selfish" to believe you are entitled to other items people have produced or acquired through voluntary trade without their consent.

[overmind25]

Those people could either give the medicine to them charging them nothing for something, charge them some fee or task for the medicine, or could refuse to see or give them the medicine because they may need it later or want to keep it. Those other six need to go look to buy the medicine from someone else or produce themselves depending on what it is.

[overmind25]

*to sell or give them

[oldhacks]

charging them?

thats what we have now man. '

I''m trying to be cool here man cuz we've known each other on this stupid website for quite a while but if you were anyone else I'd be barking your head off for saying something like that.

charge them what? money? where does money come from? or do they have shells to trade. magic shells and beans. are gonna go all the way back to complete savagery before people start to consider the power of acting as a unit? form an army. take shit over.

[overmind25]

It depends on the means of exchange that develops and what is adopted overall. This does not come from stefbot. It is selfish then by your own definition for them to put their interest over this minority. There is no escaping the self. It is a question about what the self values and why.

[oldhacks]

its not selfish because it goes to benefit the whole. not just the individual who only thinks of themselves and nothing but themselves.

the self values prosperity. prosperity comes easier when a noble people fight for a noble way of life. you have to obtain and Maintain that by majority rule. it's human nature.

[overmind25]

By your own definition of selfish it was selfish for them to take the medicine. They wanted it so they took it without a voluntary agreement by the others who had it (I am just assuming legitimately). It did not benefit them. It benefited six out of ten. It was the selfish interest of the six using aggressive violence to achieve their selfish goal.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

anarchist have rules, they have laws, they have a police that will enforce them, and it's very aggressive. so you're wrong. bec the ideology you are told to believe in. Is in no way what you're being told it is, bec it's not.

[oldhacks]

you're breaking from the terms. ten people and medicine. thats all there is here. no money no countries no commies. no nothing.

just ten people and medicine. nothing more. nothing less.

there's medicine in this world. and the 6 people aren't getting it because of the idea of "cost".

[overmind25]

You have created what is known as a lifeboat scenario that is not even realistic. Those 6 people need to find others to purchase the medicine from or form a public health care system with others. I am for a public health care system but I am not for stealing to achieve it. We need to attack the illegitimate forms of property now and wealth will be more easily expandable.

[oldhacks]

a lifeboat scenario eh?

is global warming realistic enough for you? ice caps melting. water rising. temperature changes causing typhoons and hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis? have you been paying attention the last few years? the earth is getting weird. Australia is about to run out of fucking water man. ask any australian you know. its a god damn crisis.

or am I just using that to suit my argument as well?

[overmind25]

Yes a lifeboat scenario. Causing pollution to a certain degree is aggression so I do not advocate it or propose that externalities not be dealt with.

[oldhacks]

"be dealt with"?

pollution bad. vote no on pollution.

there done. no more pollution. or at least as little as possible. that involves a train, less cars, less military, less road construction, less gasoline production, less oil production.

all those things play a part. so how are you going to get anywhere unless you pass a law as a people to get the shit STARTED. its like

ok. ready. set. GO.

ready? have an idea?

set? ok do you know which side you're on?

GO. vote.

may the best mob win

[overmind25]

Depends on the pollution like I said. I am not an environmental scientist so I do not know around what amount would be "aggressive" and excess over what modern tech could keep in check. Specialized Arbitration systems will have to deal with it and examine the evidence by qualified indiviuals.

[oldhacks]

the pollution is cars and factory farms and destroying the rain forest. everyone knows it. we've known it for decades now. what do you mean which pollution. deal with them all in one big sweep. "No more pollution" its against the law because it doesn't serve to benefit ANYONE. thus it should be illegal.

[overmind25]

Yes and there will be pollution regardless with our current tech. It just has to be determined which amount is agressive and which is not.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

determining that IS aggressive.

[oldhacks]

haha. now you dont know what the meaning of the word selfish is anymore? you Have lost your mind. sheesh. Get off the stefbot train man. it's a dead end road!

the word selfish is when someone acts in their own interest before anyone elses. thats the meaning of the word. so you'd sit there and watch all six of them die if they didn't have anything in trade?

[oldhacks]

HAHA. christ they did nothing BUT vote. no comment no nothing. they did nothing BUT vote. yet they're against voting.... makes NO FUCKING SENSE!!!!

[oldhacks]

before tv it was the radio. before the radio it was the news papers and telegraphs. before the news papers it was by town crier. before town crier it was by blunt sword.