that's because I do actually love it and I want to make things Better. not just pretend the problems don't exist like these neo-anarcho preppie wannafucks do.
2. "...Its all irrational...Why do you love America"
I never really considered love a rational thing. Love is an emotional thing. And logic and emotion are two different things. As someone could say they love their spouse because they are sweet, caring, and an amazing person, someone could say they love America because America is a land of oppurtinuty, of multiple cultures, and of freedom.
1. I dont see how you can not see that English is the most spoken language of the United States. I mean sure there are other languages that are spoken but not nearly as much people in the United States speak english as spanish. And we arent going to seperate the country just because people in some parts of it speak differently.
Because they are apart of the US. Why must we seperate people in our own country like that? Seperation like that is what leads to conflict to begin with. Uniting the country is the best way for everyone to work together and get along.
The speak English thing is right Its not about speaking English its about respecting everyone. I speak English so do the Italians, Germans, Poles, Arabs, Asians etc. We can just let Mexicans off because there is a lot of them.
That's one thing that threw me off. He said he wanted oneness, but as a nationalist? And all the prejudices that come with nations? There's alot of things I agree with him on, I tend to favor democracy at face value, but I have a problem with most philosophies, even the ones claiming to be about "freedom"... Anyway looking forward to the discussion...
Under Anarchy there will be 'free' electricity for everyone because it will be a shared system. It will be privately managed and operated.
While staff will be non unionized, and only a fraction of the cost it is today, people will still need to chip in for the shared system as well as water treatment, sewage, and other shared essentials. Garbage removal not being an essential. I'm talking base utilities.
When one household decides to stick their middle finger up and not pay what happens?
We are under anarchy now. There is 'free' electricity and essentials for those who work for them just like in our world. Anarchy or Statism, crowds will be crowds. And crowds need leaders, or they will all die.
Your problem is not the possibilities that anarchy permits, its the world that crowds create. Which most people try as hard as they can to believe that thing called, "The Real World," is actually real.
"Anarchy or Statism, crowds will be crowds. And crowds need leaders, or they will all die."
Wow it's amazing how many fake anarchists there are. Truly suprising.
I never said anything about credit cards. And electricity will be essential to many of the collectives.
If you are going to be a 'solar panel bubba' then that's fine, you can go to another collective or to nomads where you can pay nothing and get nothing.
Anarchy attracts the real greedy.. but you'll see no benefit.
Then we don't agree on the definition of a state. If you are for voluntary organizations (which needs to be defined) made by consenting individuals and what is tied to their labor (which needs to be defined) then we are not disagreeing. A state is known in political science as a territorial monopoly on the use of force. However, that could be almost anything and is not specific enough in my view.
I go for an aggressive violent monopoly or near monopoly of certain services over land not tied to labor based on censuses. Or just a large pay or die/be put in a cage territorial gang.
What basis is there for your inclusion of the word 'aggressive'? Is every state in the world committing acts of aggression? The answer is no.
I go for "an expiring, contractual medium of communication and organization of the people of a society with a defense of collectivized property wherein the general will decides the law."
That's assuming the individual doesn't turn over his rights to property to the state by agreeing to be a part of it. If he does, then there's no aggression. Just butthurt.
there is no such thing as "general will." there are individuals, and individuals want to achieve certain ends. how can you assume that those ends are the same? people have different conceptions of law and its function in the world.
No, you just don't want to admit that states can be voluntary.
I don't think you can be a propertarian and oppose state territorial claims, can you? I'm not saying you do, but many anarchists seem to. Not sure what you mean by the "what is tied to their labor" part.
I think the problem is our difference of opinions regarding what's voluntary.
"No, you just don't want to admit that states can be voluntary."
No, it's semantics. We don't tell you how you define words, so why do you try to tell us we must define the state as voluntary, slow down and think about how ridiculous this is. And you obviously believe in some type of property (maybe "active use").
I know we disagree about what constitutes "voluntary". That's why I pointed that out.
I believe in personal property, sure. But, only when it relates to the interaction of individuals. Ultimately, the state (that is to say, the collective) owns the property.
The problem that such a definition of a "state" is completely detached from the reality of "states" - which has never ever been "the community itself" and has always been a oligarchal and heirarchical institution.
brainpolice2, what you guys don't realize/acknowledge is that the founders of the United States were acting in the tradition of liberty. They were just from a primitive time ideologically. They weren't acting out of nefariousness or malice. You guys continue to regard them with hostility, but hindsight is 20/20. It's the people that *adopted* this country that have acted out of malice, by not acknowledging the flaws in the thinking of America's founders. The founders tried to decentralize it.
All they KNEW was oligarchy and hierarchy. They were primitive and dogmatic, but they tried to protect against steep hierarchies by decentralizing it. Unfortunately they were so caught up in their own self-worship and perceived providence that they wanted the institutions they built to last, not realizing that might not be the best idea, because institutions and practices need to evolve. They weren't used to institutions evolving. They had lived in monarchies that existed for CENTURIES.
Individual can act as part of a group, that is act at the same time towards the same common goal or purpose. But the group has no will outside the individuals that compose it. To refer to the state as being the ultimate owner is a floating abstraction since the origin of action and hence property is with the individual.
The ultimate actor of any given group action is the individual wills within it, not the group as an abstraction.
I need to make a response to oldhacks. I have promised him I would (since I have known him for awhile) but I have not had enough time to make any videos lately. Great job. Though I think voluntarism is a good way to define what we believe I think we also have to define what we mean by voluntary as D4Shawn has pointed out.
Penani Banana
Abbafails 2 years ago
that guy old hacks is kinda weird i wouldnt look this far into it
wedapeepole 2 years ago
just wait till my cartoon comes out.
0ldhack 2 years ago
glad you enjoyed it
oldhacks 2 years ago
posted
oldhacks 2 years ago
hey Luke. I'm working on more direct response. its rendering now.
0ldhack 2 years ago
Holy crap i'm glad i subscribed. Why is Luke12000 not more popular here?
nightpotato 2 years ago
that's because I do actually love it and I want to make things Better. not just pretend the problems don't exist like these neo-anarcho preppie wannafucks do.
0ldhack 2 years ago
anyone ever tell you you look like the psycho from the movie "bully"?
0ldhack 2 years ago
hey! I'm not smug! I take offense to that.
0ldhack 2 years ago
HHAHA! just cuz you don't agree doesn't mean it's not the Truth!
oldhacks 2 years ago
posted my response
oldhacks 2 years ago
2. "...Its all irrational...Why do you love America"
I never really considered love a rational thing. Love is an emotional thing. And logic and emotion are two different things. As someone could say they love their spouse because they are sweet, caring, and an amazing person, someone could say they love America because America is a land of oppurtinuty, of multiple cultures, and of freedom.
SomeFatGuy3591 2 years ago
Then why not just love oppurtinuty, multiple cultures, and freedom?
Luke12000 2 years ago
Well why not just love sweet and caring people? Why does it have to be a specific person? Why not just love all women that are sweet and caring?
SomeFatGuy3591 2 years ago
1. I dont see how you can not see that English is the most spoken language of the United States. I mean sure there are other languages that are spoken but not nearly as much people in the United States speak english as spanish. And we arent going to seperate the country just because people in some parts of it speak differently.
SomeFatGuy3591 2 years ago 3
My point is particular populations speak more Spanish than English. Why not consider them their own community? Why must we consider them the US?
Luke12000 2 years ago
Because they are apart of the US. Why must we seperate people in our own country like that? Seperation like that is what leads to conflict to begin with. Uniting the country is the best way for everyone to work together and get along.
SomeFatGuy3591 2 years ago
You are not alone, Luke. :D
travelsatnight 2 years ago
good one dude, too bad it's wasted on a hack...
iamjackscolin 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA!!
....good one
oldhacks 2 years ago
I agree with you Luke
ZullGostnu2 2 years ago
The speak English thing is right Its not about speaking English its about respecting everyone. I speak English so do the Italians, Germans, Poles, Arabs, Asians etc. We can just let Mexicans off because there is a lot of them.
BeNyaMa1976 2 years ago
That's one thing that threw me off. He said he wanted oneness, but as a nationalist? And all the prejudices that come with nations? There's alot of things I agree with him on, I tend to favor democracy at face value, but I have a problem with most philosophies, even the ones claiming to be about "freedom"... Anyway looking forward to the discussion...
abortabraham 2 years ago
Under Anarchy there will be 'free' electricity for everyone because it will be a shared system. It will be privately managed and operated.
While staff will be non unionized, and only a fraction of the cost it is today, people will still need to chip in for the shared system as well as water treatment, sewage, and other shared essentials. Garbage removal not being an essential. I'm talking base utilities.
When one household decides to stick their middle finger up and not pay what happens?
TheAngryCanuck 2 years ago
We are under anarchy now. There is 'free' electricity and essentials for those who work for them just like in our world. Anarchy or Statism, crowds will be crowds. And crowds need leaders, or they will all die.
Your problem is not the possibilities that anarchy permits, its the world that crowds create. Which most people try as hard as they can to believe that thing called, "The Real World," is actually real.
Credit cards and electricity, essential right? Grow up.
xprincexofxsavagesx 2 years ago
"Anarchy or Statism, crowds will be crowds. And crowds need leaders, or they will all die."
Wow it's amazing how many fake anarchists there are. Truly suprising.
I never said anything about credit cards. And electricity will be essential to many of the collectives.
If you are going to be a 'solar panel bubba' then that's fine, you can go to another collective or to nomads where you can pay nothing and get nothing.
Anarchy attracts the real greedy.. but you'll see no benefit.
TheAngryCanuck 2 years ago
You can't teach an Oldhacks new tricks.
surfingthechaos 2 years ago 3
Rimshot! Hoooooooooooooooo!
0ldhack 2 years ago
are you actually calling yourself a douche? cuz thatd be funny
0ldhack 2 years ago
I think that OH is a douche. Just my personal opinion, nothing more
TheBigHo111 2 years ago 3
Ugh. States can be voluntary.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Then we don't agree on the definition of a state. If you are for voluntary organizations (which needs to be defined) made by consenting individuals and what is tied to their labor (which needs to be defined) then we are not disagreeing. A state is known in political science as a territorial monopoly on the use of force. However, that could be almost anything and is not specific enough in my view.
overmind25 2 years ago
I go for an aggressive violent monopoly or near monopoly of certain services over land not tied to labor based on censuses. Or just a large pay or die/be put in a cage territorial gang.
overmind25 2 years ago
What basis is there for your inclusion of the word 'aggressive'? Is every state in the world committing acts of aggression? The answer is no.
I go for "an expiring, contractual medium of communication and organization of the people of a society with a defense of collectivized property wherein the general will decides the law."
mistaspot1 2 years ago
(golf clap) congratts on remaining predictably vague. You might as well say from each according to his ability to each according to his need.
Luke12000 2 years ago
It's as specific as it gets.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Aggressive in the sense that once land tied to labor is defined, if it is taken without consent then it is aggressive.
overmind25 2 years ago
That's assuming the individual doesn't turn over his rights to property to the state by agreeing to be a part of it. If he does, then there's no aggression. Just butthurt.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Sure then we just disagree with what the state means. By that definition I am fine with it.
overmind25 2 years ago
there is no such thing as "general will." there are individuals, and individuals want to achieve certain ends. how can you assume that those ends are the same? people have different conceptions of law and its function in the world.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
No, you just don't want to admit that states can be voluntary.
I don't think you can be a propertarian and oppose state territorial claims, can you? I'm not saying you do, but many anarchists seem to. Not sure what you mean by the "what is tied to their labor" part.
I think the problem is our difference of opinions regarding what's voluntary.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
"No, you just don't want to admit that states can be voluntary."
No, it's semantics. We don't tell you how you define words, so why do you try to tell us we must define the state as voluntary, slow down and think about how ridiculous this is. And you obviously believe in some type of property (maybe "active use").
Luke12000 2 years ago
I know we disagree about what constitutes "voluntary". That's why I pointed that out.
I believe in personal property, sure. But, only when it relates to the interaction of individuals. Ultimately, the state (that is to say, the collective) owns the property.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
The problem that such a definition of a "state" is completely detached from the reality of "states" - which has never ever been "the community itself" and has always been a oligarchal and heirarchical institution.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
brainpolice2, what you guys don't realize/acknowledge is that the founders of the United States were acting in the tradition of liberty. They were just from a primitive time ideologically. They weren't acting out of nefariousness or malice. You guys continue to regard them with hostility, but hindsight is 20/20. It's the people that *adopted* this country that have acted out of malice, by not acknowledging the flaws in the thinking of America's founders. The founders tried to decentralize it.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
I think you clearly have a romantisized view of them.
brainpolice2 2 years ago
All they KNEW was oligarchy and hierarchy. They were primitive and dogmatic, but they tried to protect against steep hierarchies by decentralizing it. Unfortunately they were so caught up in their own self-worship and perceived providence that they wanted the institutions they built to last, not realizing that might not be the best idea, because institutions and practices need to evolve. They weren't used to institutions evolving. They had lived in monarchies that existed for CENTURIES.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Only individuals act. An enity incapable of action is incapable of having property outisde of the action of individuals within it.
WorBlux 2 years ago
So, people never take action as a group?
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Individual can act as part of a group, that is act at the same time towards the same common goal or purpose. But the group has no will outside the individuals that compose it. To refer to the state as being the ultimate owner is a floating abstraction since the origin of action and hence property is with the individual.
The ultimate actor of any given group action is the individual wills within it, not the group as an abstraction.
WorBlux 2 years ago
his is GREAT dude. im posting something to someone else but you ask good questions so. gimme a bit
oldhacks 2 years ago
groovy
Luke12000 2 years ago
At the end of the day nothing matters. We are all alone when we go to bed and that's when true ideas come into play.
detriplea 2 years ago
(epic)?
Luke12000 2 years ago
Yes "Luke". I think we are on the same level, but you seem a little more confused than I am.
detriplea 2 years ago
...about
Luke12000 2 years ago
I need to make a response to oldhacks. I have promised him I would (since I have known him for awhile) but I have not had enough time to make any videos lately. Great job. Though I think voluntarism is a good way to define what we believe I think we also have to define what we mean by voluntary as D4Shawn has pointed out.
overmind25 2 years ago
Good afternoon Luke!
oldhacks 2 years ago
Good afternoon!
Luke12000 2 years ago
couldn't agree with you more and disagree with oldschacks more. recently subscribed to you and you are becoming one of my favorite anarchists on yt.
ReMembrane 2 years ago 4
thank ye kindly
Luke12000 2 years ago