Be a Supporter!

Anarchist Federation

  • 4,545 Views
  • 177 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 11:53 AM Reply

At 8/28/11 11:41 AM, Confucianism wrote: You know, you have just left out the bit where I have said they hold traits of anarchism. Not that they are anarchists.

OK, I'll bite. What are these 'traits' of anarchsim?

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 12:11 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 11:53 AM, Camarohusky wrote: OK, I'll bite. What are these 'traits' of anarchsim?

they have no archons?

what about dark archons?

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 01:40 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 11:41 AM, Confucianism wrote:
At 8/28/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You seem to be confusing small tribalistic governments as anarchy. They are not. These small groups have governmental structure, even the agalitarian ones.
You know, you have just left out the bit where I have said they hold traits of anarchism. Not that they are anarchists.

By that (broken) logic all societies hold traits of anarchism, because there will always be areas of less regulation/ total unregulation.

Like that free market thing that has been the basis of humanity for a while now. If there were no regulations on that then it would be pure anarchy.

Part of me gets the feeling that you hate that concept though.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
Daddy-L-Jackson
Daddy-L-Jackson
  • Member since: May. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 03:42 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 06:18 AM, elcriz000 wrote:
At 8/27/11 09:40 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote:
1. It's called The Dark Ages... a period notorious for both blind following of the bible and barbarianism. Does that sound like a good world to you?
you didn't answer my question, It worked didn't it we grew, evolved and adapted didn't we? Of course we did, otherwise we wouldn't be here now.

Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy. The fact is, if there even were to be an anarchist nation or state or even city, that was entirely independent, they would suffer and fall behind in terms of technology and would not progress as a society. Any anarchist states or sects that still exist will either evolve out of it or deteriorate into chaos. Anarchy does work, on a very small basis, in small groups of intelligent people. But most people don't function like that, it's in our human nature and our DNA to strive for power and to better ourselves, and in a situation with no one there to enforce and keep everyone in line, who's going to stop them from taking what they want?

To put faith in anarchy is to put trust in other people, which, just like any type of society, doesn't work, as exemplified by communism and even democracy. Anarchy is likely to fail in the same areas as any other form of society would, amplified more so by the lack of regulation.

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 09:13 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote:

Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.

The fact is, if there even were to be an anarchist nation or state or even city, that was entirely independent, they would suffer and fall behind in terms of technology and would not progress as a society. Any anarchist states or sects that still exist will either evolve out of it or deteriorate into chaos. Anarchy does work, on a very small basis, in small groups of intelligent people. But most people don't function like that, it's in our human nature and our DNA to strive for power and to better ourselves, and in a situation with no one there to enforce and keep everyone in line, who's going to stop them from taking what they want?

Well there could never be an anarchist state or nation state, and I would like to know why technology would suffer? Would worker owned firms, who can better control their workplace and decide upon what to do with the product of their work make them less productive? Wage slavery gets the minimum out of people, no where near the maximum. Your statement about anarchy only working in small groups is incorrect. I also contest that 'DNA' makes us strive for power, and indeed we so all wish to better ourselves, that is the point of life. It is also my philosophy, and statism curbs such opportunities. Who's going to? Well it depends on what type of anarchism you believe in, by the co-operative syndacties/communes/societies etc would police themselves. What is this childish belief that unless we have big men in uniforms paid by the ruling classes to do the work of protection, huge societies will just crumple when one man gets a shotgun?

To put faith in anarchy is to put trust in other people, which, just like any type of society, doesn't work, as exemplified by communism and even democracy. Anarchy is likely to fail in the same areas as any other form of society would, amplified more so by the lack of regulation.

Sigh. To put faith in statism is to put trust in other people. No matter how morally reprehensible, no matter how many people have suffered because of them, no matter how illegitimate their power may be, you will follow them or face violence. I'm aware what people do when they have other people's life as mere property, and it's rarely beneficial to both parties if not downright tyrannical. If you don't trust human beings, don't let them control your life, we can't escape human beings' decisions no matter what we do, because they have authority doesn't mean they are separated from your view of people as greedy, corruptible creatures.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 09:32 PM Reply

At 8/26/11 03:13 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
No. See my post above saying that since they don't exist anymore they're no good. And I would probably support communism if it was the dominant force. I do have some socialist leanings right now.

So called communist states still do exist though? Plenty of countries are still state socialist, although I agree they're no good. But we're not at the end point of human progress are we, Capitalism is no good for many reasons and a new system will replace it eventually, whether it is anarchy or not. That's how our society goes, we don't have the same economic systems for millenia without change, so I hope you agree we're not the final product of human societal development. And anarchism is socialist anyway, the socialised means of production. It is just that anarchists don't call for a central committee to tyranise the workers.


So... they'll be more prevalent in an anarchistic society.

Certainly not. Any mutual aid society does not enable the most power hungry and ruthless to gain power, not by an conscious effort even, but by mere organisation of that society.

I'll admit it. Most politicians alive today are out to make themselves great at the expense of others. Think carreer politicians. Time was people went into politics wanting to help others as opposed to themselves. It will happen again, and I'll gladly swear my loyality and swear away my free will when one of them returns. Most humans are too stupid to rule themselves as we don't know whats good for us.

There was never really a golden age of selfless, helpful politcians, maybe there were more around the mid-20th century but not after and certainly not before. Basing everything on having a nice friendly chap in office is certainly not for me, you can wish away your own free will by all means, but everyone elses' goes down with you. You may not want to deal with the intrincities of business and inner-workings of your confederation, and you won't be forced to, but just because you're weak of character is no argument for me and the rest of society to be subjected to the same fate.

Or, you could just remove all restraints on them. That will turn them into flower planting, free-love preaching, examples of perfection.

That, or it will make them much worse than they are now.

Come on now. What do you understand by removing restraints? Allowing a worker to democratically decide on the worth of each worker to the company and stop himself being used as an expendable cog in a machine whilst a less hard-working CEO reaps the lion's share does not equate to some terrible beast being allowed to rape and kill freely, that's just nonsense.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 28th, 2011 @ 10:39 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.


you have no idea about state formation


BBS Signature
SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 29th, 2011 @ 12:48 PM Reply

At 8/28/11 10:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 8/28/11 03:42 PM, Daddy-L-Jackson wrote: Yes... when we accepted leaders and evolved out of anarchy.
you have no idea about state formation

i do like how he attributes a lack of scientists describing our early states of being as anarchy because our scientists are state-funded.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 29th, 2011 @ 03:22 PM Reply

At 8/27/11 11:11 AM, BritZombie wrote: Monarchies suited very few people then, apart from the actual Monarchs and noblemen.

I'd say they did. Education was practically non-existant back then, so asking a bunch of morons to rule themselves was just asking for trouble. By keeping power limited to as few people as possible those rulers could make decisions (not necessarily good ones) without fear of it blowing up in their face.

People had terrible lives, in fact, despite all the medicinal, technological, lingustic progress etc, the average life span of a 14th century Englishmen was the same as one of the Iron Age.

That life span would have been much lower if you expected everyone to rule themselves.

Again, what's is 'us'? The average person does not reap the full benefits of his own labour, let alone anything else.

Us, humanity, the state, whatever you want to call it. The collective sample of society you want to make as glorious as possible.

Incorrect. All it takes is one loud enough person to rise to power, join the police etc, and make the rules (always geared towards benefiting themseves) and this has happened repeatedly. You can't be asserting that a society which gives people power over others will make them the highest beacons of morality. I need to know why people living in an anarchist society would allow someone to cause chaos.

So you're saying that a society which gives no-one power won't end that way?
All it requires is for someone to figure out that he can better himselves at the expense of others to round up a few like-minded indivduals to strong arm everyone into submission. With no centralised law system there will be nothing to stop him whatsoever. Sure there are no beacons of morality in our conventional hierarchy, but there will be even less in a world where the biggest jerk wins.
I'm not saying they would allow chaos to happen, I'm just saying they would be powerless to stop it.

Again, saying something does not make it so. Also, 'law' (or customs) and order are essential to anarchist beliefs.

Yes, but with no government no-one would be able to agree on what is good for the state. Thats why we try to have as few politicians as possible. Anymore and it would be several thousand people shouting to get their point across with no real progress.

Because you would have an equal say in the laws of your confederation (direct democracy) and you would have a greater control over your workplace without what's termed wage slavery (worker-managed associations) has no correlation to violence.

Then you get a bunch of idiots who think they know whats good for them trying to be policy makers. Which usually never works.

It depends. Privately owned means of production is theft, bankers can loose our money and lose no wages or even bonuses, my own family has been scammed out of thousands by a larger company because they can manipulate legalities.

I see, it all boils down to "The man is out to get me."

I think the problem here is you equate anarchism with the concept of lawlessness,

No, I equate it with de-centralisation, and without centralisation there are no effective ways of enforcing laws. It's a symptom yes but not the main thing.

Back to my old examples. Don't you find it funny those anarchist communities didn't descend into mass killings and theft?

Yet I'm going to go with the point I've used so far: Those societies don't exist anymore. If they don't exist they are not good for us.

Is it because a massive free for all would prevent killings and robberies? Of course not, it's because social anarchism doesn't operate nor condone those actions and never has, which is why such ridiculous predictions never occurred.

It may not condone it, but it will still make it much easier to happen.

But this one 'turd' would not be allowed to stab a man, no society would allow people to act in such a way.

What if he has a lot of followers and everyone is unable to stop him?

And don't forget forced hierarchy has a terrible effects on humans.

Heirarchy is what got us out of the caves and into the cities. Without leaders we would be nothing.

There's a reason why more centralisations of power in history has lead to all citizens behaving barbarically. Nazi Germany, Victorian England, Feudal and slave societies all had strict authoritarian order and top-down discipline and had varying degrees of sadism and brutality to people. The Japanese in WW2 had a very strict regime, and beatings were common for all ranks. These beatings often continued down the ranks, with the prisoners suffering the worst at the bottom of the pile.

Did you just say Victorian England, the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, was a bad thing? Sure the citizens suffered, because they didn't know that it was good for them.
Also, Nazi Germany, Feudal and Slave societies all rose out of periods of anarchy... intredasting.

Anarchism will not allow certain people to dictate what is morally correct like Statists do.

Still, some sort of agreement has got to be reached, and that will involve someones views being stomped on. Wait, so some people will have their views suppressed? This doesn't sound like the "everyone is equal" utopia you have been preaching thus far...

A totalitarian dictator taking over doesn't mean the people weren't happier living freely.

Happiness is relative. In a few decades they'll be happy that they aren't suffering power outages and starving to death when they have a government who has their back.

No, multiple worker syndicates will make up a confederation. There will be multiple confederations co-operating with one another, and the same statistic (or even more) of people would be willing to protect their safety and way of life. Small communes are indeed unfavourable.

Small communes, no matter how many of them band together, cannot stop the war machine of a centralised state.

Everyone agrees, BECAUSE we go rid of it. Millions of people, even serfs, thought that Monarchism was an unfortunate neccesity of life because that is what they (and their parents, etc) were told. Again, I need more proof that an actual anarchist society would be inferior, without silly statements on 'no organisation' or whatever.

Once again, they don't exist. That's usually perfect proof of somethings inferiority.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 29th, 2011 @ 10:27 PM Reply

At 8/29/11 03:22 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

I'd say they did. Education was practically non-existant back then, so asking a bunch of morons to rule themselves was just asking for trouble. By keeping power limited to as few people as possible those rulers could make decisions (not necessarily good ones) without fear of it blowing up in their face.

That sounds awesome and all until they start repressing education further so that they could never be challenged and progress would halt to a stand still.


That life span would have been much lower if you expected everyone to rule themselves.

Actually, they would have been able to move around more, initially yes, they would have lower life spans but they would eventually start smaller, cleaner settlements, meaning less disease. Topping that they would have freedom of speech and not have to worry about inquisitions or witch hunters.


Us, humanity, the state, whatever you want to call it. The collective sample of society you want to make as glorious as possible.

for the very few who DO benefit.


So you're saying that a society which gives no-one power won't end that way?
All it requires is for someone to figure out that he can better himselves at the expense of others to round up a few like-minded indivduals to strong arm everyone into submission. With no centralised law system there will be nothing to stop him whatsoever. Sure there are no beacons of morality in our conventional hierarchy, but there will be even less in a world where the biggest jerk wins.
I'm not saying they would allow chaos to happen, I'm just saying they would be powerless to stop it.

His power structure would be much more fragile. He wouldn't be able to get control over as many people and the more powerful he would get, the more people he would scare. The more you scare people in a world with no police, the more likely you are to have an accident. Further more, it would be a more even fight because gorilla war would be much easier. Another exalted individual could rally people against this war lord just by using his own misdeeds against him.


Yes, but with no government no-one would be able to agree on what is good for the state. Thats why we try to have as few politicians as possible. Anymore and it would be several thousand people shouting to get their point across with no real progress.

this is why smaller groups of people function so much better. people learn to compromise faster.


Then you get a bunch of idiots who think they know whats good for them trying to be policy makers. Which usually never works.

get a bunch of geniuses to do it for them on their behalf and it will work out even worse.


I see, it all boils down to "The man is out to get me."

a legitimate problem should not be shot down that easily, you would be on the same train if you had been so ripped off by the system.


No, I equate it with de-centralisation, and without centralisation there are no effective ways of enforcing laws. It's a symptom yes but not the main thing.

with no centralization there are no effective ways of manipulating them either. and once again, it would be a more even fight if you were to enforce it yourself.


Yet I'm going to go with the point I've used so far: Those societies don't exist anymore. If they don't exist they are not good for us.

Every single civilization has and will fall at some point. non existence = not good for us is way too over generalized.


It may not condone it, but it will still make it much easier to happen.

and I won't be thrown in jail for defending my own property/ family.


What if he has a lot of followers and everyone is unable to stop him?

there is no way he could get enough coordination to spread very far before collapsing. Plus it would be easier for people to just leave the area. and that is in the worst case scenario.


Heirarchy is what got us out of the caves and into the cities. Without leaders we would be nothing.

Yet individualism got us off the farms, if we weren't defiant we would still be surfs.


Did you just say Victorian England, the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, was a bad thing? Sure the citizens suffered, because they didn't know that it was good for them.
Also, Nazi Germany, Feudal and Slave societies all rose out of periods of anarchy... intredasting.

well then we will never know "what is good for us" and therefor will never stop suffering. And those periods of anarchy rose from periods of authoritarianism and misuse of power.


Still, some sort of agreement has got to be reached, and that will involve someones views being stomped on. Wait, so some people will have their views suppressed? This doesn't sound like the "everyone is equal" utopia you have been preaching thus far...

every belief has that extremist branch that believes in Utopia. All of those beliefs are strangely the same in almost every aspect. You shouldn't group the Leninists with the Marxists (examples only.)


Happiness is relative. In a few decades they'll be happy that they aren't suffering power outages and starving to death when they have a government who has their back.

instead they will be starving ALMOST to death and enduring genocides. topping that we used to be able to hunt just fine, we would run after what ever wild bovine we could find until it died of heat stoke due to the fact that we had sweat glands and it did not (they can't pant while they are running).

Small communes, no matter how many of them band together, cannot stop the war machine of a centralised state.

a long gorilla war can though.


Once again, they don't exist. That's usually perfect proof of somethings inferiority.

None of the text book ideologies exist either. Communism, Capitalism, neither has been truly implemented, and both are seriously flawed anyways. Dictatorships are dropping like flies nowadays (completely removing the ability to say they have stability now) and monarchies are almost a myth now. most monarchs don't even have any real power anymore anyways. if none of the systems made by man have worked, then that sort of sets an even playing field now doesn't it?


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
brainiac3397
brainiac3397
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 29th, 2011 @ 11:29 PM Reply

My Anarchism is a very complex case. It's kind of like Anarchist against anything that does not fit into my views of an ideal government. So I'm not necessarily an Anarchist but concurrently I am an Anarchist.

Interesting indeed when i think about it.


De Nihilo Nihil Fit

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 12:29 AM Reply

At 8/29/11 10:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That sounds awesome and all until they start repressing education further so that they could never be challenged and progress would halt to a stand still.

Education was expensive back then. Paper was difficult to make and every book had to be hand written. Education didn't get repressed by the monarchs it was repressed because people simply couldn't afford to learn. The people also couldn't afford the weapons or armor that would be necessary to defend themselves from an invading army and had to depend upon the wealth of the monarchs if they didn't want to be massacred by the invading army.

Actually, they would have been able to move around more, initially yes, they would have lower life spans but they would eventually start smaller, cleaner settlements, meaning less disease. Topping that they would have freedom of speech and not have to worry about inquisitions or witch hunters.

The human population is too large for small clean settlements to exist. The population of the American continents before European colonization was only 100 million (sounds big except the current U.S. pop is over 300 million and that's one nation versus two continents) and they still wound up fighting for territory when the groups got too large.

for the very few who DO benefit.

While some people do benefit more than others with all forms of government, everyone does still get some benefit from a centralized society. Government wouldn't exist if there really was a way for everyone to benefit from anarchy.

His power structure would be much more fragile. He wouldn't be able to get control over as many people and the more powerful he would get, the more people he would scare. The more you scare people in a world with no police, the more likely you are to have an accident. Further more, it would be a more even fight because gorilla war would be much easier. Another exalted individual could rally people against this war lord just by using his own misdeeds against him.

People are very easily swayed, it isn't difficult to get a large following to be willing to do horrible things. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison for leading a revolt, this was before he was Fuhrer. Of course even a small group can do a lot of damage. Two children in Burma were able to do so well fighting against an army with nothing more than a couple of AK-47s that they gained their own army which was still only about 300 people.

this is why smaller groups of people function so much better. people learn to compromise faster.

People also go insane easier. You blamed large communities earlier for the witch hunts but really it was the smaller communities that took part in witch hunts. Large communities didn't worry about it but in small communities you can't afford to have conflict so people stay quiet until tensions rise and eventually someone snaps and then entire community gets dragged into chaos with them.

get a bunch of geniuses to do it for them on their behalf and it will work out even worse.

When have geniuses ever been policy makers? I suppose you could call Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus tactical geniuses but under them Rome thrived. It was only under the rule of idiots and lunatics that Rome started to fall as an empire.

a legitimate problem should not be shot down that easily, you would be on the same train if you had been so ripped off by the system.

It's not a legitimate problem, it's a paranoid delusion. I've been screwed over by plenty of government systems but that doesn't mean that the entire government has some personal vendetta against me. And I'm extremely paranoid myself, if I don't sleep my paranoia can cause hallucinations so if I'm the one calling you delusional it's a good bet you are.

with no centralization there are no effective ways of manipulating them either. and once again, it would be a more even fight if you were to enforce it yourself.

How is it an even fight? Does every individual need to be armed to the teeth to protect themselves? The police have a large armament not to mention high quality body armor that the average person doesn't have access to which they need to fight the crime we already have with all the regulations we already have that keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. What happens when some criminal element is or finds a person smart enough to build and ICBM or a nuclear weapon? Without a centralized government people can't fight that.

Every single civilization has and will fall at some point. non existence = not good for us is way too over generalized.

Not necessarily. Governments that work well and please the people stick around and evolve whereas those that don't die off. There's a reason our government still uses pieces of the Athenian republic and the Magna Carta.

and I won't be thrown in jail for defending my own property/ family.

Neither are people in our society. It's called self defense and so long as you can show that you have a real reason to defend yourself you won't go to prison.

there is no way he could get enough coordination to spread very far before collapsing. Plus it would be easier for people to just leave the area. and that is in the worst case scenario.

Actually there is a way because it has been done before. Like I said, people are easily swayed and if people just walk away they give up land which can be used to recruit more followers.

Yet individualism got us off the farms, if we weren't defiant we would still be surfs.

Individualism is not the same thing as defiance. Individualism was supported by the education of the monarchs and nobles who were the only ones at the time who could afford an education which lead to invention which eventually allowed education to be spread to those who weren't wealthy.

well then we will never know "what is good for us" and therefor will never stop suffering. And those periods of anarchy rose from periods of authoritarianism and misuse of power.

That doesn't make anarchy good it just means that people will try anything when desperate enough.

instead they will be starving ALMOST to death and enduring genocides. topping that we used to be able to hunt just fine, we would run after what ever wild bovine we could find until it died of heat stoke due to the fact that we had sweat glands and it did not (they can't pant while they are running).

First, hunting can't support a large society. Second, not everyone was able to hunt successfully and those who couldn't starved to death. Third, even when people were hunting to survive they had government.

a long gorilla war can though.

No it can't.

None of the text book ideologies exist either. Communism, Capitalism, neither has been truly implemented, and both are seriously flawed anyways. Dictatorships are dropping like flies nowadays (completely removing the ability to say they have stability now) and monarchies are almost a myth now. most monarchs don't even have any real power anymore anyways. if none of the systems made by man have worked, then that sort of sets an even playing field now doesn't it?

No it doesn't. Government is still developing and improving but it still is and always will be government. It is only with government that we have had the quality and expectancy of life increase as much as it has. Over 60% of the families in the U.S. that qualify as poor can still afford to regularly pay for cable TV. The average American has a life expectancy of over 70 years while the tribal culture which you frequently call anarchy despite it's government system only has an average life expectancy of 30 years.

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 08:53 AM Reply

At 8/29/11 03:22 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
At 8/27/11 11:11 AM, BritZombie wrote: Monarchies suited very few people then, apart from the actual Monarchs and noblemen.
I'd say they did. Education was practically non-existant back then, so asking a bunch of morons to rule themselves was just asking for trouble. By keeping power limited to as few people as possible those rulers could make decisions (not necessarily good ones) without fear of it blowing up in their face.

I disagree, education was expensive in a statist society, that's because of how power was structured. Power centralisations collectively tried very hard to stop the 'commoners' from becoming educated, even wanting to read the bible was punishable by death. If we see education as the knowledge acquired from past generations which is then expanded upon, that has always existed and if people remove other's right to such an education. Ancient Athens for example, was far more civilised and advanced than in my country a thousand years later, and it was by no means a perfect society, but it did have direct democracy and people have more of a say in the running of their lives than many of us do today. Because of this the basis , medicene, philosophy, court systems are still relevant today. Like I said, not a perfect society, but to suggest such huge flaws in feudalism only existed 'because it was hundreds of years ago' is to ignore examples such as Athens from 2,500 years ago.

People had terrible lives, in fact, despite all the medicinal, technological, lingustic progress etc, the average life span of a 14th century Englishmen was the same as one of the Iron Age.
That life span would have been much lower if you expected everyone to rule themselves.

Us, humanity, the state, whatever you want to call it. The collective sample of society you want to make as glorious as possible.

I agree with that sentiment, but the state does no represent the interests of people nor the glory of anyone bar themselves.

So you're saying that a society which gives no-one power won't end that way?
All it requires is for someone to figure out that he can better himselves at the expense of others to round up a few like-minded indivduals to strong arm everyone into submission. With no centralised law system there will be nothing to stop him whatsoever. Sure there are no beacons of morality in our conventional hierarchy, but there will be even less in a world where the biggest jerk wins.
I'm not saying they would allow chaos to happen, I'm just saying they would be powerless to stop it.

Yes, I'm saying people without power over humans won't abuse said power because it's an impossibility. What do you mean 'figure out', you don't know about co-op syndicates work, if you did you'd see how silly that claim is. Our society today is where the 'biggest jerk' wins, especially in the business world who have huge power and fund huge proportions of elections, that's no secret is it?I've already told you at least twice something would stop him from 'doing it.'

Yes, but with no government no-one would be able to agree on what is good for the state. Thats why we try to have as few politicians as possible. Anymore and it would be several thousand people shouting to get their point across with no real progress.

They have and will (agree), I don't know why you keep making these comments. Having an equal right to dictate the conditions of your life and work is very clear progress and the notion that an organised system based on these principles would descend into chaos has been proven wrong.


Then you get a bunch of idiots who think they know whats good for them trying to be policy makers. Which usually never works.

Glass houses. Firstly, people are far more infantalised and 'dumbed-down' in a state which requires such things for it to work, that's prevalent through the system, do as your told, accept the status quo and you'll be alright. Secondly, what about a bunch of idiots who rule overs? Bankers gambling with money they didn't even earn on Canary Wharf plunging us into recession, bad decisions made by idiot leaders, you're aware they aren't our country's brightest minds right? And why not support dictators? If you believe that people are smart enough to chose their leaders because of their policies, why are they unable to decide on the policies? You're argument is the same as the fuedalists of yesteryear, just replace the word direct with representative.


I see, it all boils down to "The man is out to get me."

What a stupid attempt at an argument. No 'man' is out to get me, you're the state socialist. I pointed out some huge flaws in such a system and that's your answer.

No, I equate it with de-centralisation, and without centralisation there are no effective ways of enforcing laws. It's a symptom yes but not the main thing.

I'm getting deja vu.

Yet I'm going to go with the point I've used so far: Those societies don't exist anymore. If they don't exist they are not good for us.

Because dictatorships like the soviet union and fascist spain, respectively, were good for people? You're aware we only really started to advance in the renaissance right? When the teachings and knowledge of the ancient world come to light? You're notion of 'if it doesn't exist right now it's no good' is childish, anything which anyone could see was beneficial for both society and ourselves from the past must be 'no good' or if it's a goal for humans to reach it's 'too utopian'. Draw a line under everything now? Oh and explain the Renaissance.

What if he has a lot of followers and everyone is unable to stop him?

Are you serious? You just explained my opposition to statism.

Heirarchy is what got us out of the caves and into the cities. Without leaders we would be nothing.

No it didn't, and at best it was a neccesary evil which has long been illegitimate for modern society.

Did you just say Victorian England, the centre of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, was a bad thing? Sure the citizens suffered, because they didn't know that it was good for them.
Also, Nazi Germany, Feudal and Slave societies all rose out of periods of anarchy... intredasting.

Oh, well fuck em, then. So they didn't know their suffering was actually good for them, oh I see. What a strange world-view. What periods of anarchy? The Wiemar republic pretty damn anarchist yeah? The slave trade happened because of egalitarian collectivist society yeah? How interesting, or should I say, 'interdasting'.

Still, some sort of agreement has got to be reached, and that will involve someones views being stomped on. Wait, so some people will have their views suppressed? This doesn't sound like the "everyone is equal" utopia you have been preaching thus far...

It sure does, and you have more of a say than now, that's for sure so I don't get what you mean. Also, any obligation to a confederation is self-assumed and that's what is emphasised in the committees. If you mean, someone's 'right to murder' the victim is the one who has his liberty infringed upon, not the murderer.

Happiness is relative. In a few decades they'll be happy that they aren't suffering power outages and starving to death when they have a government who has their back.

You mean the 50,000 people who ended up killed? You mean the economy that didn't improve for ten years and then got even worse? The country which was bankrupt by the late fifties? The economy that only improved when power was taken away from authoritarian ideologues? People DID starve to death in the mid 20th century Spain because of Franco you idiot, learn your history.


Small communes, no matter how many of them band together, cannot stop the war machine of a centralised state.

Did you read the bit when I argued against small communes and said it isn't based on such ideas? Also, why? You don't think numbers make a difference?

Once again, they don't exist. That's usually perfect proof of somethings inferior.

Sigh.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 11:09 AM Reply

At 8/30/11 12:29 AM, djack wrote:
At 8/29/11 10:27 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

Education was expensive back then. Paper was difficult to make and every book had to be hand written. Education didn't get repressed by the monarchs it was repressed because people simply couldn't afford to learn. The people also couldn't afford the weapons or armor that would be necessary to defend themselves from an invading army and had to depend upon the wealth of the monarchs if they didn't want to be massacred by the invading army.

'Afford to learn' is the point exactly. Of course learning was repressed, that's no secret, you don't have to be an anarchist to know that. If education is restricted to the nobles to govern society and kept away from the serfs because that's how the fuedal economy worked, it's nothing to do with the expense of paper or anything like that. Like I said to the simple guy, look at other societies pre and post feudal, if a society is based on the rich and priveledged having access to education, the economy of the society will reflect that. Same applies to your other point.


While some people do benefit more than others with all forms of government, everyone does still get some benefit from a centralized society. Government wouldn't exist if there really was a way for everyone to benefit from anarchy.

No they don't, far less so in fact. It's based on a top-down hierarchy to extract value from work forces, capitalist or communist. It also represses those who try to change it, no matter what the number, because any claims to democracy is a farce. Governments exist because they control the wealth and people of a set territory, that's it. Every government has claimed it's for the people, few have been so. Do you accept violence on innocent people and feel that it's worthless to struggle against it because it's always been that way, your logic is flawed. Oh, and unlike violence it hasn't always been that way.


People are very easily swayed, it isn't difficult to get a large following to be willing to do horrible things. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in prison for leading a revolt, this was before he was Fuhrer. Of course even a small group can do a lot of damage. Two children in Burma were able to do so well fighting against an army with nothing more than a couple of AK-47s that they gained their own army which was still only about 300 people.

Some good points there, but the organisation and general mindsets we see in statism give way to examples such as that, it is a genuine impossibility that a series of confederations in an anarchist society would fall to dictators, this is a problem with statism.

People also go insane easier. You blamed large communities earlier for the witch hunts but really it was the smaller communities that took part in witch hunts. Large communities didn't worry about it but in small communities you can't afford to have conflict so people stay quiet until tensions rise and eventually someone snaps and then entire community gets dragged into chaos with them.

There is no evidence people go insane easier at all. All of that post is pretty much wild speculation, but anarchists don't advocate small communities, just de-centralisation of power bases.


It's not a legitimate problem, it's a paranoid delusion. I've been screwed over by plenty of government systems but that doesn't mean that the entire government has some personal vendetta against me. And I'm extremely paranoid myself, if I don't sleep my paranoia can cause hallucinations so if I'm the one calling you delusional it's a good bet you are.

Fuck off. A paranoid delusion? When did I say there was any conscious effort to harm my family? It's a flaw inherent in the system I mentioned in passing on making a wider point, a point which no one has actually even attempted to argue against. As long as people are speculating make-believe problems in anarchist societies, which never happened in real anarchist societies as the problems only exist if you have an ignorant view of the theory, I'm going to mention some existing problems with a mention that I know it myself to be true.


How is it an even fight? Does every individual need to be armed to the teeth to protect themselves? The police have a large armament not to mention high quality body armor that the average person doesn't have access to which they need to fight the crime we already have with all the regulations we already have that keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. What happens when some criminal element is or finds a person smart enough to build and ICBM or a nuclear weapon? Without a centralized government people can't fight that.

So did the Gestapo and the KGB. There was a friend of the family who had his money taken by a gang regularly , and to cut a long story short a larger east end gang stopped this. Do you support the gangs? Moral good and official, authortative agents of a ruling class aren't mutual exclusives, I've already explained the police issue.

Not necessarily. Governments that work well and please the people stick around and evolve whereas those that don't die off. There's a reason our government still uses pieces of the Athenian republic and the Magna Carta.

Both those examples are to do with restricting and de-centralising power I'll add. Also, what if you lived 200 years ago when slavery was an acceptable evil? It's laughable you think governments that please people stick around, at best they manufacture consent and disguise repressive acts, at worst they use the truncheon and the gun to ensure their view of society's organisation (with them always at the top)is unchallenged. One more thing, you seem to think we should stop that process now. Societies do evolve yes, but some people always want to maintain conservative attitudes and fight for the status quo upon seeing a clearly better alternative, it's only through seeing a better future and working towards it do we reap the benefits of 'evolution'.

Neither are people in our society. It's called self defense and so long as you can show that you have a real reason to defend yourself you won't go to prison.

Not in my country. The state causes a huge amount of the social issues and problems, attempts to solve them to a degree (whilst often causing more corruption, brutality and such in the process) and then when it fails, punishes those who sought the only alternative. Statists are utopian fools.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 12:15 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 11:09 AM, BritZombie wrote: 'Afford to learn' is the point exactly. Of course learning was repressed, that's no secret, you don't have to be an anarchist to know that. If education is restricted to the nobles to govern society and kept away from the serfs because that's how the fuedal economy worked, it's nothing to do with the expense of paper or anything like that. Like I said to the simple guy, look at other societies pre and post feudal, if a society is based on the rich and priveledged having access to education, the economy of the society will reflect that. Same applies to your other point.

It had everything to do with the expense of an education. You act as if the government was actively trying to hold back the serfs by withholding an education but the truth is they simply couldn't afford the costs of teaching everyone. Education is a legal requirement these days, everyone has access to at least at high school education and if someone wants to go to college there are loans and scholarships readily available. How exactly is an anarchist society supposed to educate its people anyway? Schools require that all the people spend money on something that they will never see a return on in the hopes that it does their children will be well enough educated to be successful in the future. That kind of altruism isn't something most people are willing to do and generally has to be forced upon the public.

No they don't, far less so in fact. It's based on a top-down hierarchy to extract value from work forces, capitalist or communist. It also represses those who try to change it, no matter what the number, because any claims to democracy is a farce. Governments exist because they control the wealth and people of a set territory, that's it. Every government has claimed it's for the people, few have been so. Do you accept violence on innocent people and feel that it's worthless to struggle against it because it's always been that way, your logic is flawed. Oh, and unlike violence it hasn't always been that way.

What the hell are you taking about? First you say no they didn't and far less so in the same sentence, so which is it? Are you saying that only the rich benefit or are you admitting that everyone gets at least some benefit? Then you rant about how people can't change the government and anyone who tries gets killed but last I checked neither of us lived in China so clearly neither of us has to worry about being killed for voicing our opinions. In the U.S. there are protesters in D.C. year round, I don't even think some of them know what they're protesting they just saw the protest and decided to join in, none of them get killed by the government.

Some good points there, but the organisation and general mindsets we see in statism give way to examples such as that, it is a genuine impossibility that a series of confederations in an anarchist society would fall to dictators, this is a problem with statism.

It's never impossible to set up a dictatorship. All you have to do is find the people who don't have everything they want and promise them that they'll get it if they follow you. Greed is a powerful force and some people will do anything for it including following a dictator.

There is no evidence people go insane easier at all. All of that post is pretty much wild speculation, but anarchists don't advocate small communities, just de-centralisation of power bases.

Iron-hampster was advocating small communities and most historians agree that smaller communities where people are codependent upon one another does increase the general level of tension among the people.

Fuck off. A paranoid delusion? When did I say there was any conscious effort to harm my family? It's a flaw inherent in the system I mentioned in passing on making a wider point, a point which no one has actually even attempted to argue against. As long as people are speculating make-believe problems in anarchist societies, which never happened in real anarchist societies as the problems only exist if you have an ignorant view of the theory, I'm going to mention some existing problems with a mention that I know it myself to be true.

Once again my post was directed at Iron-hampster who claimed that the belief of "the man is out to get me" was a legitimate problem.

So did the Gestapo and the KGB. There was a friend of the family who had his money taken by a gang regularly , and to cut a long story short a larger east end gang stopped this. Do you support the gangs? Moral good and official, authortative agents of a ruling class aren't mutual exclusives, I've already explained the police issue.

Except it's not that easy. Much like schools, police require altruism that is counter intuitive to human nature. Self policing is also impossible because the average person can't fight every battle for themself.

Both those examples are to do with restricting and de-centralising power I'll add. Also, what if you lived 200 years ago when slavery was an acceptable evil? It's laughable you think governments that please people stick around, at best they manufacture consent and disguise repressive acts, at worst they use the truncheon and the gun to ensure their view of society's organisation (with them always at the top)is unchallenged. One more thing, you seem to think we should stop that process now. Societies do evolve yes, but some people always want to maintain conservative attitudes and fight for the status quo upon seeing a clearly better alternative, it's only through seeing a better future and working towards it do we reap the benefits of 'evolution'.

I didn't say we should stop the process I said that complete anarchy wouldn't work. Not all change is good and not all change is bad. For example, government regulation in schools (specifically No Child Left Behind in this case) makes the education system worse however complete deregulation of the economy leaves the entire thing more susceptible to depressions.

Not in my country. The state causes a huge amount of the social issues and problems, attempts to solve them to a degree (whilst often causing more corruption, brutality and such in the process) and then when it fails, punishes those who sought the only alternative. Statists are utopian fools.

Anarchists are also utopian fools. The state causes problems but the state also fixes problems. Eventually a better system will be developed but I can guarantee that it will never be anarchy. The nature of all societies requires that there be leaders, it is inevitable. Also, what brutality? You're in Britain not Soviet Russia. You don't live in some totalitarian or fascist state, you don't have to worry about being run over by tanks for voicing your opinion.

BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 02:13 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 12:15 PM, djack wrote:
It had everything to do with the expense of an education. You act as if the government was actively trying to hold back the serfs by withholding an education but the truth is they simply couldn't afford the costs of teaching everyone. Education is a legal requirement these days, everyone has access to at least at high school education and if someone wants to go to college there are loans and scholarships readily available. How exactly is an anarchist society supposed to educate its people anyway? Schools require that all the people spend money on something that they will never see a return on in the hopes that it does their children will be well enough educated to be successful in the future. That kind of altruism isn't something most people are willing to do and generally has to be forced upon the public.

Of course it was actively holding back the serfs, ask any historian and they will tell you that, the system was based on huge inequality for it to work, otherwise there would be no King or feudal system, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise? If certain people have huge wealth and others do not, unless it's based on who works the most, how is this a natural occurrence? You didn't answer my question on how education worked before fuedalism. My example of Athens let's say, how did they educate people?
It depends on the anarchist school of thought, although there's good chance you see anarchy as a synonym for 'chaos' but education would be a shared, optional institution open to all, why? Have a look at summerhill school too.

What the hell are you taking about? First you say no they didn't and far less so in the same sentence, so which is it? Are you saying that only the rich benefit or are you admitting that everyone gets at least some benefit? Then you rant about how people can't change the government and anyone who tries gets killed but last I checked neither of us lived in China so clearly neither of us has to worry about being killed for voicing our opinions. In the U.S. there are protesters in D.C. year round, I don't even think some of them know what they're protesting they just saw the protest and decided to join in, none of them get killed by the government.

You said people benefit more from government than anarchy and I said they don't and in fact they benefit far less from it than if they were free, so I don't understand your confusion with my syntax. I'm saying only the rich benefit, although this applies to all or most forms of government, not just capitalism. By change the government, I don't mean a silly petition for a new bus stop, I mean an actual tangible change for the benefit of most people at the expense of the ruling minority. Taking the manufacture of consent out of the picture, any change that the government (who are all state capitalists, funded by corporations anyway, ask for facts if you like) doesn't approve of, does not happen, like any state throughout time; try to change this and you will be killed or imprisoned. If the majority of people were to fight against something unjust to them, no matter how many people agreed if it does not fly with the government, it won't happen. If the people fought against the injustice outside of state-approved, delusional, bureaucratic means they are told to use, they will be imprisoned, this is why I say, everything else aside, to call what we have a democracy is inappropriate. I'll come to the China point later.

It's never impossible to set up a dictatorship. All you have to do is find the people who don't have everything they want and promise them that they'll get it if they follow you. Greed is a powerful force and some people will do anything for it including following a dictator.

You're first and second sentence is caused by the effects of a state, which controls the lives and working conditions of the inhabitants. Furthermore, a dictator would have a lot of trouble gaining power in a decentralised society, of autonomous individuals operating in co-operative but different confederations. Representative politics, hierarchy, the mindset statism creates and centralisations of economies, policing etc is how dictators gain power. Maybe impossibility is a stretch, but a single, centralised state is far, far more vulnerable to the dictator problem than any anarchist society.

There is no evidence people go insane easier at all. All of that post is pretty much wild speculation, but anarchists don't advocate small communities, just de-centralisation of power bases.
Except it's not that easy. Much like schools, police require altruism that is counter intuitive to human nature. Self policing is also impossible because the average person can't fight every battle for themself.

It's not self policing, but if you're a social anarchist like myself, you advocate at the least, the police are not working in the interests of the ruling class but rather as part of the co-operative. A lot of people get a lot of support, power and money from the continuance of crime. If you actually have a GENUINE interest in political theory, I can offer you quite a good link on this issue.

I didn't say we should stop the process I said that complete anarchy wouldn't work. Not all change is good and not all change is bad. For example, government regulation in schools (specifically No Child Left Behind in this case) makes the education system worse however complete deregulation of the economy leaves the entire thing more susceptible to depressions.

This is an interesting and conflicting point, I wonder, what do you understand of anarchy? In more than a soundbite.

Anarchists are also utopian fools. The state causes problems but the state also fixes problems. Eventually a better system will be developed but I can guarantee that it will never be anarchy. The nature of all societies requires that there be leaders, it is inevitable. Also, what brutality? You're in Britain not Soviet Russia. You don't live in some totalitarian or fascist state, you don't have to worry about being run over by tanks for voicing your opinion.

It only fixes (partially) the problems it causes, that's no argument for a state. I can guarantee it will probably be anarchy. Not anarchy as you seem to understand it of course, that would be horrible, but some degree of decentralised system in which people aren't cogs in machines, and the product of their labour is theirs to decide upon.

Now, the brutality and police issue. Well, I myself have had issue with that. I was incorrectly arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, to a guy's van. It wasn't me, and the description was given for someone of 5"6. I was 6"1. On being arrested however, I had my body slammed into a wall, and two of my friends, who were surprised at this had their face slammed into a wall and the other threatened to be thrown into the brook which was nearby for voicing their opposition. I was in a cell without a toilet for 22 hours, my DNA taken and my home was searched by police. All on a graffiti allegation let me remind you, based on one person's word, which I had not done. But most people don't see this as anything bad, it was the police who did it after all, so what if they use violence, I must've done something right? It's not very Soviet Union-y is it, so let's move on.

I'm sure you heard about the riots. A lot of bad things happened. In my opinion, the State caused the riots (the cuts on the poor, bail-outs for the rich, refusal to address of issues in deprived areas other than harsher policing, the beating of a 16 year old girl protesting the unlawful shooting of Mark Duggan, her beating sparked the riots in tottenham btw) failed to stop the backlash from this, and then dismissed any of it was their fault. But what happened after?

Well, a mother of two was given five months for buying a pair of shorts for her kid off of a looter. That's one life ruined for good. Another young guy posted a joke about riots when drunk, which he then deleted and he's serving a four year sentence. I'll continue on another post.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 02:41 PM Reply

So let us imagine this is China. A man posts a drunk, joking comment about some unrest in the country, which didn't happen where he lived, which is deleted, but the police still obtain it and deem that this man is so dangerous, he needs to be caged away from society and put with all the other, harder, more dangerous criminals. Does this sound like a free country? Was there any outrage because of this? Nope. But someone is going to spend years without his girlfriend, family, friends, loose his job and maybe his home plus all the things that happen in prison because he joked about the state-caused riots. I don't buy that we are free people. But so what you might say? It's just one mans quality of life, who cares if he suffers, as long as the state maintains it's power, there are not killing anyone right?

Well since 1998, there's been over 333 deaths in police custody. At least 13 of these had strong evidence of abuse and neglect, but no convictions were made. Why is that? Would that sound suspicious if it was news from China?

Then we have the case of Ian Tomlinson. During a student protest, a middle aged man walked home from work and was struck, unprovoked, by a police officer with a baton to the leg and then pushed to the ground. He had a medical condition which caused the trauma to his body to sadly cost him his life.

Now, the interesting part here is how the police and media dealt with it, and how they were exposed when a couple of videos taken by eyewitnesses as well as numerous EWTs showed the actual events.

The original media/police issued story:

Ian had a cardiac arrest and collapsed.
Protesters threw bottles at police trying to help Ian.
They did not have any CCTV footage of the incident as no cameras were in the area.

What was exposed through investigation/EWT/video footage:

We saw footage of Ian being struck by an officer and pushed to the floor.
People were heard on the video to shout 'Stop throwing stuff, someone's hurt' and the protesters stopping hurling missiles and it was members of the public who also sought him help.
Six cameras were in the area and the IPCC (which is supposedly independent) reversed his position.

What's interesting is how the police and even the IPCC are willing to lie, even on an event which happens in daylight, amdist a mass protest, in the country's capital. I wonder how many events without dozens of witnesses and camera footage are only known from the official story. When I complained of my own treatment, I was more or less laughed at.

Oh and one of the rioters had his name released by the police on Twitter, his house was then burnt down. Not much media outrage on that, in fact no TV coverage at all. And he wasn't guilty either.

So no, I'm not particularly grateful that the government doesn't run me down with tanks when I protest, it's obvious flaws and injustices it forces me to live by, especially when I see a better option. The state didn't give me the right to say what I like, I do that by myself, we are truly enslaved if we are thankful we don't get openly murdered en masse for speaking our minds.

I usually have more examples in conversation but it takes a while to write, I hope I made my point. I have links to all my points too if you want them.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 03:11 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 08:53 AM, BritZombie wrote: I disagree, education was expensive in a statist society, that's because of how power was structured.

No, it was expensive because there were no printing presses, and books had to be written by hand. Making a full one would take months of hard work. Plus, due to the lack of relative prosperity of such a society it would be impractical for anyone to partake in academia when there was the far more important task of surviving to deal with.

I agree with that sentiment, but the state does no represent the interests of people nor the glory of anyone bar themselves.

It can though, thats the point. If there is no centralised system it will be everyone looking out for themselves at the expense of others. Total chaos, no real progress. At least this way it's only a small group of people looking out for themselves, not everyone.
You may even get a politician who doesn't care about himself wanting to benefit everyone else. In a society which is primarily geared towards screwing others over you'll never see one of those.

Yes, I'm saying people without power over humans won't abuse said power because it's an impossibility. What do you mean 'figure out', you don't know about co-op syndicates work, if you did you'd see how silly that claim is.

So they can't abuse their power because they have no power?
I'm sorry, but all they have to do to abuse said power is get said power, which will be incredibily easy with no centralised way of stopping them.

I've already told you at least twice something would stop him from 'doing it.'

Really, who would stop him perchance? Would it be the man who decides whats morally right and wrong? Down with that I say, I believe that might is right, and if you disagree with my principles and try to silence them then you are going against the so called "freedom" that you seem to love using as a punchline.

They have and will (agree),

How? You get two people whose views are so fundamentally opposed, neither one willing to back down and eventually you're going to come to blows or fragment all of society. You're honestly trying to tell me that everyone in the world agrees on everything?

Walk down the street and express your love/hate for abortion to everyone you meet.
Go to hospital
????
Profit!

I don't know why you keep making these comments. Having an equal right to dictate the conditions of your life and work is very clear progress and the notion that an organised system based on these principles would descend into chaos has been proven wrong.

Yes, the right to express what you want is an important one. The right to GET what you want is not. Sometimes it conflicts with the good of others, sometimes it conflicts with the good of the state, sometimes it conflicts with your own personal good.

you're aware they aren't our country's brightest minds right?

Of course I'm aware. Don't treat my like an idealistic child. I loathe them with every oppurtunity I get because they're bettering themselves at the expense of the state. I dream of a time when the state will be bettered by truely selfless politicans. It may not happen for millenia but it will happen one day.

It won't happen in anarchy because we will always need leaders, something that seems to clash with the anarchist viewpoint.

What a stupid attempt at an argument. No 'man' is out to get me, you're the state socialist. I pointed out some huge flaws in such a system and that's your answer.

How is my eternal support for the state synonymous with me fearing "The man"?
And when people complain about bankers or the police or whatever "screwing them over" it usually comes across like a child shouting about how they don't want to go to bed.

Because dictatorships like the soviet union and fascist spain, respectively, were good for people?

Initially yes, they collapsed because later leaders didn't care for the state, they only cared for themselves.

You're notion of 'if it doesn't exist right now it's no good' is childish, anything which anyone could see was beneficial for both society and ourselves from the past must be 'no good'

I never said all that happened in the past are "No good" it's just when you want to REGRESS to a primitive method of government I point out that it doesn't exist for a reason, because it's a terrible method of governance.

Oh and explain the Renaissance.

The renaissance was a period of advanced learning, just because it doesn't exist right now doesn't mean we didn't take any lessons away from it. We took from it what was good (things like technology) and left behind what was bad. Are you honestly trying to say that the renaissance was a period of pure unbridled anarchy?

Are you serious? You just explained my opposition to statism.

Yes, but in a small commune it is easier to get the majority of the population on your side than in a state consisting of 60million.

No it didn't, and at best it was a neccesary evil which has long been illegitimate for modern society.

So, you're saying that if it had been every (cave)man for himself we would have invented irrigation, currency, learning?
I doubt it, all it would take is for one fellow to discover one of those things, and then get cracked on the head because he was too busy with writing (OH WAIT) it down to defend himself from someone who wanted to eat all his nice corn.

The Wiemar republic pretty damn anarchist yeah?

The period in post WWI Germany where there wer approximately 8,000,000,000 different political parties all trying to get their voice across, the place where there were several failed revolutions.
Sounds pretty anarchic to me...

The slave trade happened because of egalitarian collectivist society yeah?

The slaves came from anarchist societies. If they had got their shit together and formed a collective entity to protect against marauders they would have come to no harm.

It sure does, and you have more of a say than now, that's for sure so I don't get what you mean. Also, any obligation to a confederation is self-assumed and that's what is emphasised in the committees. If you mean, someone's 'right to murder' the victim is the one who has his liberty infringed upon, not the murderer.

Really, what if I came from a society where murder was allowed with good cause? Someone did something that in my society results in death. I go to kill him but am then stopped. You're stomping on my society, it is my RIGHT to see him die.

We're not all brought up following the wonderous judeo-christian idea of morality.

Also, why? You don't think numbers make a difference?

Oh fine, say 10,000 men declare war on a village of 10 men. Seems cut and dry to me.

Numbers do make a difference.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 04:10 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 03:11 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
At 8/30/11 08:53 AM, BritZombie wrote:
No, it was expensive because there were no printing presses, and books had to be written by hand. Making a full one would take months of hard work. Plus, due to the lack of relative prosperity of such a society it would be impractical for anyone to partake in academia when there was the far more important task of surviving to deal with.

Education isn't limited to books, and the education system was more or less the same even after the 15th/16th century. It really was not as simple as 'books were expensive, noblemen had money, therefore they were educated' we have to look at why noblemen had money, why peasants would be killed for attempting to learn the bible and why it was unjust for noblemen to own the land others were forced to work on. Your merely looking at how it was on the surface and coming up with a superficial answer, the reason why power was structured in such a way is lost on you.

It can though, thats the point. If there is no centralised system it will be everyone looking out for themselves at the expense of others. Total chaos, no real progress. At least this way it's only a small group of people looking out for themselves, not everyone.

Of course it isn't, bar anarcho-capitalism, individualist and to a lesser extent mutualism, anarchists argue AGAINST a free-for-all society which is what we have now. Things are designed for profit not for use, if there is more money made in a rich man's whims, less money will go to providing basics for poorer children, that's the farce of supposed supply and demand. Co-operative society is very different, but it seems I'm hitting a brick wall trying to explain it.

You may even get a politician who doesn't care about himself wanting to benefit everyone else. In a society which is primarily geared towards screwing others over you'll never see one of those.

You may, but you don't, if that's what your pinning your hopes on we're doomed. So it's the screwing each other over problem that's the issue? That's absolutely correct, and it's an issue which anarchists base their philosophy on combating. A society in which people cannot extract the value from other's work because they own the land or the means of production, in which the worker in the mill can decide partly in the running of the mill and in which humans aren't forced to be part of a system that debases them and instead operate collectively is the opposite the current 'get what you can' mentality.

I'm sorry, but all they have to do to abuse said power is get said power, which will be incredibily easy with no centralised way of stopping them.

Again, why? You never ever say. Why is a centralised way of stopping them needed?


Really, who would stop him perchance? Would it be the man who decides whats morally right and wrong? Down with that I say, I believe that might is right, and if you disagree with my principles and try to silence them then you are going against the so called "freedom" that you seem to love using as a punchline.

You do believe might is right, because you support statism. Stop operating entirely on false dichotomies. Moral issues (as in sexuality) aren't up for debate, yes. If you have someone with a self-assumed obligation to a syndicate, he get's his equal say, but if his ideas are not voted for, unfortunately it will not pass. This is a fact of life, it's not perfect as I'm not a utopian but it's damn better than being forced into doing what you're told by someone who doesn't even work as hard and owns the production and your silly attempts to find a contradiction only work because of your own lack of understanding.

They have and will (agree),
How? You get two people whose views are so fundamentally opposed, neither one willing to back down and eventually you're going to come to blows or fragment all of society. You're honestly trying to tell me that everyone in the world agrees on everything?

If they are both consenting they come to blows. Sorry. If it's harming others, members of that society will assist because it's harming others. This is only impossible to someone who expects everything to be sorted out for him. Of course no one agrees on everything once again it's a statist position that a few people have the minds to govern all with the same set of rules.

Walk down the street and express your love/hate for abortion to everyone you meet.
Go to hospital
????
Profit!

What's with the failing attempts at humour all of a sudden?


Yes, the right to express what you want is an important one. The right to GET what you want is not. Sometimes it conflicts with the good of others, sometimes it conflicts with the good of the state, sometimes it conflicts with your own personal good.

Agreed, apart from the obvious state aspect. It's fortunate then, that anarchists favour direct democracy and not a society which allows people to build power and then get what they want with their power base. And the best lawyers, police, witnesses can all be bought off or intimidated if we're talking criminals.


Of course I'm aware. Don't treat my like an idealistic child. I loathe them with every oppurtunity I get because they're bettering themselves at the expense of the state. I dream of a time when the state will be bettered by truely selfless politicans. It may not happen for millenia but it will happen one day.

Don't act like one then and 'dream of a time' for something that doesn't happen. All politicians better themselves at expense of the state, apart from the odd few local councilors. Did you see how many were involved in the expenses scandal? So we're expected to wait for millenia of unjust and illegitimate rule until a savoir tells us what to do for our own good and the expense of himself, rather than participatory governance and direct democracy? Get real, if you want people to act selflessly, fight for a system that rewards it. Oh, expect you haven't read the fundamentals of anarchism and would rather pertain to reactionary laughable false dichotomies and claim it rewards selfisheness.

It won't happen in anarchy because we will always need leaders, something that seems to clash with the anarchist viewpoint.

Yes, anarchists disbelieve we should be forced to do what the leader says through coercion. We don't think everyone has the same abilities though. If someone is genuinely more skilled, and his advice is found to be beneficial he will be listened too, that's natural authority. 'Do what I say or you'll be punished' is not.

And when people complain about bankers or the police or whatever "screwing them over" it usually comes across like a child shouting about how they don't want to go to bed.

And when people feebly try to excuse an obvious criticism to their authority figures they resemble children who still want mummy and daddy to do everything for them and can't relate to any injustice out of their childish, safe little world.

Initially yes, they collapsed because later leaders didn't care for the state, they only cared for themselves.

What a laughable assertion, you need to read some history books. Even if you exscuse Lenin, Stalin (who industralised russia) was the worst, Gorbachev (when soviet russia collapsed) was the most benevolent. It didn't decline in respect for the citizen. Franco was the only leader of Spain, and he less power he had the better Spain got. You even admit whole states collapse and thousands die when leaders don't care but still suggest it as a good way to go?


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 04:27 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 03:11 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
So, you're saying that if it had been every (cave)man for himself we would have invented irrigation, currency, learning?
I doubt it, all it would take is for one fellow to discover one of those things, and then get cracked on the head because he was too busy with writing (OH WAIT) it down to defend himself from someone who wanted to eat all his nice corn.

No every man for himself is the antithesis to social anarchy, which maximises social relations. Stop thinking forced authority = people working together. Cavemen did live in decentralised societies, and even humans as far back as homo erectus cared for the sick and old.

The Wiemar republic pretty damn anarchist yeah?
The period in post WWI Germany where there wer approximately 8,000,000,000 different political parties all trying to get their voice across, the place where there were several failed revolutions.
Sounds pretty anarchic to me...

Well thanks for admitting you know nothing about anarchy, because various political parties fighting for domination of power in the state is certainly not anarchy and is symptom of statist flaws.

The slaves came from anarchist societies. If they had got their shit together and formed a collective entity to protect against marauders they would have come to no harm.

So it's the slaves fault they were enslaved? Anyway slavery did and still does occur in statist societies, in fact many need it for their economies to function.

Really, what if I came from a society where murder was allowed with good cause? Someone did something that in my society results in death. I go to kill him but am then stopped. You're stomping on my society, it is my RIGHT to see him die.

Can you please debate like an adult? Firstly, we should be able tp murder with cause and statists and anarchists both except that apart from anarcho-pacifists, if someone is stabbing you most people won't disagree you should attempt to harm them. If anarchists believed anyone can do what they want, anarchy wouldn't exist because it's based on the principle nobody has the right to force someone to carry out your will through threats or violence. Like I JUST said, the one being murdered because the killer thinks it's his 'right' is having his libery infringed, not the murderer. Anarchists don't care if you think it's right. Statists do, because the guy at the top has the authority, we reject that people have the right over other people's lives, bar the example I mentioned.

We're not all brought up following the wonderous judeo-christian idea of morality.

I certainly reject it.

Also, why? You don't think numbers make a difference?
Oh fine, say 10,000 men declare war on a village of 10 men. Seems cut and dry to me.

Numbers do make a difference.

And that was my point, which you mistankly sided with me on. I asked that question as you said an anarchist society could never defend itself against a statist one, so I mentioned one mere factor which disproves what you said. Cheers for helping my case. Not that i needed it.

Character limit makes this difficult, but your just going in a loop. I suggest you do some reading before debating me, your operating on falsities and speculation, not understanind my point and answering with 'You're telling me...' followed by an irrelevant point. Not all smart people are anarchists, debate is healthy and of course and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at least read some of this or even a damn wiki article so we have some common ground to debate on.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 04:33 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 03:11 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
Oh and explain the Renaissance.
The renaissance was a period of advanced learning, just because it doesn't exist right now doesn't mean we didn't take any lessons away from it. We took from it what was good (things like technology) and left behind what was bad. Are you honestly trying to say that the renaissance was a period of pure unbridled anarchy?

It was advanced learning mainly because the ancient world was rediscovered. No, it's very clear to a logical person that I'm not saying that, what I am saying is your argument that we don't stand to gain from examples of societies that no longer exist is ridiculous. I don't want a replica of the Free Territory, Ancient Athens or Catalonia, but we can, as you said, take many lessons from it, as well as it disproving peddled lies that direct democracies wind up in chaos even if some of the examples did lose in wars. It's simply untrue and shows a lack of knowledge.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 05:01 PM Reply

At 8/30/11 04:27 PM, BritZombie wrote: Bunch o' stuff.
Character limit makes this difficult, but your just going in a loop.

Then I'll just address your closing statement.

I suggest you do some reading before debating me,

I have done reading. You act like I'm the sort of man who charges into a debate without doing these things. I could have made this exact point as well and it would have made me look better. Now that we've got the cheap shots out of the way...

your operating on falsities and speculation, not understanind my point and answering with 'You're telling me...' followed by an irrelevant point.

Speculation is not a bad thing. You have to address every plausible possibility when trying to come up with the best solution. Now I'll admit that I'm a pessimist and as such will look for the worst possible cases, but I still cannot see this society functioning well even IF everyone in it had no fibre of (for want of a better word) "evil" in their being.

debate is healthy and of course and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but at least read some of this or even a damn wiki article so we have some common ground to debate on.

I have, and no matter where I went I always seemed to drift back to the same main points:

No ruler
No centralisation
Small communities

These are the things I don't like, to me they all point to a world led by the one who cares about others the least. I wish I didn't live in such a reality but I do, and I'm prepared to admit it instead of hiding behind false realities where "no-one could get power that way". It's an unmistakeable fact of life that jerks always win.

You've got to admit that, look at any politician these days. Time was they would muscle their way into power but now they accomplish it by pathological lying. You still seem to be stuck on the belief that if you got rid of government that these people would vanish.

They wouldn't. They would just revert to the old ways of violently dealing with any opposition. Even if you do believe that every person is inherently good to one another, there will still always be those who think they are better, that these people need leaders, that they can be that leader.

They can still be good and just think of themselves as better.

That's how we got this far. That's why we have the heirarchy. It may have began with one ape punching another over food but it evolved. The punched ape learned to not take the first ape's food, he learned to respect him. If the other ape ordered him to do something he usually did it.

In time when we became more aware of ourselves and our role as sentient beings, the punching apes became our first leaders. The one the other apes looked to from protection from the rogue wandering apes who failed to grasp that important concept.

We pledged our alligience to kings so they could protect us from other kings. We couldn't do it ourselves.

Now, we vote in our leaders. We vote in the leaders who we think will serve us the best, the leaders who will protect us from the other leaders (no matter how big or small they may be). Sure, none of them are perfect, but you can't use this as the foundation of your argument. You remove all leaders in the world say, we need no protecting from other apes, everyone goes with the flow.

There will still be those apes who want another apes food. In a perfect world he will ask nicely for it or barter something, but we don't live in a perfect world.

We live in the real world, where might is right. You can band together to repel those who will take what they want by force, but you can't keep blasting the alert horn and forming a militia every time a marauder comes near. Eventually you'll need entire sections of a society to actively deal with this threat.

And then you've formed a military.

You've taken your own protection out of your own hands and placed your trust in someone else.

It couldn't just be that. What about those who wish to devote themselves to academia? They can't till the fields all day and still split the atom, you'll need professional farmers to feed them.

Then, you've formed a guild of craftsmen in essence.

Before you know it, you'll have formed a functioning society again. A society with all it's strengths and weaknesses. Then what? Disband it and start again from scratch?

No, we'll stick with it untill a better one comes along.

We evolved out of anarchy and if necessary we will do it again.

Also, I like the way you're clearly trying to make me come across as a dumbass, couple that with your "At least debate like an adult" comment earlier. Smooth... real smooth.
InB4 I make myself look like a dumbass, because I just know some wiseguy is going to say it.

Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature
BritZombie
BritZombie
  • Member since: Dec. 27, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Aug. 30th, 2011 @ 05:34 PM Reply

Speculation is bad when it isn't willing to lend the same pessimism to every aspect of one's own beliefs.

But there's one thing....you thought I was against society? Against different people performing different roles?

Anarchy can be more or less described in one notion....we are not born as other's property. We cannot follow other's rules because it suits them. Our first societies, lets take the Iroquois as an example, know that if they steal in their society, there are reprecussions. They know if they share their food when other's are hungry, the same happens to them at a later date. Kropotkin wrote a fascinating book on mutual aid from an evolutionary perspective, and it is species that co-operate which do the the best, that is the true social Darwinism: conditions which make sure our species survive.

Anarchists don't want people toiling the fields and nothing but, we just don't want the conditions of the 'toilers' to be so poor they live terrible lives, we want them to be able to at least have some say in their conditions as part of a society. It's unfortunate that politicians claiming to represent these people often end up exploiting them, but its a sad truth. People living as no more than a cog in a machine whilst a very wealthy man keeps the lion share of their labour.

We need academics, but we need to ensure education is literally freely available to all. We don't require academics to be silenced in favour of those who support the status quo, when they point out how terrible corporatism can be. The officialy most widely quoted living and best-selling professor in existence also receives the least air time on TV...because he's an anarchist. Anarchy is libertarian socialism, we don't agree with people hoarding resources whilst others live in poverty, nor do we condone laws that only suit the elite in a society. But we know that rulers and leaders have achieved even greater inequality when they claim to wish to stop it, Kropotkin himself stated this when he refused a high position in the early Soviet Union. So we need to take steps to ensure we have a society organised for direct democracy with worker's confederations, be it free-market or communism.

It took a conscious effort to dissolve the situation where we no longer needed Kings to save us from Kings, and it was having Kings in the first place which lead us to that mess.

And the adult comment was my frustration at you putting words in my mouth, I meant nothing by it.


I like my hammer.
Audio. lol click.

BBS Signature
serving7
serving7
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Sep. 3rd, 2011 @ 08:04 PM Reply

Anarchy is the only way, follow it or be left behind in the fires. Live or die.

surfingthechaos
surfingthechaos
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Sep. 6th, 2011 @ 10:20 PM Reply

simple-but-sandy, you might think you've read enough about it, but obviously you haven't. Just look at this thread. This has not been a debate about whether or not anarchy is good. This has been you and a few other people being told over and over again in so many words that what you think of as anarchy is inaccurate.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Anarchist Federation Sep. 6th, 2011 @ 11:31 PM Reply

At 9/6/11 10:20 PM, surfingthechaos wrote: simple-but-sandy, you might think you've read enough about it, but obviously you haven't. Just look at this thread. This has not been a debate about whether or not anarchy is good. This has been you and a few other people being told over and over again in so many words that what you think of as anarchy is inaccurate.

Well, we have an issue here. No one has actually defined anarchy. Are we going off of the dictionary definition here? Are we going off of some other definition?

Unless someone can actually pin down what they mean by anarchy then we are unable to proceed forward with any discussion.

Furthermore, the definition of anarchy in this thread seems to flow in between the dictionary definition and other forms of light government in order to fit the specific point the proponent is making at any given time.

So I ask the proponents, is anarchy "the absence of government" as Webster says (Government being "authoritative control") or is it something different?

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Sep. 7th, 2011 @ 01:10 AM Reply

At 9/6/11 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 9/6/11 10:20 PM, surfingthechaos wrote: simple-but-sandy, you might think you've read enough about it, but obviously you haven't. Just look at this thread. This has not been a debate about whether or not anarchy is good. This has been you and a few other people being told over and over again in so many words that what you think of as anarchy is inaccurate.
Well, we have an issue here. No one has actually defined anarchy. Are we going off of the dictionary definition here? Are we going off of some other definition?

Unless someone can actually pin down what they mean by anarchy then we are unable to proceed forward with any discussion.

Furthermore, the definition of anarchy in this thread seems to flow in between the dictionary definition and other forms of light government in order to fit the specific point the proponent is making at any given time.

So I ask the proponents, is anarchy "the absence of government" as Webster says (Government being "authoritative control") or is it something different?

as with any belief, there is no way to get people to agree to what is and what isn't part of the system 100% of the time. Most of these people acknowledged that people will band together anyways but form a more sparse form of civilization.

The main definition were going by is no centralized power. Everybody's idea of anarchy seems to revolve around this main feature in some way or another. The rest of it is just different flavors like my idea of small tribes and gangs (Replacing Nations and Colonies) and the OPs... what ever he believes in.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
simple-but-sandy
simple-but-sandy
  • Member since: Nov. 1, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Anarchist Federation Sep. 9th, 2011 @ 08:15 AM Reply

At 9/7/11 01:10 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: and the OPs... what ever he believes in.

That was actually my main gripe with this thread to begin with.
To me it seemed like one of two cases:
That the OP honestly believed we could have anarchist societies that were as big and as prosperous as most modernised heirarchies.
Or
That the OP clearly has no idea what anarchy is and what merits/downfalls it has, and only chooses to support it because he hates his parents/teachers/other peopl in positions of power. Which as the debate continued felt even more correct to me.


Good morrow to you, Magistrate!

BBS Signature