WAKE UP and EXERCISE your *CIVIL RIGHTS* NOW! Do NOT sleep through this election!

[pewep]

It's not a competition. You're either right, or you're not.

You're either willing to admit when you're not right, or you won't.

An idiot can occasionally make a brilliant insight and a genius can make a horrible intellectual error.

Fair enough, you're right.

You probably don't understand anarchy. As I understand it, you're like Mattseh. You've spent most of your life living off the socialist state (and the socialistic family environment), and have limited experience having to support yourself independently, while being robbed to support others you do not know, and whose lifestyles and choices you do not approve of.

When you're young, it's easy to be a liberal and a piss-ant. You don't pay the price until you're older, and by then, in many cases, it is too late to fix the damage.

That's the age we live in. Everyone thinks they are equal and superior at the same time, regardless of merit.

Que sera sera.

I've already asked you this before and you've NEVER to date given me a straight answer. Luke tried a half ass approach that I simply refuse to buy. How on earth are you going to prevent companies, that are by definition "individualistic entities that are concerned entirely with their own self interests", from amassing an immense amount of wealth and manipulating everyone else into doing their bidding in an anarchist state? How are you going to regulate them? The market isn't going to do shit because they'll be able to buy off any media outlets that would point out the messed up things they are doing globally to bring certain goods to the market.

I believe we already live in an anarchist state. You can do whatever you goddamn please, any time you want to, however you and I are both afraid of the stick. Someone bigger, smarter and more evil than us will always come along and subject the sheep. That's life, and that's why anarchy is a joke to me.

Come on, talk to me about Ron Paul like you're a rational human being. Even assuming that elections are predetermined (bullshit, why did Carter get in then??), what makes you think that he would get in at all? He is completely unpopular, the is under a media blackout and his libertarian ideas are so far removed from everyday experiences that they needs a *LOT* of time to be absorbed. I respect those ideals but I know that human beings are too stupid as a whole to have such freedoms. It'll never happen. Ever. Not in this world. I know I'm right because guess what - he's nowhere.

Why?



What's he not realistic about? And moreover, who is more realistic?

read what I just wrote above.

 

[guerilla]

How on earth are you going to prevent companies, that are by definition "individualistic entities that are concerned entirely with their own self interests", from amassing an immense amount of wealth and manipulating everyone else into doing their bidding in an anarchist state?

There is no such thing as an anarchist state. That which you have described, is the statist condition, it is what we have today.

How are you going to regulate them?

The market provides regulation. Common law and merchant law emerged in the market, not in government.

The market isn't going to do shit because they'll be able to buy off any media outlets that would point out the messed up things they are doing globally to bring certain goods to the market.

That's happening right now under the statist paradigm. If you believe there is a market for truth, someone will fulfill it because there is demand. If you don't believe there is a market for truth, you may as well go ahead and kill yourself.

I believe we already live in an anarchist state. You can do whatever you goddamn please, any time you want to, however you and I are both afraid of the stick. Someone bigger, smarter and more evil than us will always come along and subject the sheep. That's life, and that's why anarchy is a joke to me.

What you have described is the statist paradigm. It is what we have today.

Anarchy is different. The fundamental law/principle/rule/morality is that no one shall aggress against another.

I used to be frustrated, but now I just laugh at how people like you cannot understand that a world whose milieu is peace, will somehow lead to the outcomes we already have under violence.

It's probably because you've never had to think rationally or logically. The education system doesn't stress thinking, it stresses propaganda and obedience. You're trained to defend violence as peace, and to reject peace as violence, and are unable to understand that contradiction, let alone seek to rectify it.

 

[jryan21]

bullshit, why did Carter get in then??

Because of this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM9dGr8ArR0]Ford Pardons Nixon - September 8, 1974 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[pewep]

Because of this:

Ford Pardons Nixon - September 8, 1974 - YouTube

Actually, I agree with Ford's decision there. Let's be honest, no jury on earth would have given him a fair trial, and no judge would have been impartial on his/her sentence. There would have been no fair trial at all, he either would have been hung like a bitch or let off the hook completely. Why waste state and federal money? Plus even though he was a goddamn crook, he DID deserve a fair trial like every citizen.

Guerilla, i'll answer you when I wake up

 

[guerilla]

 

[REIMktg]

You reading up on Voluntaryism is like my dog telling me he is going to learn calculus.

Don't waste your time. It's unlikely you have ever applied critical thinking to any social problem. I doubt you're capable of starting now. You're completely ignorant of philosophy, ethics, economics, political theory, history etc.

You don't even realize that your petit critiques are pathetic because they highlight your ignorance, as you shamelessly criticize something you admit you don't understand. No one is challenged or impressed, because those critiques read like the thoughtless babbling of a moron.

Let's say I take this on the surface and flip the script a little to see that my ignorance of Voluntaryism is similar to the ignorance I see around here of traditional conservative Christianity. The easily refutable responses and arguments that can be shuttered in a moment with clear thought.

That then leads to the fact that I have now read the references I have been shown on Anarchy, thinking they would be the best of the lot and my not having the time to seek further.

I have also read the Misses and other references given by Statham etc. The quest is open minded. I am not backed into a corner as are you of supporting one thing over another. Even with my Christian defenses in other threads, I am open to proofs of the contrary.

Now saying that I have not ever applied critical thinking to any social problem? I'm sorry, do you know me at all? Your ignorance is on display in that comment. Show me my ignorance on "philosophy, ethics, economics, political theory, history etc." in my posts. I will say I do not fully understand AnCap positions or Voluntaryism because I know there must be more than what I have read - after all, why would so many seemingly smart individuals buy into it? What's the appeal? That its "right"? So far, in my readings, not so much.

I've watched you stomp on people all around here with your elitism and yet it all seems like a pseudo intellectual pumping his chest with what he "knows" and yet he has no life experience or real world knowledge to back it up. I used to be like that, OK not as bad as you, but then I grew up, matured and found out that I did not know nearly as much as I thought. Had I though been in a social bubble those 20 years, I too may have ended up certain of philosophies similar to what you adhere to. Fortunately I discovered through living life that I was not correct and as far as I have read, neither are you.

So go ahead and derp derp durrrr all you want. Your elitism shows you for who you are and verifies that you are not nearly as smart as you portray. That is as obvious to me as it is to you that I am ignorant of what I speak. Remember, it was you that said you learned a lot when previously you were in a business that you left and that you were advising others to guard themselves against arrogance that in my words was part of a self congratulating bubble.

Be careful that someday you do not look back and find that you are the one that is most loud in confirming their ignorance.

 

[b_sun]

Yes your vote COUNTS because your representatives have to vote (in most states) according to what most people did. Seriously guys, please vote and exercise your civil rights. God dammit do you know how many people in the world wished they could have just this beautiful power? Guys, don't lose it ever.

Could you be more of a fucking lemming?

VOTE NOW!
EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS!
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR TIME!

Get fucked. This country and its 2 party system are headed right for the shithole, regardless of who wins.

 

[guerilla]

 

[JakeStratham]

Oh, how I like Higgs.

 

[guerilla]

Let's say I BLAH BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAH BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAH BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAH BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA

Nothing substantive, as usual. More whining and avoiding the topic. No logic, no reasoning, no facts. Just BLA BLA BLA.

DERP DERP DERP.

Oh btw, Christ's philosophy is voluntaryism. Try reading the Bible sometime.

I've watched you stomp on people all around here with your elitism and yet it all seems like a pseudo intellectual pumping his chest with what he "knows" and yet he has no life experience or real world knowledge to back it up.

Well, if I am wrong, you only have to engage what I have written. And yet my critics always resort to talking about the "real world" or "real life" than pointing out the (supposed) obvious fallacies of what I write.

Why is that? If I am not elite compared to you, shouldn't you be able to take me down a notch directly, without these pathetic attempts to undermine my position without addressing it?

Like voluntaryism, or anarchism, or any form of intelligent thinking, you simply do not do it. You prefer to stay ignorant, and short cut the work of deconstructing and constructing with logic and reason.

So go ahead and derp derp durrrr all you want. Your elitism shows you for who you are and verifies that you are not nearly as smart as you portray.

I don't care if you think I am smart. I don't go to the zoo to perform for the monkeys amigo. Never forget who is on which side of the bars.

Be careful that someday you do not look back and find that you are the one that is most loud in confirming their ignorance.

It doesn't matter. The world is full of useful idiots like you and pewep. The power of reason can't overcome the violence and immortality of millions (billions) of dangerous animals.

You're winning the race to the bottom and are too lazy and stupid to stop and question it. So I have decided to laugh as we all plunge into the pit. At least one of us will get some fun out of this.

 

[lukep]

So I have decided to laugh as we all plunge into the pit. At least one of us will get some fun out of this.

Wow, this explains a lot for me. No wonder you don't feel we're working towards a common future... You've given up completely. :uhoh2:

 

[MSTeacher]

my critics always resort to talking about the "real world" or "real life" than pointing out the (supposed) obvious fallacies of what I write.

Why is that?

It may be because the writing cannot be invalidated with real world and real life talk. The real world and real life talk may be intended to do something other than highlight fallacies.

So called real world, real life considerations may or may not invalidate an argument's logical consistency. They also may or may not marginalize an argument's usefulness.

Just a thought.

 

[REIMktg]

Oh btw, Christ's philosophy is voluntaryism. Try reading the Bible sometime.

The Bible is clear on this just as I am. The argument is not against the merit of the philosophy, but the possibility of its implementation with the current state of man.

I have read the Bible. Next time, do not just read the Bible, understand it.

As for your Higgs quote, you are missing the point. It's not that Voluntaryism does not sound great, its that it cannot work given Man's nature. Even if you had the society functioning, which I believe would be short lived given the nature of man, but say you could educate those in the society to keep to the principles how could you defend against the outside? Not at maturity, but at incubation of that society? Maybe at maturity it would have the means of defense, but how will it grow to that point without a nearby state shutting it down because of the perceived threat of its ideas to their power?

This is what is meant by its survival in the "real world". They assume you understand what they mean, after all this is a casual forum, not a formal debate. There is an assumption, obviously wrong, that others understand each others terms. Fortunately for you, it allows a quick dismissal of an argument rather than addressing the true merits.

Just as with Pewep ITT. You focused on his use of the word "state" instead of addressing the argument. That's a nice argumentative trick and maybe you did it because you first want people to understand 100% that a "state" does not exist in your system. Fine if that was your goal.

I have still and will still ask the questions about NAP and the Voluntary actions of others. Does voluntary assume consent or can it be under a type of coercion? What happens when a river flows through my property and I decide to use it for my purposes. As a result your property and irrigation downstream is impacted. What then?

From the reading provided by LukeP it would be resolved by voluntary organizations. But I have pointed out earlier these could be subject to corruption. What then?

I could go on and on with questions and examples that seem to be unaddressed in your system and yet are very solid examples of where your system lacks answers. These are not hypothetical examples, these are situations that are the subject of hot debates right now.

 

[guerilla]

Wow, this explains a lot for me. No wonder you don't feel we're working towards a common future... You've given up completely. :uhoh2:

What common future? Your delusional Ron Paul world?

It may be because the writing cannot be invalidated with real world and real life talk. The real world and real life talk may be intended to do something other than highlight fallacies.

So called real world, real life considerations may or may not invalidate an argument's logical consistency. They also may or may not marginalize an argument's usefulness.

Just a thought.

The issue is, we're all arguing ideas and ideology. When someone uses weasel words like "real" what they are trying to do is invalidate any opinion other than their own, without actually invalidating the premise.

It's lazy argumentation. It's typically done by the same idiots who prefer fallacies over reason in general. Or in the case of some people in these parts, people who have never learned to apply reason at all.

I have posted many times about the "real world". We're living in it. If one doesn't think it's peachy, AND refuses to question the premises underpinning it, then they're just jerking themselves off discussing ideas.

Which I am ok with. I expect cognitive dissonance from 99% of people. Those who strive towards intelligence are as rare as those of high character or sublime beauty.

 

[guerilla]

I have still and will still ask the questions about NAP and the Voluntary actions of others.

I don't care if you get it or not. You're only one of billions of dangerous animals, thought I had made that clear already.

That you won't do the research, instead asking random strangers on forums to educate you, that is even more incentive to write you off as a dilettante and time waster.

The burden of proof is on you to square the argument, and explain how every man (including you) needs a ruler, and then to explain which man is the exception that should rule other men.

 

[lukep]

What common future? Your delusional Ron Paul world?

The future in which a truly leader-free, stable, free-market-driven world emerges. You know, Anarchy.

If you weren't so quick to dismiss my attempts at promoting Paul back then as statism, you'd have learned that at some point I started promoting Paul for the same reason he was running, not for him to win.

Yes, I'm aware of my signature. The purpose is still served well today... And Paul can't do it himself anymore so I don't see the point in taking that out of my Sig until Nov 6th at the soonest.

 

[REIMktg]

That you won't do the research, instead asking random strangers on forums to educate you, that is even more incentive to write you off as a dilettante and time waster.

You cannot defend it because it cannot work. It depends on the character and nature of others. You cannot build a system on this. Your system relies on reason. It relies on participants being rational. But that is not found in Man, at least not in any consistent abundance.

You will lose every time on this single point. Your system cannot get around it unless it is isolated with high barriers to entry. Unfortunately you will never be able to build it because the world is too small and there will always be an aggressor that has a vested interest in shutting you down, if for nothing less than your ideas, before your system can mature enough to protect itself.

You would have had better luck in a previous century.

The one thing that so many ivory tower elites like you do not realize is that Man cannot be trusted and Man does not always operate in his own self interest and even many times when he does he lacks the intellect to see more than a few steps ahead of him and therefore enters into voluntary contracts to his own detriment. This then leads to more problems.

The burden of proof is on you to square the argument, and explain how every man (including you) needs a ruler, and then to explain which man is the exception that should rule other men.

Sorry, you are wrong. Evidence of my side is abundant. You are the one lacking any evidence. You are the one that needs to supply proof. But you cannot, except in theory.

I understand your point with regard to a ruler and it all sounds great in textbooks. The problem is the nature of man which is evident throughout history. Higgs thought he was referring to the evil of the state, but the state is made of mere men. The evil does not sprout up when Govt is formed. The evil exists prior to that point.

Referring back to the Bible, because you thought yourself clever in your earlier attack, Man in his unregenerate state is evil, wicked, and deceitful and cannot be trusted.

 

[guerilla]

We're long overdue for more...

DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DURRRRRRR

 

[guerilla]

You cannot defend it because it cannot work.

You're on record saying that peaceful relationships cannot work. That all relationships must necessarily be based on violence.

PEWEP MAKE SURE YOU KEEP LIKING HIS POSTS!

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Anarchy is different. The fundamental law/principle/rule/morality is that no one shall aggress against another.

But that's where your guys' entire argument for anarchy falls apart. Handing out brochures explaining the NAP to al-Quaeda, the KKK, Hells Angels, and the Russian military just isn't going to work.