Global Warming now officially bullshit

pat J said:
Such ignorance. Anarchy does not in any way mean "tribal".



Humans are not greedy by nature. We are naturally inclined to survive and will do what the situation requires us to do. Sometimes that means being greedy, sometimes it means being generous.
Click to expand...

I was arguing that barbarians were tribal and they left that by acquiring the state (government) . Therefore, following that logic, ridding ourselves of government and becoming anarchists is similar to reverting back to tribes. Kinda like gangs are today....

In other words, I'd say that as a society approaches anarchist ideals that society would become more and more similar to tribes. ( I'm not talking tribes like you're thinking, but ganglike. Take for example Somalia they are seemingly anarchistic to me at least, and you get fucking modern day pirates. )

And for your second comment, I think if you read it closely you will realize you contradicted yourself.

You basically said humans naturally have to be greedy to survive therefore humans are not greedy by nature. That makes zero sense. :thumbsup:
 


UnripeArbiter said:
I was arguing that barbarians were tribal and they left that by acquiring the state (government) . Therefore, following that logic, ridding ourselves of government and becoming anarchists is similar to reverting back to tribes. Kinda like gangs are today....
Click to expand...

Yes, you are probably correct about that humans became more civilised after leaving tribalism behind. But that was a long time ago. Circumstances have changed, we are a lot smarter today and the same logic can't be applied.

UnripeArbiter said:
In other words, I'd say that as a society approaches anarchist ideals that society would become more and more similar to tribes. ( I'm not talking tribes like you're thinking, but ganglike. Take for example Somalia they are seemingly anarchistic to me at least, and you get fucking modern day pirates. )
Click to expand...

Somalia is as far from anarchy as you can possibly come. Anarchy does not simply mean "no government". It means no rulers, no hierarchies. Somalia is VERY hierachical. Please just do some basic research about anarchism before you answer. You can start here.

UnripeArbiter said:
And for your second comment, I think if you read it closely you will realize you contradicted yourself.

You basically said humans naturally have to be greedy to survive therefore humans are not greedy by nature. That makes zero sense. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I'm sure nothing make sense when you're not even able to READ. Again, humans are only naturally inclined to survive, not to be greedy. We do what is in our own self-interest (which is not the same thing as greed). Our behaviour is shaped by the current conditions.
 
:sleep: I don't even feel like arguing about anarchy. It's archaic. It's so similar to "no government" why argue that it isn't?

To me it's like saying let's get rid of the referee in sports. Or let's get rid of all the rules in sports.

Some authority and some regulation are NECESSARY for the function of society or to "play the game".

And to point out another contradiction of yours you say... "Anarchy does not simply mean 'no government'. It means no rulers." Well come on... again it's so similar it's not worth arguing.
 
Also when you say "Circumstances have changed, we are a lot smarter today and the same logic can't be applied."

It CAN be applied today, when people lack governance, rulers, authority, or whatever other synonym,you call that a GANG today.

You want to see anarchy in practice look at today's gangs. In fact if you look up the synonym for gang you get tribe just to further drive my point about the barbarians. Anyway, gangs, anarchy, tribes, barbarians, no rulers, "no government" they are all so similary archaic that I've now spent way too much time typing about them.

And Somalia was a bad example I was just trying to think what barbarians would be like today, lol. Probably pirates, remember the barbarians survived I believe by pillaging. Then they either went extinct or integrated into modern society I don't remember.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
The transition from barbarians (tribal) was at least due to the creation of the state (government).
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't.

UnripeArbiter said:
We need some form of government, only anarchists would disagree. Do we want to go back to tribal?
Click to expand...
One, I am an anarcho-capitalist. Two, that is a non-sequitur.

UnripeArbiter said:
The problem is when government gets too big. (this implies less is better... but still how small?)

The argument is about how big do we want it?
Click to expand...
That is a false choice. First, it presumes a government is needed. Second, it presumes that a government can stay small (no government has ever stayed small). Third, it presumes that the citizens actually control their government. Fourth, it presumes that it is possible for a government to represent everyone without violating anyone's rights.

UnripeArbiter said:
"Due to the factor of human nature, greed, etc. the state is best maintained between states of greater government and less government."
Click to expand...
Maybe your nature, but some of us are capable of not robbing, raping, stealing and killing unless threatened with punishment. Many of us are capable of providing for ourselves, being compassionate to those less fortunate, and raising our own children. Maybe you need that sort of moral leadership in your life, but not everyone does. And I don't think people with the capability to be independent, should be dumbed down to your level.

I'm not going to carry on this debate publicly, so you can have the last word. I will say if you feel you need government, good for you. But your need to be controlled by someone else, doesn't give you the moral authority to impose it on people who are more responsible, moral, intelligent and decent than nearly every politician or ruler who has ever lived.

The concept that government makes man good is pure collectivism. It's the sort of dogma Hitler, Mao and Stalin peddled while they mass murdered anyone in their society with the capacity for independent morality or self-awareness.

I'm done. PM me if you feel the need to get a further response. I don't know if you made any money today, but I feel I didn't make enough so I am going back to work.
 
pat J said:
Yes, you are probably correct about that humans became more civilised after leaving tribalism behind. But that was a long time ago. Circumstances have changed, we are a lot smarter today and the same logic can't be applied.



Somalia is as far from anarchy as you can possibly come. Anarchy does not simply mean "no government". It means no rulers, no hierarchies. Somalia is VERY hierachical. Please just do some basic research about anarchism before you answer. You can start here.



I'm sure nothing make sense when you're not even able to READ. Again, humans are only naturally inclined to survive, not to be greedy. We do what is in our own self-interest (which is not the same thing as greed). Our behaviour is shaped by the current conditions.
Click to expand...

Human nature at it's core is essentially evil. That's the fundamental flaw in the "we need no government over us" debate.

You want to see human nature in it's purest form? Look at a baby. No social conditioning, no influences, no morals, no authority. Tabula rasa, 100% pure human nature.

These babies are greedy, selfish, jealous, impatient, self-centered, impulsive, violent, short-tempered, emotionally unstable, provocative, rude, disloyal.

This is human nature at it's core. And nobody wants to fall victim to it.
 
Ar Scion said:
These babies are greedy, selfish, jealous, impatient, self-centered, impulsive, violent, short-tempered, emotionally unstable, provocative, rude, disloyal.

This is human nature at it's core. And nobody wants to fall victim to it.
Click to expand...
You're truly a fucking idiot.

Ar Scion said:
Human nature at it's core is essentially evil. That's the fundamental flaw in the "we need no government over us" debate.
Click to expand...
Right, so if human nature is at it's core essentially evil, it makes perfect sense to put an elite group of humans in charge of everyone, right? Because governments are only ever populated by saints. That power only attracts the Gandhis and Mother Theresas of the world. The people in government aren't corrupt or evil. They don't lie and steal...
 
I still think that in the reality that we live in today. Government is necessary and the core political debate is about how big that government should be.

Just tell me what we should do as an alternative to government? Gangland? I don't get it.

Government is our current point in societal evolution. Maybe its not the last step but further along than anarchism is.

Anarcho-capitilalism is all good for the individual that has externalized the rest of the world and deemed everything else as less important than profits. I mean I like money too, but it really isn't the most important thing.

And no it's not in my nature to rob, rape, kill and steal, but that doesn't mean those things don't exist in the world. It doesn't change the fact that people are still committing these crimes, it doesn't change the reality we live in. These people need to be held accountable. Just one function of government that we need.

I mean of all the problems in the world you think the solution is to burn the white house down (essentially) ?
 
UnripeArbiter said:
Anarcho-capitilalism is all good for the individual that has externalized the rest of the world and deemed everything else as less important than profits. I mean I like money too, but it really isn't the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm failing to infer something, you don't seem to have a comprehensive grasp of anarcho capitalism. I don't mean that as a dig. It's just an observation. If I'm wrong, I apologize. This is a good, quick summary...

Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism
 
Trademark said:
Unless I'm failing to infer something, you don't seem to have a comprehensive grasp of anarcho capitalism. I don't mean that as a dig. It's just an observation. If I'm wrong, I apologize. This is a good, quick summary...

Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism
Click to expand...
Here's my even briefer explanation from wikipedia.

Anarcho-capitalism is an individual anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market.

That's the first line of wikipedia. So it appears I had a somewhat decent grasp of anarcho-capitalism...

Are you guys really anarchists?
 
I definitely think we should all do our part to stop pollution to a cetain extent, but I don't know if I ever believed in the whole global warming thing.
 
guerilla said:
What about the scientists who disagree? I agree, Glen Beck isn't where I would get my science news. But there are plenty of scientists who poke holes in the AGW theory (not to mention, the empirical data itself) regularly.

I linked to one up the page.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/HaydenToJackson.pdf
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm simply trying to point that you should have to produce more than a one minute video from Glenn Beck to sway someone's opinion towards either end of an issue, but unfortunately people are incredibly stupid and that's not the case.

As for my opinions on the issue, I haven't looked very deeply into it because I really couldn't give a shit either way but I lean fairly strongly towards 'global warming is happening and there's nothing we can do to stop it by any significant margin'. But like I said I don't really care either way.
 
Ar Scion said:
This is human nature at it's core. And nobody wants to fall victim to it.
Click to expand...

As already said, you're truly a fucking idiot.

UnripeArbiter said:
I still think that in the reality that we live in today. Government is necessary and the core political debate is about how big that government should be.
Click to expand...

The government is only "necessary" because it makes people dependant of it. It's very possible that there would be complete fucking chaos if the government just vanished over night. It's something that will take time. People will first have to learn how to rule themselves.

UnripeArbiter said:
Just tell me what we should do as an alternative to government? Gangland? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You don't get it because you think that the only reason all humans don't go on killing sprees is because we fear the government. If you really want to know i think you should do some research on anarchism. It's too much to write down here. There's a movie that explains what's wrong with the current system, human behaviour and how a system without a government could look like. Take a look:

Zeitgeist: Addendum

UnripeArbiter said:
Government is our current point in societal evolution. Maybe its not the last step but further along than anarchism is.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. Anarchism is the next step in our sociocultural evolution.

UnripeArbiter said:
Anarcho-capitilalism is all good for the individual that has externalized the rest of the world and deemed everything else as less important than profits. I mean I like money too, but it really isn't the most important thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure guerilla will disagree, but in my (and most anarchists) book, there's no such thing as anarcho-capitalism because it's still hierarchical and authoritarian. Read why here: Infoshop.org - An Anarchist FAQ - F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

I do, however, think that people should be able to opt-in/out to both "capitalist"/communist/individual/collective-anarchism. There's room for all of them.

UnripeArbiter said:
And no it's not in my nature to rob, rape, kill and steal, but that doesn't mean those things don't exist in the world. It doesn't change the fact that people are still committing these crimes, it doesn't change the reality we live in. These people need to be held accountable. Just one function of government that we need.
Click to expand...

Why do you think people rob, rape, kill and steal? The reasons are many and sometimes unknown. But in general it's because of the conditions created by the government and/or the hierarchical economic system in place. And.. just so you know, you don't need a government to hold murderers accountable for their actions.
 
pat J said:
Quite the contrary. Anarchism is the next step in our sociocultural evolution.
Click to expand...

So the very first humans we're born into a government and we've been working to get rid of it ever since then?

For the rest of your comments...

I get it... you would rather have private enterprise perform all the functions that our government does today.

Who will then hold the private enterprise themselves responsible? Sounds like unions would be formed...basically eventually it would evolve back to where we're at now.

It seems to me society would eventually evolve back to the government. Replace the word government with "checks and balances". It seems the purpose of government is to balance the power of various disparate groups of people to insure justice. Gets everyone on the same page at least. Anarchy sounds divided and disparate and everyone knows divided we fall.

Why hasn't Earth produced a lasting anarchist society? I would guess humans evolve past it.
 
And I do depend on my government just like you want to depend on private enterprise. (Unless you want to go agrarian or something where you work your ass off)

Private enterprise only gives a shit about money at least the (American) government cares about justice.

According to Thomas Hobbes, people in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing for themselves, safety and public order.

People prefer safety and order something I don't think anarchy can insure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom