100 mentions

Five Big Banks Plead Guilty to Rigging Currency Markets and No One Goes to Jail. The $5.89 billion they are collectively required to pay in penalties won't even get at 3% of their annual earnings.

comment by thenichi in worldnews

2 hours, 34 minutes ago

Damn that's quite the FAQ. I looked over the anarchism vs. Marxism/Leninism section. From your description, though, it sounds like you're already back at having a state in the form of unions and representative at that with the union of unions. The "overseeing and checking and balancing" sounds quite a bit like government.

Five Big Banks Plead Guilty to Rigging Currency Markets and No One Goes to Jail. The $5.89 billion they are collectively required to pay in penalties won't even get at 3% of their annual earnings.

comment by DownFromYesBad in worldnews

3 hours, 25 minutes ago

Anarchism isn't a single ideology; it's more like a general idea, a framework with many possible implementations. There are a lot of anarchist communists, many syndicalists (like me), and even some capitalists (though many don't consider them "true" anarchists, including me). Most anarchists I've talked to imagine huge council meetings, in which important issues are presented, discussed, and voted on, ideally with a different system than "first past the post" (the voting you're probably most familiar with: everyone casts a single vote, and the most votes win. This is problematic for many reasons, and there are plenty of viable, superior alternatives.).

I, as a syndicalist, think maybe people could vote in their unions, and the unions count these votes (as they are; not in an electoral college way) to see what happens, with a "union of unions" overseeing and checking and balancing. I think this could facilitate organization and scaling.

I'm really not the smartest person to ask about this, and again, there are so so many different strains of anarchism that I'm doubtlessly misrepresenting many anarchists. I don't mind answering any questions you ask, but if you're truly interested, this FAQ is a much better resource than I am.

Five Big Banks Plead Guilty to Rigging Currency Markets and No One Goes to Jail. The $5.89 billion they are collectively required to pay in penalties won't even get at 3% of their annual earnings.

comment by DownFromYesBad in worldnews

4 hours, 8 minutes ago

Good point about modern times being more peaceful; maybe nowadays it would work. About the tax thing, an ideal anarchist society is completely collectivist. Everyone is pooling their resources, and sharing the rewards. Most anarchist societies (including the IRL example in that video) include the abolition of currency. So tax would be kinda inherent. If the people democratically decide a military is needed, resources would be pooled to fund one. A good way to think about it is that anarchism isn't against order or government, infrastructure, or order, just leaders. All the necessary functions that a government can (on paper), but instead of a head honcho calling the shots, the directly democratic vote of society is.

Five Big Banks Plead Guilty to Rigging Currency Markets and No One Goes to Jail. The $5.89 billion they are collectively required to pay in penalties won't even get at 3% of their annual earnings.

comment by thenichi in worldnews

5 hours, 9 minutes ago

I see anarcho-capitalism more often then leftist anarchism, so please forgive me for the mistake. I haven't a lot of knowledge about how leftist anarchism is supposed to function outside of thinking it's about common recognition of the mutual good, i.e. everyone realizes everyone is better off supporting each other and potentially ditching free riders. This seems a bit idealistic as it requires a very strong majority on every contentious issue.

What is something that just simply doesn't work, but people are almost convinced that it does?

comment by mypussypops in AskReddit

8 hours, 36 minutes ago

People are convinced that government "works", but there's yet to be a government that hasn't devolved into tyranny and oppression within a few centuries. Anarchism is the only sensible ideology out there.

Just an argument about anarchy I don't want lost in case the person chooses to delete their comments.

submission by dogg724 in self

10 hours, 9 minutes ago

Me: Anarchism remains logically incoherent to me. Laws or rules are absolutely supposed to have an "oppressive" effect, which I would argue is a connotatively charged word that doesn't accurately represent the service rules provide. They can be unduly oppressive or arbitrary at times, sure, but the idea of rules seems so "duh" it can be analogized to the reason you're not allowed to beat each other to death with the bat during a game of baseball.

I think "why do you think laws will fix the problems law has created" is an overly simplistic way of stating the problem or what you suspect I posit as a solution. I'm not someone, for example, who thinks harsher laws would fix addiction or deter someone from killing someone for example, but you can feel the impact of regulatory laws and genuine oversight and taxes in the short term.

I'd need you to explain which things you think have gone wrong by which laws for me to address that anymore coherently. For whatever you can say about unintended consequences for certain laws, it certainly doesn't mean things are automatically better by having "no" laws, even if that's a poor way to describe implied ones.

<><><><><><>

Them: I may have misread your article, I never saw the documentary either.

It is the absolute easiest and least proved argument against anarchism. People do and have continued to beat each other to death with the presence of a deterrent of law. For me Anarchy doesn't mean to rid of all services, like food stamps or medicaid but It does mean an absence of a recognition for authority. The garbage man is an extremely important role in our society but he or she doesn't get parades or a shiny new car every few years. To me anarchy is the way of going back to our roots. Rules, morals, fine but people should have their choice of what to follow instead of being obligated to a nation by their birthplace. We may not be all being shuffled into Gulags but it's a lot more likely you will be imprisoned here than anywhere else.

Regulatory law is the problem, It is the method by which an authority has power over people in a decision that will only affect the people. Whether it is a good thing or bad thing for them doesn't really bring down my point. The point of anarchism is for the people to be the leaders of their own destinies. I know there are worse forms of government who routinely physically disrupt the lives of their citizens. To me the enforcing of rules it seems to be an obvious double standard simply because they have power and we don't. But really we do have the power because we are the power they try so miserably to corral. The problem with government is the people who don't wan't to be apart of it are forced into it by being born. Taxes were invented to take money from the people and give it to the royals. It's theft with a whole host of rhetoric in its defense, like asset seizures or mandatory minimal sentences but if you simplify it and don't look at the why's then they steal and kidnap on a regular basis in the name of the law. These things are nearly religious and not right, the people know it to be true but we have given laws this god like powerful reign over us but we don't have to. We are told that the laws keep us safe, this is a lie, the laws keep them safe and us under their thumb.

Anarchy doesn't straight up mean no rules, It is about decentralizing government and giving the ONLY voice to the people. There are things that we could volunteer to pay taxes for benefits like medical care or garbage pick up, fire departments, paramedics etc. These are professionals that are needed in an urban world but I think it's naive to think the only people who can give it to us are turkey jowled politicians spitting nonsense.

I would argue any one who makes it to this level of 'power' is not motivated solely by what is good for the people, It is simply a job in the public eye, with a sense of authority and lots of scared people trying to speak to your illustrious status via emails to a careless secretary. Don't you see that even if all the politician wanted was to better the people (Ron Paul) then eventually that person will be booted out, you will never get enough campaign money to win (every winning president spent more than his running mate, every one) and then he is replaced by the someone who follows the rules the money has set for them. It does not matter if you have a five star chef work at mcdonalds, they have to serve the menu.

<><><><><><><><><>

Me: It's important to note that I wasn't making an argument, but an analogy. You're "refutation" of that analogy seems to simply be "that's not how I define anarchy." The rest of the things you attributed to my analogy, I just need to leave be as I don't think it will help either of us for me to qualify and then dismiss myself from them.

If you want to lean more in the direction of "voluntary associations" as far as angles to approach anarchy, then I think I can understand better what you are getting at.

I seem to detect double speak when you explain what anarchy means to you. "Rules, morals, fine...instead of being obligated." A nation is a collection of individuals. It's not a physical manifestation of all that is impersonal. To say we should have rules and morals, but hold no obligations to the state seems to be trying to have it both ways. The state is people, we're obligated to people, therefore we of course abide by rules and morals.

Regulatory law regarding what? If you're talking about banking, regulatory laws help curb depressions, until they're repealed. There are certainly laws that exist at some levels that are too restrictive or unnecessarily cumbersome, but the very idea of regulating is hardly objectionable. It certainly brings down your point if you see no moral obligations in the rules you create or why you choose to uphold them.

What do you think a democracy is if not for people to vote and "rule their destinies" so to speak? A polluted or corrupted or "experiencing growing pains" democracy is still a democracy. If you feel like you don't have power, get the money out of politics, run for office, or change something at the local level. It's usually not that you don't have power, it's that you're not exercising it.

"The problem with government is the people who don't wan't to be apart of it are forced into it by being born."

No one is holding your feet to the flame, but you can hardly expect them to listen to what you're saying or respect where you're coming from when you disabuse yourself of the tools to change your tune.

I disagree that taxes, regardless of their origins, are straight up theft. Asset seizures are a different issue, as are mandatory sentencing laws. It will help me understand you to be specific and not conflate a lot of things you consider problems "with the system at large." They don't play as nicely together as I suspect you're thinking when you start to unpack them.

I never made any claim about what it is that "only... turkey jowled politicians" can or can't give us and am confused at the assertion.

I would argue that when you're speaking about politicians and whatever presumed power they have, you think about the influence of money, the definition of a democracy, and you learn specifics about more politicians. Not every one is the cliche disappointing and corrupt archetype you're painting. It's worth noting, the whole bottom paragraph I take it was meant to be speculative and not a statement of fact.

As to your McDonald's analogy, some stores are experimenting with putting kale on the menu. If enough people ask, it's viscerally obvious in this scenario how things can change.

I find it odd your general criticism of politicians and then would say Ron Paul's only wish is to better the people. I don't seek to surf Youtube right now, but I could find in about ten seconds him being backwards or ignorant about something that would objectively help people.

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Them: I think you are not giving me enough credit. The 'disorder' that precedes my definition in Websters is not based in fact, It is simply a speculation considering anarchy has never really been widely accepted or implemented. There is no way to determine the outcome of a system with out trying it so I was simply giving you a true definition of anarchy with out the speculation of what might be the outcome.

You didn't understand me. I meant that if you want to be moral or whatever then it is your choice. It is also your choice to be immoral, even with laws in place people choose to be what they consider immoral. Laws don't create morality they absolutely bastardize it. There is a word in mandarin 'Li' or 'Lee' I cannot remember the English spelling but it has many meanings. One meaning is justice, justice that is known, felt but not written. Because when we write laws to create justice we are absolutely lost. They is no justice in retaliation and a law, criminal law especially is an act of retaliation, The state vs SO and so. I tend to see that mercy triumphs over judgement.

FDA, DEA, FBI, ATF and lots more that I don't care to mention. If you are an advocate of freedom regulation is objectionable. Regulation like I need some protection from something, I don't need that. In an anarchic system the rules are more like suggestions. The people don't have to follow the laws because they are not law or they are not mandates rather. People have the right to autonomy over what happens to them. If that means ingesting moonshine with toxic levels of copper or getting fucked in the ass by a horse then it's their right. I don't want to do those things but who am I to stop someone else with some regulation that is supposedly 'moral' or somehow 'protects them from themselves'. No entity should have autonomy over another.

A vote is nothing. I have absolute autonomy. My point is that instead of being able to not partake in the system like I would prefer, I am forced into because of laws against tax evasion etc. I am exercising my power but not in a way that will get me merit and I'm really not looking for people to hop on board with me. The thing I'm trying to get at is it is everyone's own choice how their life goes, the constant intervening is unnecessary. I don't want it personally and I don't care if you do and I think you should be able to be a voting citizen but I am not looking for a vote. I know that we are all connected, even outside of our home nation. I see the ridiculousness in isolating countries from one another on a round blue orb of life. This is one earth, sure there are lots of different types of people and situations but we are all connected in a way that does not require social security cards and birth certificates. We are citizens of the world, in my opinion. lol

Disabuse myself? Change my tune?

Taxes are not always theft. Some people want to pay taxes. I was simply speaking to the origin. The politicians don't play together at all, they don't compromise without letting their egos get in the way. I don't think that they are secretly plotting against us. I think they are unwittingly digging us into a hole in attempt to get out of the one they had dug before them by their predecessor. It's become a cycle. I am simply suggesting to break the cycle that says we need a government official to speak for us or we need a regulation or law to be kept safe. I don't care if other people want to buy into it but I do not buy it.

Kale is not 5 star food lol its fucking lettuce lol.. My turkey jowl comment was an attempt at comic relief, sorry. And yes that paragraph is speculative but it doesn't really take away from the fact that some politicians are just that, some are ron pauls and most are a bit of both. My point was that they are people, not all powerful beings who can speak for nations. Even their mouths aren't large enough lol

And I know that he is backwards. Everyone. Every single one person is a bit backwards. The thing I was trying to get at with my Ron Paul example was that he really cared. I mean it may not have been always 'right' but 'what is right' a personal feeling. That's why I think everyone has the right to be completely autonomous. We can only do what is right for ourselves and when we try to go out and tell someone else something is right because the group decided it so or a dictator says or the pope says or I says.. it simply does not matter who says it because when laws are made in order to regulate the people against their will it denies their autonomy.

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Me: "You didn't understand me. I meant that if you want to be moral or whatever then it is your choice. It is also your choice to be immoral, even with laws in place people choose to be what they consider immoral."

I don't understand what this is speaking to. I also don't necessarily agree with it. "Morals" are broad and, depending on the window into history you're looking, arguably fluid. Slave owners didn't feel immoral.

"Laws don't create morality they absolutely bastardize it."

See: The freedom of the slaves. Laws codify morality. Not create, codify.

"One meaning is justice, justice that is known, felt but not written."

So how about revenge? When you can feel the life leave a body of an escaped slave. Enacting justice. Or putting a wrongly convicted person to death, to the relief of the family who refuses to think otherwise or allow for conflicting evidence.

"They is no justice in retaliation and a law, criminal law especially is an act of retaliation, The state vs SO and so. I tend to see that mercy triumphs over judgement."

So seemingly you'd agree with at least part of what I said. Presumably you'd be against a law stating, "you can't unduly retaliate by killing someone where there's any doubt." Arguably more moral than our current system in say a place like Texas. I'd need an example of "mercy triumphing over judgement" as I don't know what you're referring to.

"FDA, DEA, FBI, ATF"

I personally like the idea of someone making sure my food isn't dangerous or the drugs I take aren't going to rot me from the inside out. Do they do a perfect job? Hell no. Is the idea of their existence an affront to freedom? Hardly. Same sentiment regarding tracking crazy terrorists, or regulating guns and the violence associated with bad drug laws. I need them. I need them to be smarter, more responsible, and over-sought, but needing them is not in question.

"In an anarchic system the rules are more like suggestions."

I take it you don't work with or have kids.

"People have the right to autonomy over what happens to them."

Like the right to be duped by what's been put in their food? Like the right to deny service to minorities? Like the right to an education that doesn't call the world 6000 years old?

"No entity should have autonomy over another."

Not parents over kids, or teachers over students, or regulators over polluters?

I need you to be more specific so I know what you are seeking credit for. My initial asks about the nature of your anarchism weren't really responded to, so I feel relatively lost.

"Anarchy" means many things to many people, even from a scholarly perspective. Even trying to nail down the various permutations seems a fools errand. Your "true" definition of anarchy I still haven't heard. I've read an explanation of different dispositions you think the characters under it are supposed to have. But I don't even know whether or not I agree with your definition, as I don't feel I've read one. What I had read, I seem to have explained pretty quickly how it devolves away from "anarchy" into a system of government resembling whatever you want to call what we have now.

I've never argued that laws create morality. If you want to have a discussion about different laws or different areas in which they are implemented, fine, but it seems it's at this juncture we start to lose what we're talking about.

I'm an advocate of freedom, and I certainly don't regard "regulation," as it's now being regarded in a wide net catch-all fashion, objectionable. As I've already stated, regulations curb depressions, help in food and drug safety, mitigate trade deals and workers rights etc ad nausea. The highest regulated industries and countries have the lowest amounts of corruption and inequality. You're not being specific about which regulations you don't like or which ones overreach, perhaps pertaining to the criminal justice system, so I can't begin to agree with what you're referring to.

I would disagree a world in which I can ingest or sell poisonous moonshine is somehow better. If that person has kids, do they have the right to poison their kids? Do you have that little regard for the regulations about you attending schools, inoculations, or inhaling lead based paint? Of course there are things we need protected by, and we don't live on little islands where our decision don't impact other people. I truly have no idea why you would bolster your view by invoking poison and horse fucking.

Prove your absolute autonomy. Speed everywhere and invoke your autonomy against a ticket. Do it past a school and explain how the children you might endanger are stepping on your rights. I think you need to learn about what intervening in life has meant for other groups before you think "it's all you and about your choices." Consider black people or women and the precarious place they hold in society, let alone where they would be without someone creating and enforcing laws.

If you consider a vote "nothing" and refuse to acknowledge it or how you were give the right to one, there isn't really much else to say to you. If you truly cared to learn the history, struggle, and it's actual value and utility, maybe you'll change your mind.

"I don't think that they are secretly plotting against us. I think they are unwittingly digging us into a hole in attempt to get out of the one they had dug before them by their predecessor."

How? Qualify this. Get specific. You're just rambling otherwise throwing out and reinforcing speculation that isn't grounded.

"I don't care if other people want to buy into it but I do not buy it."

What's to buy into about civil rights? What's to buy into about what is often reported and historically documented abuses of power and overreaches of capitalism?

I didn't say kale was a 5 star food, I turned your analogy on it's head and was speaking to the power of the people, voting with their dollars or otherwise.

"We can only do what is right for ourselves and when we try to go out and tell someone else something is right because the group decided it so or a dictator says or the pope says or I says.. it simply does not matter who says it because when laws are made in order to regulate the people against their will it denies their autonomy."

This is just so small. Laws aren't implemented because a "dictator" said it, at least in this country. Nor do I want laws "because everyone said so." We learn things, we adapt to changes, and we then debate and fight about how to progress. It matters if scientists tell me my food is getting poisoned so I can tell the assholes to stop poisoning me. You wouldn't respect "my autonomy" to not be poisoned just because I'm at the long end of how my food gets to me? Or maybe the autonomy of gay people trying to get married? Or the struggle of any minority or uninformed person who relies on a larger system to even barely get by?

You're all over the map. I need a concrete definition of your anarchy. I need a law you don't like. I need a history of the vote not mattering at, especially the state and local levels as I suggested to you. I need you to respect and acknowledge analogies for what they are and the weaknesses of the ones you offered. And I need you to respect how grossly uninformed and disrespectful of why the system operates the ways it does or why people would draw the lines they do, before you offer it as anything but soap boxing speculation.

I'm sorry if that sounds disrespectful to you, but I want productive conversation, not flinging opinions without data or example and folded arm smugness. Doing things like seemingly advocating for Ron Paul while thinking everything about what he's doing is stupid and pointless because "we're citizens of the world" and "I don't need him to protect me from anything" is trying to have it both ways and incoherent to me.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Them: I'm vague because because specifications are not needed. It's about not being specific to me. It is true freedom when you don't cling to beliefs.

Anarchy can not be nailed down.

I wasn't saying that you argue laws are morals, the state does though. And I don't want to discuss specific laws because it would dilute my point that they are oppressive in their nature.

To me freedom is free of regulations.

I used poison and horse fucking because they are abhorrent. Sickening even BUT the state does not have a right to retaliate or punish someone because they decided to hurt themselves or engage in risky behavior. If you want to be baby sat, cool, that is what is already going on.

I wonder where black people would be if no one ever created laws to enslave them... Or if women were never forbidden from education, or owning land etc....

I cared, I learned, I realized that the system is cyclical. I am not going to tell you not to vote cause you have the 'right' to.. To me it just seems like you are putting faith in a system that has not worked simple because it might.

"OH NO.. THE RUSSIANS.. Let's give these guys guns and training... OH NO... THE TALIBAN, AL QAEDA, ISIS" etc.. digging holes ex.

We don't need laws to have rights.. I like the term 'inalienable rights' that is comically written in our declaration because it is how people deserve to be treated but I don't think it had to be written to be true. It was laws that segregated black people and white people before there was a law to integrate. And it's still pretty separate now, schools, neighborhoods etc. The thing I don't buy into is that the only entity that can solve our problems is the one that is charge, the very entity that created the problems in the first place.

But my analogy was not speaking to the ingredients but the capability of the chef. What I was getting at was that it does not matter how noble the politician, they have to work in a place that serves shit...

'We learn things, we adapt to changes, and we then debate and fight about how to progress'.. Progression happens naturally, there is no need to fight for it(debate is good but fight is too much. it could be debate then decide but you put it so perfectly. thanks dogg). I can grow my own food, I can shack up with who I want to and that is because I do not rely on the system. It is a matter of circumstance as to whether someone can do those things I suppose but the adverse circumstances of people do not just appear out of thin air. Excess somewhere creates lack somewhere else because we are all connected, we are one. Government has set itself against us already. I feel it's too late to change government's role so that is a major reason why I advocate for anarchy.

Anarchy to me is simple.. It's Freedom.

I don't advocate for any politician but that does not mean I do not recognize them or their career's in politics. I feel like you are also speaking your opinions, you are mostly just prodding me and I am kind of over it. I do not want it both ways but you have led the conversation into your corner. Making me try to find examples but to me It has nothing to do with examples. Your article is kind of talking about how the system is fucked up and in my original comment I was just asking for clarification on what you meant on some things you had written and ended it with a question which you dismissed as 'overly simplistic' and never really answered. This conversation is not at all productive because you just want to prove me wrong and I just came here with questions.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Me: "I wasn't saying that you argue laws are morals, the state does though."

I live in a democracy. I'm the state. The state is made of people.

"And I don't want to discuss specific laws because it would dilute my point that they are oppressive in their nature."

So you'll gloss over the law that freed the slaves?

"To me freedom is free of regulations."

Yes, like the freedom to die from poorly regulated food, or the freedom to be exploited. Upton Sinclair would be spinning.

"Sickening even BUT the state does not have a right to retaliate or punish someone because they decided to hurt themselves or engage in risky behavior."

Because...? Because the state is a collection of people voted on to create laws about animal abuse and poison? Because I, and damn near every sane person wants them to? How do they not have the right?

"I wonder where black people would be if no one ever created laws to enslave them"

This is one of those WOOOOOW statements. Like, do you know what slavery is? Enslaving. Against their will. Slaves didn't happen because someone wrote a law "go about and enslave the land." The powerful took the weak. The powerful decided for women what was going to be normal about their education or land rights. What the actual fuck...?

""To me it just seems like you are putting faith in a system that has not worked simple because it might."

I don't have "faith" in The New Deal. I have history showing that it created the middle class. Nor do I have faith in the FDA or of regulatory laws. They either work or don't as an extension of the people who choose to be responsible in their adherence and enforcement of them.

"OH NO.. THE RUSSIANS.. Let's give these guys guns and training... OH NO... THE TALIBAN, AL QAEDA, ISIS" etc.. digging holes ex."

So you have problems with our foreign policy. So do I. Unpacking the history of that policy is a fascinating and nuanced topic.

"...I don't think it had to be written to be true."

And what does it look like in every other country where they don't write out a list of rules and rights?

"It was laws that segregated black people and white people before there was a law to integrate."

You're putting the cart before the horse. People segregate themselves out of ignorance and fear. Laws, again, codify and reflect morality, THEY DO NOT CREATE IT. Is that not something you agree with?

"the very entity that created the problems in the first place."

In a democracy...that means WE created the problems.

"But my analogy was not speaking to the ingredients but the capability of the chef."

Then the chef is US in a democracy.

"Progression happens naturally..."

Are you kidding me? You say you're not a student of history. You need to try harder. Progression happens when there are rules, checks and balances, accounting, and oversight. The entire history of our species, in the last 200 years has surpassed 7 billion from less than 500 million. Nothing about curing the diseases that kept it lower for 200,000 years is "natural" in an "inevitable" way as you seem to be fantasizing.

"debate is good but fight is too much. it could be debate then decide but you put it so perfectly"

Unnecessarily nit-picking semantics here. I clearly wasn't speaking towards or advocating for something akin to fist fights in Congress.

"It is a matter of circumstance as to whether someone can do those things I suppose but the adverse circumstances of people do not just appear out of thin air."

Correct, someone, like white men, decide it is their "right" to slaughter and enslave people, they're perfectly moral in doing so, thus creating said circumstances that are impossible for someone else to escape. That is, until a higher informed moral being intervenes on their behalf and codifies their rights as well.

"Excess somewhere creates lack somewhere else because we are all connected, we are one."

How you can make this statement and the say "I have the right to poison myself" and not read your doublespeak is amazing to me. I'm giving you one to one examples of what you say that contradict each other and you don't follow? If we are one, why the hell would I advocate for your right to poison yourself? Aren't I now poisoning myself?

"Government has set itself against us already."

We are government. If you, again, disabuse yourself of the tools, your vote, your voice, then yes, I understand why things won't improve and why you think it's too late. You're correct, you've given, by definition, you've lost the game.

"Anarchy to me is simple.. It's Freedom."

Well, the parallels in "anarchy to you" and "anarchy in practice" are proving as incoherent as my first utterance. You have an incomplete, inconsistent, if not outright non-existent conception of either anarchy or freedom. I've tried at length to mock our own statements up against each other to show this to be true.

"I feel like you are also speaking your opinions, you are mostly just prodding me and I am kind of over it."

Prodding you to what? Be clear? Answer questions about what you've said? It's not fair of me to ask you to be consistent before I address something you assert?

"Making me try to find examples but to me It has nothing to do with examples."

I asked you for "an example" of your own definition for your own usage of a word. You came back with "freedom." So then we're supposed to just move on and say we're talking about freedom now, not anarchy?

"I was just asking for clarification on what you meant on some things you had written and ended it with a question which you dismissed as 'overly simplistic' and never really answered."

I said it was an overly simplistic way to state the question. Which it was. I can't answer you coherently when you don't offer a law that has committed the sin you accuse laws of. I don't think freeing slaves, for example, was a bad fix by a bad law. I do think laws relating to how we treat drugs and people who use them do often create problems. It goes both ways. I don't take your question on it's face like "that's just what laws do", have answered now again more succinctly and with an example, and asked you for an example.

"This conversation is not at all productive because you just want to prove me wrong and I just came here with questions."

Surely you understand that we must agree on terms and definitions for a question to make sense both in its asking and answering, right? If you make a statement about ALL LAWS in defiance of the Civil Rights movement or the majority of all human history, I can't just merrily skip down the road of "they're meant to be oppressive" with you. The question gets productive when you reinforce what you're saying by example and when I can't take what you're saying and put it next to what else you're saying that seems to lie in direct contradiction. I'm not proving your wrong, I've asked, probably, pushing 20 or more questions of you attempting understanding. You're reiterated in different words how you feel, not what you can provide examples or definitions of. I'd be happy to explore what you offer, if you so choose to have a productive conversation.

"I'm vague because because specifications are not needed."

This line alone I will use to hopefully justify to anyone else reading this why I'm no longer interested in discussing everything and nothing about that which "...can not be nailed down."

Until it can, we're of no use to each other.

It happens every tax season

comment by zenontherocks in funny

3 months, 2 weeks ago

You seem to not actually understand what libertarianism is. Its not the same as anarchism.

Also, both of those states have all of those things you're saying they don't. Look that up too.

My town's police K-9 died this morning. This is his caretaker/partner saying goodbye one last time.

comment by Troll_troller2 in pics

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Right once again! That is because there is no clear single "anarchism."

Hmm....wide gamut of beliefs.....but I believe that what I was citing are state regulated institutions. Governments (the state) are inherently bad and propagate dependence and ignorance. So we rely on the reason and rationality of the masses. The state is bad because it impedes our ability to live our lives exercising our free and full individual judgment. Property ownership is bad, or good, depending on who you read. Really depends on what type of anarchist you are (individual, mutual, societal, etc.).

ELI5 then how you will rule.