Tweet
Isn't that funny? We both live in the US! Crazy! 
-
Isn't that funny? We both live in the US! Crazy!
If playground rules don't apply, this is anarchy! -Kelso -
What if you choose to call that group a corporation? There are differences between states making decisions for you, capitalists making decisions for you, and making decisions for yourself.Fine. I will continue to view communism and socialism in the same light because group control is group control. I don't care what you call your group.
Interesting how a lot of other forum members don't. Isn't that the most amusing thing you've heard?Isn't that funny? We both live in the US? Crazy!
I was using "libertarianism" to explain my political ideas. It is libertarianism but socialist."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
What if you choose to call that group a corporation? There are differences between states making decisions for you, capitalists making decisions for you, and making decisions for yourself. You're just hilarious. But we're going to stop this here before everyone else gets mad at us. Sorry I continued it.
Interesting how a lot of other forum members don't. Isn't that the most amusing thing you've heard?
Yes, but when "libertarian" is referred to on this board, you know damn well what it means because most, if not all (you don't count, you're just silly), of the people who call themselves "libertarians" are using the US 2002 definition. We can't rename our party for you now. Sorry. EDIT: And I do believe that, even in the rest of the world (you know, those of us that live in this century), anarchism is thought to mean "lack of government." And that's certainly a borderline libertarian (US 2002)idea.
OK, and I'll start using "communism" to explain my political ideas because I like the way it sounds. What everyone thinks it is be damned.I was using "libertarianism" to explain my political ideas. It is libertarianism but socialist.If playground rules don't apply, this is anarchy! -KelsoComment
-
If by libertarianism, you mean a minimal government, I'm a libertarian socialist. Without a doubt."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
No. That's what I mean by "modern Conservative."If playground rules don't apply, this is anarchy! -KelsoComment
-
Or, at least, that's how they define themselves.
But I don't define libertarianism as minimal government, I define it as "lack of bad government."If playground rules don't apply, this is anarchy! -KelsoComment
-
1. You're complaining about my semantics? That's much more silly than anything I wrote.
2. How is modern conservatism possibly for the worker control of means of production, and how is modern conservatism possibly for minimial government? Those two ideas are totally antithetical to modern conservatism."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
You know the 'lack of bad government' could be provided by a benevolent dictatorship, which I thought was antithetical to libertarianism.Comment
-
Anarchy means that I can walk into your home today with a gun, shoot you dead, rape your wife and daughter if they are appealing to me, and take over your possessions. Of course, anyone else with a bigger gun can do the same thing to me.
Thus, I also doubt anarchy can survive for too long, because sooner or later some strongmen or women will come along and reestablish order.Comment
-
This discussion was played out in Afghanistan a few years ago and tyranny (the Taliban) won over anarchy (the opposition).Comment
-
What are you trying to do? Pull a counter version of the 1984 propaganda bit about Freedom being slavery?Originally posted by Boshko
anarchy is orderI make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Correct.Originally posted by Andrew1999
This discussion was played out in Afghanistan a few years ago and tyranny (the Taliban) won over anarchy (the opposition).
Also: Somalia 1989 (Tyranny) vs . Somalia 1994 (Anarchy). Which was a better place to live? Give me 1989 any day.
Libertarian 'anarchist' theory is not what we are talking about. what we are talking about is a complete collapse of authority, public at first, but inevitably private as well. eventualy authority returns for Anarchy is too terrible to bear.
Its funny to note that one does not get 'anarchist' out in areas that have actually seen anarchy. You only see them in places were Authority never falters.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Then it should've been referred to for what it is; a feudal situation. It is not anarchy.Correct.
Also: Somalia 1989 (Tyranny) vs . Somalia 1994 (Anarchy). Which was a better place to live? Give me 1989 any day.
Libertarian 'anarchist' theory is not what we are talking about.
There wasn't any private authority in Afghanistan or Somalia where warlords were rampant, terrorizing the people?what we are talking about is a complete collapse of authority, public at first, but inevitably private as well.
Seeing as how it's been decades since there were places that saw modern anarchy, that's a bit of a problem.Its funny to note that one does not get 'anarchist' out in areas that have actually seen anarchy. You only see them in places were Authority never falters.
There, of course, have always been anarchists in anarchist societies.
Order can exist without it being coercive.What are you trying to do? Pull a counter version of the 1984 propaganda bit about Freedom being slavery?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I'm amused by your obsession with the word 'anarchy'.Originally posted by Ramo
Then it should've been referred to for what it is; a feudal situation. It is not anarchy.Comment
-
Seeing as how I'm an anarchist, it's somewhat annoying having the word repeatedly misrepresented."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment