Well, hello there.

NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Well, hello there.

 Real name: Brad Reddekopp, living in Hazelton, British Columbia.  I like going by NoDeity online but I don't mean to hide behind the name.  

I've been accused of being arrogant -- my response is generally something like this: "You say that like it's a bad thing!"

I grew up in a nice Christian home, adopted the beliefs of my parents at an early age and persisted in faith well into my adulthood.  Worse yet, I was a teenage creationist -- dramatic chord -- (I got better).

I'm a strong atheist.  There are no plausible means by which gods might exist.  There is no testable evidence that should lead one to think that any god does exist.  There is nothing in reality that requires the existence of any god.  The evolution of god concepts within human cultures is quite obvious.  Conclusion:  God?  We made it up.  There ain't no such critter!

Politically, I'm an apatheticist.  I consider apathy the best approach to political theorizing/involvement/activism.  If I had to identify myself with any mainstream political movement, I'd have to decline and opt for anarchism.  Anarchism is to mainstream politics what atheism is to theology; I regard belief in the necessity or goodness of government as analogous to belief in the existence of God.  Lies that people need to get over: Jesus loves you; God has a plan for your life; the leader of your favourite political party gives a shit about people like you (unless you're rich); your vote matters.  

I'm an admirer of Ayn Rand but I've never been an Objectivist.  One of Rand's biggest mistakes was to assert that government (minimal government, but still government) is necessary for the protection of individual rights.  The reality is that government inevitably becomes the greatest violator of human rights.

Hobbies: 

1. I like both kinds of music: rock and roll (another of Rand's errors was to reject rock music).  I have a band called Axes of Ego: abasement banned.  We usually just go by Axes of Ego.  The second part of the name refers to the fact that we practice in a basement.  We do local bars and dances and such.  I'm a quiet, shy kind of guy but when we do a show I get to pretend to be outgoing, gregarious, and macho.  The band web site is www.AxesofEgo.com (in the blog there are links to some live MP3s and videos) and my old band's web site is www.BRBonline.com (I've got some of my old MP3s available for download on there).

My favourite band is Rush.

2. Cooking.  I love to get some good ingredients and let them inspire the outcome instead of simply following a recipe.  I have no formal culinary training.  I watch the Food Network to learn techniques and tricks.  This past year, I started baking bread for the first time and it's going great, if my family's reaction is a good indicator (it is -- they don't hesitate to call bullshit if it doesn't taste right).  I can almost tolerate vegetarians but I have no patience for vegans.  I eat meat, I love meat, and anyone who doesn't like it can just fuck off.  PeTA is evil.  (Please ignore the fact that I know how to cook some kick-ass vegan food.)

3. Gardening, especially when it relates to #2.  My favourite flowers to grow are nasturtiums because they're so delicious.  They have a bright, peppery flavour.  If you've never eaten one, you should.  In my garden I have three grape vines, two apple trees, black berry bushes, wild raspberries, wild saskatoon berries, soap berries, strawberries (both wild and domesticated), and probably some wild edible stuff I haven't figured out yet.

4. Webmastering.  Nothing fancy.  I try to keep it lean and mean.  I host and maintain web sites for the local minor hockey teams in our town -- www.hazeltonminorhockey.ca --, the local news-advertiser -- www.bulkleybrowser.ca (I designed the site in such a way that it's easy for the owner, a person with only basic computer skills, can easily update it weekly) --, my various personal project web sites -- eg. www.gulligo.com --, and the Graveyard of the Gods forum at www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/ (repeatedly posting that link inspired Jake to ban me from the old Atheist Network forum -- fuck you, Jake! Eye-wink -- one consequence of that experience is that we never permanently ban anyone at GOTG; our prime directive is anti-censorship).

Offering people a lack of administrative intervention doesn't seem to be very popular so GOTG isn't a very busy forum.  Most people seem to like to have someone taking care of them.  Maybe anarchism is, for the most part, doomed to failure due to most people not wanting to assume full responsibility for themselves without some kind of big brother looking out for them.  Did I mention that people suck?

5. Dogmastering.  I have a pug.  He's a very willful little dog who is inclined by nature to be dominant but who has learned to accept me as his calm/assertive pack leader (thank you Cesar Millan).  My dog is a theist and I am his god.  (It helps that he's nine years old now.  Dogs tend to mellow a bit as they age -- even pugs.)

 

(If any part of this post is not acceptable on this site, you should just delete my account or ban me right now.  Seriously.  Now.)

 

 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
 Welcome NoDeity! What a

 Welcome NoDeity! 

What a thorough introduction ~ Love it  Smiling

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brad welcome aboard!

Hi Brad welcome aboard!  Nice to meet you!!  :P

 

We must go back almost 10 years now, eh?  Maybe 8?  Oh... and as far as your curiosity as to whether you'd be able to get away with talking smack on Jake, the way I see it if you accept me for liking Jake so much I got no problem with accepting you even though you have a problem with him.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome

Welcome, welcome.

I understand being an apatheist. I am a quiet athiest myself. I slowly let people know my stand and will talk about it politely if they are interested. I do admire these active guys though, it takes a lot of time and emotional energy to fight religion.

Can't say I agree with anarchy, there are many countries in the world that are quite anarchic and they don't seem to be doing so well. I'm not a great lover of the system either. Flawed though it is, I think democracy is the best we've come up with for government. Unfortunately there are lots of selfish/stupid people in the world, so without laws and government it would all go to shit.

1. Rock and Roll, definitely, in it's many different forms. I like new sounds, but that doesn't mean I like any old shit. I like Bush, Silverchair (all through their career), Maroon 5, Birds of Tokyo, and I've recently been listening to a Japanese band called Tokyo Jihen (kind of jazz-rock).

2. Cooking is great. Cooking with my girlfriend for the two of us is a highlight. I don;t believe in meals that take all day to prepare though, there are many meals that are relatively quick and easy and delicious.

3. I enjoy gardening, but prefer to set up a low maintenance garden that won't go nuts or die during the long periods of neglect I will give it.

4. Don't know about webmastering, but we need guys like you!

5. Love the dogs. I used to have ridgebacks, very strongwilled but great. Cesar Milan is great, read his book, but it's unrealistic for someone with a real life to exercise them for the amount of time he recommends.

currently sans-canine Sad

see you round

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Very humourous intro. Big

Very humourous intro. Big welcome! 

^^^ Fans at an Axes of Ego gig (abasement banned, very punny, lol)

Seriously, I think the only thing you'll have to worry about is not breaking the forum rules. But they're pretty open; it's hard to break them, you really have to put in some effort to do it. May be tough for an anarchist to take, but personally I think a few ground-rules can be a very useful thing for keeping communication open and honest (you do realize we get a lot of dicks who would love nothing more than to spooge over rational discussion, eh?). BTW, I'm not a mod or anything, this is just my personal take on things.

Aside from that, I think you'll find lots of people with similar ideas as you. So, welcome!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Welcome.

Welcome. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Hello to you, too.  A

  Hello to you, too.  A very well written introduction, btw.   They're generally pretty cool here, just don't back and repeated edit your posts....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Thanks everyone for the

Thanks everyone for the welcome.  I think I could like it here.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Dude, I don't know how I

Dude, I don't know how I missed this thread before. Even so, there are some cool beans here.

 

I play bass myself. My main instrument is a Schecter Custom 5 with two soap bars and when I switch it is usually to my early 90's Fender 4 P+J. I* also have a Peavey millennium 5 J+J that I recently put Elixer Nanowebs on.

 

My huge power rig is:

 

Groove Tubes Trio (5 * 12AX7 tubes)>Boss GT Pro>Hartke HA 5500 (500 watts @ 4 ohms)>Genz-Benz Neox 2x12 (4 ohms).

 

I use a Hartke 120x15 kickback mainly as a monitor but also for gigs where big amps tend to come out.

 

For real gigs, I have a Marshall MG series 30x12. The digital effect on it are full of suck and fail but I have plenty of effects outboard for that anyway.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Dude, I don't know how I missed this thread before. Even so, there are some cool beans here.

Well, I only posted it last night. Eye-wink

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I play bass myself. My main instrument is a Schecter Custom 5 with two soap bars and when I switch it is usually to my early 90's Fender 4 P+J. I* also have a Peavey millennium 5 J+J that I recently put Elixer Nanowebs on.

 

My huge power rig is:

 

Groove Tubes Trio (5 * 12AX7 tubes)>Boss GT Pro>Hartke HA 5500 (500 watts @ 4 ohms)>Genz-Benz Neox 2x12 (4 ohms).

 

I use a Hartke 120x15 kickback mainly as a monitor but also for gigs where big amps tend to come out.

My gear is relatively modest.  My amp is a Fender Princeton 65.  The two guitars I mostly use are a Les Paul copy (made by Typhoon) and a semi-acoustic Ovation, which is a copy of an old hollow-body Gibson.  The Ovation has f-holes and the back is wooden and only slightly curved -- when people hear the name "Ovation", they usually think of those big fibreglass-backed acoustic guitars.  I keep the Ovation tuned to an open G and use it for slide.  I had a friend make me a couple of slides from wine bottle necks.

I don't use a lot of effects -- mostly just some delay and a bit of overdrive.  I have two different kinds of chorus pedals but I almost never use them -- I think over ODed on chorus in the '80s. Eye-wink

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
For real gigs, I have a Marshall MG series 30x12. The digital effect on it are full of suck and fail but I have plenty of effects outboard for that anyway.

 

Yeah, I've never met onboard effects that I like to use, except for the reverb and using the gain for overdrive.  I use the old-school stomp boxes.  The other guitar player in the band has one of those multi-effect units.  Seems like a pain in the ass to me -- the effects unit, I mean, not the player...

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
*listens to "Farrah Fawcett

*listens to "Farrah Fawcett Hair"*

Welcome and thanks for the free music.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi there, NoDeity

NoDeity wrote:

Thanks everyone for the welcome.  I think I could like it here.

 

Nice talking to you - I'm pretty new here myself and I think you'll like it here, too.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome.

Welcome.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:*listens to

Anonymouse wrote:

*listens to "Farrah Fawcett Hair"*

Welcome and thanks for the free music.

I hope you enjoy it.  I hope to do some new recordings soon.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the Machine

 I'm sure that this will be a good place for you to stretch (Your mind ) That was a good intro, I too consider myself a anarchist ( did you ever read Noam Chomsky on Anarchism ) a must read . Check out  Zcommunications.org  I don't like Ayn Rand's work ,I think of her as the architect of modern greed (former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan is a fan of her capitalist outlook) My favorite music is Jimi Hendrix with the Band of Gypsies.I also had a small neighbor hood garden (before my motorcycle accident ) I really dug planting and growing a lot of my own food.

Signature ? How ?


Qualinesta
atheist
Qualinesta's picture
Posts: 40
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I've never seen Jake

Wow, I've never seen Jake ban anybody for being less than a total douchebag (and even THEN he holds back until other people bitch about it too much)!

Anywho, howdy. Smiling

"TRBB - Changing the attitude of the forums one thread at a time." - KSti


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Well, either I was being a

Well, either I was being a total douchebag or Jake has mellowed a bit since then.  It must have been at least ten years ago, I'd think.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote: Can't say

ronin-dog wrote:
 Can't say I agree with anarchy, there are many countries in the world that are quite anarchic and they don't seem to be doing so well. I'm not a great lover of the system either. Flawed though it is, I think democracy is the best we've come up with for government. 

Although I am loath to enter into political discussions these days, I need to point out that anarchistic political philosophy is not about chaos and the absence of commonly agreed on social rules.  Rather, it's about the idea that people are able to organize themselves socially without a coercive government forcing them to do so.  It's analogous to the idea that people can be good without the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell.

If you've ever taken the time to argue with creationists, you've probably noticed that they usually oppose evolution without having an adequate understand of what evolution is actually about.  I've noticed something similar about those who reject anarchism.  So, please, if you're going to argue against anarchism, take the time to learn something about it.  If you're honestly interested, here are a few good places to start:

 

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://mises.org/

http://www.audioanarchy.org/

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

http://www.agorism.info/

http://www.marketanarchy.com/

http://www.anti-state.com/

 

Democracy?  Let's just say that I have recovered from the illusion that my vote matters and that I have stopped believing that the popularity of an idea makes it legitimate or right.

 

 

ronin-dog wrote:
 Unfortunately there are lots of selfish/stupid people in the world, so without laws and government it would all go to shit. 

If most people cannot be trusted to rule themselves and to cooperate with their neighbors so as to create a decent society, then how can those same people be trusted to elect rulers who will enforce the development of a decent society?  Similarly, if people are generally too stupid or too evil to be trusted to rule themselves, then who is it that gets elected to rule?

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:Well, either I

NoDeity wrote:

Well, either I was being a total douchebag or Jake has mellowed a bit since then.  It must have been at least ten years ago, I'd think.

Maybe there's a third option somewhere, because Jake is about the same level of mellow today that he is now.  He still takes it personally if someone calls him a liar, since he's not one.  That's what Franc did, then Franc became part of Graveyard of the Gods.  So he didn't like Franc, I guess you were guilty by association or something.  I don't remember your involvement.  But I do know he doesn't mention it.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
My bad

I admit I don't know that much about anarchistic political philosophy, so I shouldn't comment on it.

I always thought anarchy was just about raw anarchy... But I have more respect for it now.

"If most people cannot be trusted to rule themselves and to cooperate with their neighbors so as to create a decent society, then how can those same people be trusted to elect rulers who will enforce the development of a decent society?  Similarly, if people are generally too stupid or too evil to be trusted to rule themselves, then who is it that gets elected to rule?"

Very true.. I did say it is flawed. However the nations with the highest standards of living in the world and the most equality and fairness are democratic countries. Yes it is fat, corrupt, full of idiots, they expoit etc, but over all we get a cushier, more stable life out of it.

"Democracy?  Let's just say that I have recovered from the illusion that my vote matters and that I have stopped believing that the popularity of an idea makes it legitimate or right."

one vote does not matter, but lots of one votes does. And if you don't vote it is the pasionate crazies and fundamentalists electing all of the leaders and the leaders will do what they want because they vote.

The idea is not necessarily vote for the person that you think is great (when have you ever seen a politician like that?), the idea is to vote out the biggest idiot.

I don't care which way people vote, but I think that voting earns you the right to bitch about the government.

 

Anyway...

The main idea was: Welcome!!

 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:NoDeity

Sapient wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

Well, either I was being a total douchebag or Jake has mellowed a bit since then.  It must have been at least ten years ago, I'd think.

Maybe there's a third option somewhere, because Jake is about the same level of mellow today that he is now.  He still takes it personally if someone calls him a liar, since he's not one.  That's what Franc did, then Franc became part of Graveyard of the Gods.  So he didn't like Franc, I guess you were guilty by association or something.  I don't remember your involvement.  But I do know he doesn't mention it.

Yeah, I almost never mention it.  However, it's part of the history of the origin of the Graveyard so it does come up in that context.  Honestly, I don't hold a grudge against Jake anymore.  Life's too short for that.  The emoticon after the "fuck you Jake" was intended to indicate that it was in jest.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:I admit I

ronin-dog wrote:

I admit I don't know that much about anarchistic political philosophy, so I shouldn't comment on it.

I always thought anarchy was just about raw anarchy... But I have more respect for it now.

Most people don't know much about it.  They usually equate anarchy with chaos and, when they think of anarchists, they think of masked rioters looting stores and flipping cars.  They seem to be unaware of the large body of serious thought that has gone into anarchist theory over the years. 


ronin-dog wrote:
Anyway...

The main idea was: Welcome!! 

Thanks. Smiling

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:Most people

NoDeity wrote:

Most people don't know much about it.  They usually equate anarchy with chaos and, when they think of anarchists, they think of masked rioters looting stores and flipping cars.  They seem to be unaware of the large body of serious thought that has gone into anarchist theory over the years. 

What I don't like about intellectual anarchism as you're describing is that they don't seem to have satisfying answers when I or others ask them about what happens when you have assholes who want to exploit others and how you prevent that. Market anarchists, for example, don't have an explanation of how to prevent the rise of monopolistic plutocratic monarchs. If you're surrounded on all sides by McMicromart Depot, and they decide to cut off your water supply, what can you do but die or fight a doomed battle?

Anarchism seems to me to *assume* that all government is bad, but their proposed solutions seem to require inventing self-imposed government, without calling it 'government'. It seems to me they simply haven't made a convincing case. I've never seen one anyway. IMHO.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
That pretty well fits with

That pretty well fits with my views. Self government is all well and good in theory, but there are far too many despots throughout history to be able to conceive of a way to protect against them. How would anarchist societies defend against a conglomerate like Wal Mart (merely an example of a corporate structure with the resources to pull something like this off) who buys everything until it owns everything, let alone a maniac like Hitler (another example) who just takes it by force?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
In other words, how do you

In other words, how do you resist that which acts exactly like a government? 

I'd guess that the methods would be the same as those for getting rid of government: by violent or by non-violent means. I favour the non-violent, since it seems to me that violent revolution tends to turn the revolutionaries into the same sort of critters as those whom they're trying to oust.

At this time, combining Voluntaryist and Agorist methods seem to me to be the best option.

Voluntaryists "seek [...] to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends." -- from http://www.voluntaryist.co
m/

Agorists favour the development of grey markets and black markets to undermine the state (and corporate -- states and corporations are bedmates) monopolies on the provision of security and law services. See http://agorism.info/

These are not instant solutions, of course. 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:In other

NoDeity wrote:



In other words, how do you resist that which acts exactly like a government?



Again, the assumption that all governments are equally bad. Monarchy is different from democracy, even if democracy is also flawed.



Quote:
Voluntaryists "seek ... to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends." -- from http://www.voluntaryist.com/




This one sounds the closest to something I could accept. Only thing is, how do the Voluntaryists compete non-violently against a democratic government which already provides for the basic social needs of its populace (i.e. better than it does today; an improved democracy)? Against a totalitarian gov't that enforces authority by explicit force? It seems to me that they need to develop their own 'laws' by which they maintain cooperation within the group. How do the voluntaryists stop the rise of a Hitler, especially one within their ranks? Who's to say who the 'real' Voluntaryists are, if there's no group enforcement of identity (i.e. government)? How do they propagate education to the next generation if some parents want to teach their kids an anti-voluntaryist ideology? In other words, won't the Voluntaryists have to govern themselves?



Honestly, this is the closest thing to my current ideas, but I'm in favour of developing a robust system of government which addresses the real problems of today's gov'ts. I think if you just leave gov't as strictly a personal choice, and not somehow explicitly propagated/defended, the whole thing can't really hang together. It will degenerate as assholes try to exploit others. There will always be assholes.



Quote:
Agorists favour the development of grey markets and black markets to undermine the state (and corporate -- states and corporations are bedmates) monopolies on the provision of security and law services. See http://agorism.info/





Yeah, sounds like mercenary armies to me. Don't think I would touch that with a thousand foot pole.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Looking at the site, I see

Looking at the site, I see they have a libertarian bent. I'm more on the social democracy side of things. Ideally, I see gov't as a way of stabilizing conflict, improving quality of life, maximizing freedom. To me, government is just a system of rules. Different systems have different consequences. I don't see the anarchists making convincing cases that a) they have an alternative to rules; they just invent self-imposed rules b) proving that all explicit systems of rules are necessarily bad.

I'm a programmer. If I wanted, I could write a computer virus, or I could write a useful tool. I prefer the latter. I hear anarchists as saying, "All programs are viruses." I just don't get it. Just because all current gov'ts have flaws and corruptions doesn't mean they are all equally bad, nor that they are worse than no gov't. Anarchists seem to be saying, "Let's not have programs, let's have each person voluntarily choose to write their own algorithms on their own computers." But an algorithm is a program. And if each person writes their own, how do you ensure that there is protection against viruses?

Democracy can actually be improved. There are many possibilities. Ever looked into Condorcet methods of voting? They provide better 'will of the people' than our current 'first past the post' methods. Say there was a group of people who decided to follow the voluntaryist method of non-violent non-cooperation, and they decided that in their group they would resolve conflicts of opinion with a condorcet system of voting. This is clearly a form of gov't. How would an anarchist reply to this? Would they say that's wrong? I don't think it's wrong. I just think it's a system for improving cooperation within a group. It's a group governing itself. Not all government is evil. And some are better than others. IMHO.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well natural, take

Well natural, take programming as an example.

 

Seriously, peel back to the early 60's and look at how programming went back then. Pretty much everyone would write their own code for any given task. However, when different people wrote code for the same thing, they would then share and compare what they came up with and the community of programmers would then agree on which version was best.

 

After that, if there came to be a few ways to get the same job done, the shared code base could be looked at by everyone and it was not all that abnormal for someone to look at a few different methods for doing something and merge the different methods to make an even better algorithm.

 

What came from that eventually turned into well structured and commented OOP code. No government with functionary clerks was needed to make that happen. The community of programmers took what was going on and came to agreements on what parts of programming were chaotic and needed to be done differently.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:   Answers in

NoDeity wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Dude, I don't know how I missed this thread before. Even so, there are some cool beans here.

 

Well, I only posted it last night. Eye-wink

 

Yah, that was my mistake. I figured that your introduction thread would have been a bit older. Oh well.

 

NoDeity wrote:
My gear is relatively modest.

 

Yah, I could wish that I could claim that. I suppose that I am a bit of a gear head. Even so, I got all of that gear one bit at a time by trying to fix individual problems. For example, when I first started working with other people, we were all using small amps that were fine for the living room. Then we ended up with my first guitarist from hell (GFH from here). He insisted on showing up with a 300 watt amp and playing into 6x10 and too damned loud. Because of him, I have the 120x15 combo.

 

Later I had to deal with a different GFH. He actually taught me a good bit of stuff but he had a bad attitude towards bass. He thought that bass only existed for the rest of the band but it had to be kept from the audience so that he could be “the guy”.

 

In dealing with him, I ended up spending USD $1,000 on the half stack, only to find out that he was using an HPF on his camera to remove my sound from all recordings. Fucker.

 

More recently, I got the Marshall combo as an amp that I could carry easily. Several blocks with an axe on my back if need be.

 

NoDeity wrote:
I don't use a lot of effects -- mostly just some delay and a bit of overdrive. I have two different kinds of chorus pedals but I almost never use them -- I think over ODed on chorus in the '80s. Eye-wink

 

Yeah, I've never met onboard effects that I like to use, except for the reverb and using the gain for overdrive. I use the old-school stomp boxes. The other guitar player in the band has one of those multi-effect units. Seems like a pain in the ass to me -- the effects unit, I mean, not the player...

 

On that, I tend to agree with you. What effects I do use, I tend to keep them turned down. The whole “all knobs on 10” thing is way overdone unless you are doing metal or industrial. Since you mentioned that you like to cook, let me use that as the comparison.

 

To me, effects are like spices. If the food under the spices is good, then spices can make it better. However, if the food is not good, then the spices only make poor food spicy.

 

BTW: in my family, everyone who is tall enough to stand in front of the stove is old enough to learn how to cook. Hence, I happen to have more years cooking that most of the chefs on the cooking channel have being alive. But I digress...

 

I also agree with you that chorus is the least useful effect. Honestly, I can't even hear it unless it is maxed out, which, of course I don't much care for.

 

As far as the Boss GT-PRO, I got that because my BOSS ME50B, while really good, had limitations that I wanted to get past. The ME50B has some good effect but it also has only three foot switches. Each foot switch can be on or off but then it controls a dozen or more effects. Also, the topology is fixed at one thing.

 

It has a crapload of stuff but getting to each thing is pretty hard to do and impossible in too many cases.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
AIGS, you're totally missing

AIGS, you're totally missing the metaphor. The code IS the gov't. I'm not saying we need a gov't to make the code, I'm saying the gov't IS the code. The rules we set up to govern society are just rules (code). They can be bad rules (virus) or good rules (useful tool). Not all gov'ts are bad (viruses). That's point #1. Point #2 is that anarchists sound to me like they are saying that we need to do away with all formal rules for running society (code), but then when we ask them how do you keep out the bad guys (viruses; those who have their own rules, and the rules are bad), they tell me that we have to cooperate according to various principles and/or contracts, what have you. But these are just rules themselves (code). So in the end they rely on self-government anyway. They have no alternative to explicit government except euphemisms for government, without actually calling it 'government'.

I'm saying why not just come clean and say we want to reform bad government with good government. After all, it's just rules.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: To me,

natural wrote:
To me, government is just a system of rules.

In my experience, using non-standard definitions generally doesn't contribute usefully to a discussion.  Government is an organization claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a specified territory.

 

natural wrote:
  I don't see the anarchists making convincing cases that a) they have an alternative to rules;

Straw man.  Anarchists don't claim to have an alternative to rules.

 

natural wrote:
they just invent self-imposed rules b) proving that all explicit systems of rules are necessarily bad.

In one of my previous messages, I compared those who argue against anarchism without having a decent understanding of it to creationists who argue against evolution without knowing much about what evolution is actually about.  That's what you seem to be doing here.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
What came from that eventually turned into well structured and commented OOP code. No government with functionary clerks was needed to make that happen. The community of programmers took what was going on and came to agreements on what parts of programming were chaotic and needed to be done differently. 

 

That's a pretty neat example.

Even with a fairly strong government in place, nearly all of our interactions in day-to-day life depend not on the threat of enforcement but on voluntary cooperation and mutually agreed-upon rules and conventions.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: The rules we

natural wrote:
The rules we set up to govern society are just rules (code).

That's the fatal flaw in your analogy and it is a consequence of your having made up your own definition of government.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

NoDeity wrote:
My gear is relatively modest.

 

Yah, I could wish that I could claim that. I suppose that I am a bit of a gear head. Even so, I got all of that gear one bit at a time by trying to fix individual problems. For example, when I first started working with other people, we were all using small amps that were fine for the living room. Then we ended up with my first guitarist from hell (GFH from here). He insisted on showing up with a 300 watt amp and playing into 6x10 and too damned loud. Because of him, I have the 120x15 combo.

lol  I think most of us were into playing too loud at some point.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Later I had to deal with a different GFH. He actually taught me a good bit of stuff but he had a bad attitude towards bass. He thought that bass only existed for the rest of the band but it had to be kept from the audience so that he could be “the guy”.

 

In dealing with him, I ended up spending USD $1,000 on the half stack, only to find out that he was using an HPF on his camera to remove my sound from all recordings. Fucker.

I rely on having a good, solid bass player.  That's the foundation on which I build what I do with the guitar.  In order to make the band sound good, one of the first things I check is whether or not the bass is loud enough.

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
NoDeity wrote:
I don't use a lot of effects -- mostly just some delay and a bit of overdrive. I have two different kinds of chorus pedals but I almost never use them -- I think over ODed on chorus in the '80s. Eye-wink

 

Yeah, I've never met onboard effects that I like to use, except for the reverb and using the gain for overdrive. I use the old-school stomp boxes. The other guitar player in the band has one of those multi-effect units. Seems like a pain in the ass to me -- the effects unit, I mean, not the player...

 

On that, I tend to agree with you. What effects I do use, I tend to keep them turned down. The whole “all knobs on 10” thing is way overdone unless you are doing metal or industrial. Since you mentioned that you like to cook, let me use that as the comparison.

 

To me, effects are like spices. If the food under the spices is good, then spices can make it better. However, if the food is not good, then the spices only make poor food spicy.

Good analogy.  I like that.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I also agree with you that chorus is the least useful effect. Honestly, I can't even hear it unless it is maxed out, which, of course I don't much care for.

 

As far as the Boss GT-PRO, I got that because my BOSS ME50B, while really good, had limitations that I wanted to get past. The ME50B has some good effect but it also has only three foot switches. Each foot switch can be on or off but then it controls a dozen or more effects. Also, the topology is fixed at one thing.

 

It has a crapload of stuff but getting to each thing is pretty hard to do and impossible in too many cases.

My bass player has a multi-effects unit but he only uses a few of them so it's not a hassle.  We have a pretty standard rock sound so he doesn't need a lot of effects.

He recently acquired a double bass (upright bass) that he uses in a little jazz combo he's also part of.  We've been hired to do an acoustic set at a house part in a couple of months so he'll use that there.  This'll be a first for us -- an interesting changer of pace, I think.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:natural wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

natural wrote:
To me, government is just a system of rules.

In my experience, using non-standard definitions generally doesn't contribute usefully to a discussion.  Government is an organization claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a specified territory.

That's the definition favoured by anarchists, but it's not the only one. My definition as a set of rules for running society is just as legitimate. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/government

Quote:
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the system or form by which a community, etc., is ruled

By the way, on the same page, anarchism:

Quote:
1. a political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals.

Still don't see how anarchists solve the problem of keeping assholes in check.

Quote:
natural wrote:
  I don't see the anarchists making convincing cases that a) they have an alternative to rules;

Straw man.  Anarchists don't claim to have an alternative to rules.

According to my definition of gov't, and the anarchists claiming to want to get rid of gov't, and the failure to provide a method for keeping assholes in check, my point stands. They don't have an alternative to the rule of government.

Quote:
natural wrote:
they just invent self-imposed rules b) proving that all explicit systems of rules are necessarily bad.

In one of my previous messages, I compared those who argue against anarchism without having a decent understanding of it to creationists who argue against evolution without knowing much about what evolution is actually about.  That's what you seem to be doing here.

Evolution has evidence to support it. Big difference. The only thing I have to go by with anarchism is what arguments they make in the absence of any evidence. If they can't make a good argument, that's not my problem. I have yet to see a good argument. Why don't you propose one here?

Since you brought up evolution, let me explain how this situation looks to me. It looks very similar to the intelligent design argument: "Look at all the flaws in the theory of evolution! God must have done it!" Unfortunately, that's not a scientific theory. It's not even a rational argument. The anarchist argument appears to me like this: "Look at all the flaws in today's governments! Anarchy must be the way!" Same thing. No evidence. Not even a rational argument.

Until I see a good argument, especially one that explains how to keep assholes in check, I'm going to have to score the game: Democracy 1, Anarchy 0.

I've examined many claims/arguments by many anarchists. I have always found them lacking. If you have a better argument, I'm listening. Specifically, I'm looking for ways to keep assholes in check. That is a game deciding question for me. Failure to explain that means failure for anarchy in my eyes.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:natural wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

natural wrote:
The rules we set up to govern society are just rules (code).

That's the fatal flaw in your analogy and it is a consequence of your having made up your own definition of government.

Still waiting for an explanation of how anarchists keep assholes in check.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: Still don't

natural wrote:
Still don't see how anarchists solve the problem of keeping assholes in check.

That's because you've not made a decent effort to understand anarchism before writing in opposition to it.  I'm not willing to tutor you.

natural wrote:
Quote:
natural wrote:
  I don't see the anarchists making convincing cases that a) they have an alternative to rules;

Straw man.  Anarchists don't claim to have an alternative to rules.

According to my definition of gov't, and the anarchists claiming to want to get rid of gov't, and the failure to provide a method for keeping assholes in check, my point stands. They don't have an alternative to the rule of government.

Think, man.  Think!  If anarchists say they are opposed to government, they are very obviously telling you that they are opposed to government as they define it.  If you choose to use some alternate definition of government, then you're not arguing against what anarchists are saying.

 

natural wrote:
Quote:
In one of my previous messages, I compared those who argue against anarchism without having a decent understanding of it to creationists who argue against evolution without knowing much about what evolution is actually about.  That's what you seem to be doing here.

Evolution has evidence to support it. Big difference.

Irrelevant.  You're arguing against a set of ideas without understanding those ideas very well and that is the relevant similarity.

 

natural wrote:
The only thing I have to go by with anarchism is what arguments they make in the absence of any evidence. If they can't make a good argument, that's not my problem. I have yet to see a good argument. Why don't you propose one here?

Why should I?  You have not given any indication that you are prepared to argue knowledgeably or fairly.  Go educate yourself.  If you're not willing to do that, then stop expecting me to deal with your ignorance for you.  I've got better things to do.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:NoDeity

natural wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

natural wrote:
The rules we set up to govern society are just rules (code).

That's the fatal flaw in your analogy and it is a consequence of your having made up your own definition of government.

Still waiting for an explanation of how anarchists keep assholes in check.

That you have no answer to that is due to your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the basics before arguing against anarchism.  Until you show that you are willing to make such an effort, I'll waste no more time responding to you.  I have little patience for wilful ignorance.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:natural wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

natural wrote:
Still don't see how anarchists solve the problem of keeping assholes in check.

That's because you've not made a decent effort to understand anarchism before writing in opposition to it.  I'm not willing to tutor you.

I've heard that many times. And still have not heard or read any good arguments for this crucial issue. If they existed they should be easy to recite, summarize, link to, whatever. None so far. I'm not the only person who has this problem with anarchism.

Quote:
Think, man.  Think!  If anarchists say they are opposed to government, they are very obviously telling you that they are opposed to government as they define it.  If you choose to use some alternate definition of government, then you're not arguing against what anarchists are saying.

Look, the def'n anarchists use is a mischaracterization of gov't. It makes gov'ts appear to be a monolithic 'other'. But in a well-run democracy, the 'other' isn't an 'other' it is the people themselves, simply deciding on which rules they want to use to run their society.

As far as I know, anarchists are against democracy as well, even the well-run kind.

As an alternative to this kind of 'explicit' government, they propose that people should self-impose their own rules, "But don't you dare call that 'government'! It's anarchy, man."

Now, there's two ways this can go. Either the self-imposed rules deals with the issue of assholes, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I don't want anarchy. If it does, then the anarchists are just proposing government (as I define it, a set of rules to run society) without using the name 'government'.

All because they have this twisted definition of 'government' which seems like this giant monster. But not all governments are like that.

That is my entire point.

And you could easily refute the whole thing by pointing to a rational argument which shows how to deal with assholes without 'government'. In other words, better than a well-run democracy.

Quote:

natural wrote:
The only thing I have to go by with anarchism is what arguments they make in the absence of any evidence. If they can't make a good argument, that's not my problem. I have yet to see a good argument. Why don't you propose one here?

Why should I?  You have not given any indication that you are prepared to argue knowledgeably or fairly.  Go educate yourself.  If you're not willing to do that, then stop expecting me to deal with your ignorance for you.  I've got better things to do.

So go do them. No one's forcing you to continue to reply. I have stated my position. That is all. You seem to want to defend anarchism, so it's natural for me to suggest a way that would convince me of its merits: Show me how they deal with assholes. If you don't want to do that, why are you arguing with me?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:Quote:Still

NoDeity wrote:
Quote:

Still waiting for an explanation of how anarchists keep assholes in check.

That you have no answer to that is due to your unwillingness to familiarize yourself with the basics before arguing against anarchism.  Until you show that you are willing to make such an effort, I'll waste no more time responding to you.  I have little patience for wilful ignorance.

I've seen dozens of arguments for theism. None of them are convincing. I'm unconvinced of theism. What would convince me is a convincing argument. But I don't study theology because I see it as entirely missing the point because they can't prove the necessity of god in the first place.

I've seen dozens of arguments for anarchism. None of them are convincing. I'm unconvinced of anarchism. What would convince me is a convincing argument. But I don't study anarchism because I see it as entirely missing the point because they can't prove the necessity of anarchism in the first place.

The two situations are entirely analogous. You presume I don't know anything about anarchism. I do. I'm just not convinced. All the anarchism sites and arguments and video debates I've seen fail to address the crucial issue of dealing with assholes. Until I see something resembling a rational argument dealing with that issue, I consider anarchism on par with theology.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: All the

natural wrote:
All the anarchism sites and arguments and video debates I've seen fail to address the crucial issue of dealing with assholes. 

Then it is pretty obvious to me that you haven't made much of an effort to find out about it.

Look, I'm not here to convert anyone to anarchism.  I very honestly don't give a shit about whether or not you think anarchism is legitimate or respectable.  In my opening post, I described myself as politically apathetic.  I meant that.  I don't care enough about the topic to put a lot of effort into answering the questions of someone who has chosen to remain ignorant about the topic.  If you really want to discuss this with someone who is willing to put some work into it, I suggest that you find yourself an anarchist board and discuss it there.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of my discussion about this with you. 

Obviously, you are free to paint my refusal any way you want.  I am unconcerned about that.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote: As far as I'm

NoDeity wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of my discussion about this with you.

Oops.  I wasn't paying attention and forgot that I already said something to that effect.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
No worries. As I said, I was

No worries. As I said, I was only stating my position and replying to replies about it.

For the record, the asshole question is my standard question to anarchists. Never got a solid answer. When we get an anarchist coming on here in the future to debate anarchism, I will pose the same question as usual. I hope you'll take note if they fail to answer rationally. Maybe I've just never come across an anarchist who is willing to defend an answer. Maybe I've just never come across a theist who can defend theism. It's possible. I just doubt it.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
If you're going to ask the

If you're going to ask the question, you should at least make some effort to read what has already been written about it from an anarchist perspective -- and there's a lot of it.  I'll give you a couple of links and then I'll leave it at that.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp  (there's a forum at mises.org if you want to discuss it further)

 

Here are a couple of pages of links dealing with questions relating to policing and courts and such:

http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/studies.htm#F4

http://www.insolitology.com/simplyanarchy/studies.htm#F4Z

 

 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK natural, I really don't

OK natural, I really don't think that you are even trying to hear what is being said. Rather, I see a few strawmen in your position. Apart from noting that fact, let me move on.

 

You want to know how anarchism deals with assholes? To a major degree it doesn't even have to. Honestly, what I am talking about here is not chaos. Rather it is about structured society developing out of shared needs.

 

There is a great programmers model for anarchy. Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Firefox, Open Office and Ubuntu are all open source. You can grab the source code and tweak it all to hell.

 

The bad ideas are marginalized and the good ideas tend to go into the beta versions until conflicts with other good ideas are resolved. Then what is left becomes the next numbered version.

 

Against that, how does democracy deal with assholes?

 

If you compare democracy with monarchy and communism, then I grant your point.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity

NoDeity wrote:

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp  (there's a forum at mises.org if you want to discuss it further)

I'll pick a few promising ones and see if they answer my specific scenarios. Will take some reading.

In the mean time, the first link gives me a 404. I looked around but could only find them selling the physical book. Couldn't find Chapter 13 online there.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Evolution refutes you. Good

Evolution refutes you. Good and bad are irrelevant. All that matters is successful strategies. Hitler was very successful. The fact of the matter is that by its very nature there is no defense mechanism for anarchy against internal and external forces. I have studied it a lot, and it's a simple fact. You can presume that everyone's going to work together like programmers working on code, but it's wishful thinking. I have yet to see a single strategy from anarchists to prevent their own end. Yes, every political philosophy suffers from the potential to be affected by changes that radically change the society, but anarchism can't even stop it short term. At least democracy forces the majority of voters to agree with the change. With anarchy it can come from a minority which just happened to get a leg up on the competition, which can happen at any given moment.
Now maybe an anarchist has come up with such a strategy. But as Oxfords companion to philosophy says:

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
"there is no single defining

"there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."

Not even anarchists agree on anarchism. And it's supposed to be superior when it isn't even agreed upon between anarchists?

To be fair, there are a couple of forms that appear to be capable of providing a defense, but I would argue that they are ignoring the very definition of the word anarchism, and are in opposition to certain styles of government without even realising how similar they are. Collectivist anarchism for example is nothing more than socialism with a different name. It's almost as if there is an emotional attachment to the term anarchy without the simple acceptance that you need a powerful government in order to defeat a powerful opponent. The only thing that needs to be ensured is that the voting populace has more power than the government. Which is where a restructured democracy comes to play.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
A democracy where the people

A democracy where the people have say on the propositions of politicians, instead of on the politicians themselves. A democracy with an educated public, instead of one fed propaganda. A democracy where if the people don't vote, the vote is no by default. A democracy that lays out quite clearly that there are some things almost everyone can agree on, and that those should be constitutional (eg: murder, rape, assault, education). Yet recognises that other things may never be agreed on, and that they should be regional to protect minorities from the majority (eg: abortion, traffic, language, smoking).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK natural, I really don't think that you are even trying to hear what is being said. Rather, I see a few strawmen in your position. Apart from noting that fact, let me move on.

I could easily say the same to you. But let's move on.

Quote:
You want to know how anarchism deals with assholes? To a major degree it doesn't even have to. Honestly, what I am talking about here is not chaos. Rather it is about structured society developing out of shared needs.

How is this different/better than government as I define it (system of rules to run society) today?

Quote:
There is a great programmers model for anarchy. Free Open Source Software (FOSS). Firefox, Open Office and Ubuntu are all open source. You can grab the source code and tweak it all to hell.

Even FOSS has rules and government. They don't allow random hackers to insert viruses into Linux, for example. Why not? Because they have rules and procedures for preventing it. Rules that everyone must follow. Government. Many FOSS projects even call it 'government'. They have voting procedures and everything.

In the end, they also rely on the national gov'ts to enforce copyright law, so MS can't steal their code.

Quote:
Against that, how does democracy deal with assholes?

Fine them, put them on probation, put them in jail. The better democracies even try things like education, socialization, and rehabilitation programs, such as teaching them practical and employable work skills so that when they leave detention they can pursue a money making career instead of resorting back to crime.

Democracy is not perfect. It has major flaws. Some assholes are not dealt with effectively. But it is still better than the systems I've seen proposed by anarchists, in my eyes. Some democracies are better than others, and they have methods (again, flawed, but they can work) to improve themselves.

Quote:
If you compare democracy with monarchy and communism, then I grant your point.

Okay. Now also compare different democracies around the world. The US is actually one of the worst, in terms of quality of life for the people. The way they deal with crime is horrendous. High poverty, poor education, actually breeds crime. But I don't use the US as a model, except for certain things like freedom of speech. I use better democracies like Canada (still far from perfect, but better than the US, IMHO) and several countries in Europe and Scandinavia.

I don't think any of these are perfect or cannot be drastically improved upon. I see them only as systems of rules, and I know it is possible to fix bugs and even drastically improve internal architecture in systems of rules. I do it all the time in my work. We have a word for it. It's called Refactoring. It's a fascinating subject if you are interested in programming.

I believe there are some relatively smallish changes which could drastically improve democracies like the US. One obvious one is to fix voting. There are dozens of different voting systems, and nearly all of them are better than what the US currently uses. They would allow for multiple alternative parties, including single-issue parties to push specific changes to the larger parties. Along with some other rather smallish changes, fixing voting would go a long way to improve the US over time.

There are lots of other ways democracy around the world can be improved. And there's a method for getting these changes to take place. That's via a popular movement based on education and non-violent non-cooperation, similar to what the voluntaryists propose. In other words, popular protest and political influence. It can work, it has worked in the past, and it can work again. I would rather be part of a movement to refactor democracy than one to replace it with untested, unspecified, unrealistic radical change. IMHO.

It appears to me based on what he's written (and I don't intend this as a judgment of his character, only a re-statement of his position as I understand it) that NoDeity has given up hope on democracy. He says he no longer believes his vote counts. A lot of people feel that way. I do also, to a large extent. However, I don't see my influence stopping at a single vote. If I can help spread an idea to many people, and those people can help spread an idea to many more, then it is not only *possible*, but *common-place* for popular ideas to shift the government in a democracy. Sadly, we allowed the Christian Right to get away with this. But this only proves my point. It *is* possible. Today, even. All we need are better ideas than what the crazies have, and we need to popularize them. That is what I'm for. I mean, black guy for president? Who woulda thought? Democracy is broken, but it can be fixed. Anarchism? I just don't see it even getting off the ground.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:NoDeity

natural wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp  (there's a forum at mises.org if you want to discuss it further)

I'll pick a few promising ones and see if they answer my specific scenarios. Will take some reading.

In the mean time, the first link gives me a 404. I looked around but could only find them selling the physical book. Couldn't find Chapter 13 online there.

There's something screwy with the link.  You'll get to the page I had in mind of you go to http://search.mises.org/ and paste this into the search box:

Chapter 1?Defense Services on the Free Market

(select "All" in the category field)

The first result it brings up should be the right one.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.