Pull the lever and get all lemons.

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Pull the lever and get all lemons.

I was a Green Party member, but have since registered Democrat so I can vote in their primaries. In 2008, I'm planning to vote for Kucinich in the primaries, and in the general I'll either vote Green or for whatever reptile scum actually punts for the Democrats. It looks like that will either be the lethally ambitious Mrs. Clinton, or the dashingly inept Obama. But who knows: I was planning to vote for squat firebrand Dean until they started amplifying the importance of his awkward "Byahhh!" bleating, and a stifling gray flog floated in, calling itself "John Kerry," to cock up the elections for us.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh right, the point: who ya

Oh right, the point: who ya gonna vote for?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm not stupid enough to

I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything.


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: I'm not

Zhwazi wrote:

I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything.

you sound like my dad, bitching and whining about the system with your "I'm smarter than you" brand of cynicism.

I'll vote for a democrat.

My preference is obama, I'll take inexperience and charisma over the kind of experience that washington seems to value.

After that, I like bill richardson and biden about even, then edwards, Clinton is actually my last choice in the democratic field, not because of mistrust or anything, I'd just really like to get away from this whole bush/clinton/bush crap.

I'd consider voting for ron paul if he had a shot, though I'm not sure I'm much for the libertarian viewpoint, its nice seeing a repub who actually sounds like a conservative.

I dont vote third party, not that I dont like their views, I just dont really want to feel like I'm throwing my vote away. If someone in teh green party had a real shot, I'd probably vote for em. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: I'm not

Zhwazi wrote:

I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything.


What does?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Jarem, re: third

Jarem, re: third parties
Isn't that the catch-22? There's no confidence in third parties because the numbers are low; the numbers are low because there's no confidence. We're stuck with two parties with marginally different platforms, both plugged into the lobbying system because of the exorbitant cost of a modern campaign.
If we had a different campaign model, like a flat budget ceiling for all, or if we limited the avenues of promotion to a predefined set of public platforms, we could level the playing field and reduce the political debt incurred to lobbyists in the staging of a campaign.
I think it was Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky who remarked on voting for third parties in non-critical elections (that is, where you're not trying to beat somebody like Bush) to set the precedent. In any case, I think a certain number of people have to "throw" their votes in order to raise confidence in third party chances.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'll be supporting John

I'll be supporting John Edwards in the primary.  Regardless of who wins any candidate will be better than the Republican.  I'm hoping Hillary doesn't win.  She's one of those Senators in that cult in D.C., 'The Fellowship' and a member of the DLC.

I'm just disappointed that the way the system works is that the media picks the candidates they want then declare the rest unelectable.  The media called Dean crazy because he was against the war he was labeled a liberal extremist.  So instead the media went with Kerry calling him the most electable.  


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I would agree with pretty

I would agree with pretty much all you said there Magilum

The two biggest things I'd love to see happen would be campaign finance reform with limits and no secrecy, and term limits to get rid of career politicians. I am technically an independent and refuse to affiliate myself with one specific party, I simply support democrats as a lesser of the evils sort of thing.

I really, really hope hillary doesn't get the nomination, but I just cant see myself supporting any of the republican candidates.

If Bloomberg got in as a third party, I might vote for him, but I dont see him getting in the race, though it'd be really cool to see how it shakes up the status quo.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Jarem Asyder wrote: you

Jarem Asyder wrote:
you sound like my dad, bitching and whining about the system with your "I'm smarter than you" brand of cynicism.
 

Well do you think that if you go cast a vote you're going to have any effect whatsoever?

magilum wrote:
What does?

It depends what you want to change. But voting doesn't change anything. No matter what you want to change, you won't change it by voting. You'll just get the illusion of having done your "civic duty" or some bullshit like that. But you won't have actually done anything.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi, Give me an example

Zhwazi,
Give me an example of something in society you care about, and how you're going to change it.


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Jarem Asyder

Zhwazi wrote:

Jarem Asyder wrote:
you sound like my dad, bitching and whining about the system with your "I'm smarter than you" brand of cynicism.

Well do you think that if you go cast a vote you're going to have any effect whatsoever?

 I'll have more of an effect than  if I sit on my ass and bitch about a right that people have died for. I'm not deluding myself that my one vote could change everything, but I'm not playing into the cynical apathetic worldview that so many people have. I have my senator's and representative's voting records a click away and make my voice heard, I keep up on current events and pay attention to what every presidential candidate is doing. And every two years I use my priveledge of voting and cast a ballot for the person I believe is the least fucked up and might just have enough stones to actually challenge the way things have been in washington, and move towards a fairer system, and put the interests of America before the interests of groups that just throw money at the politicians to get them. 

 


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I'll vote for whichever

I'll vote for whichever candidate will

1) increase freedoms in this country enough to let non-religion grow

2) not turn this country socialist (I was technically living in poverty not long ago, and am currently unemployed, and I still believe free markets are the best systems. If you are poor and socialist, I pretty much don't pay attention to you because I don't trust most people enough to separate their bitterness towards rich people from their understanding of economics. 

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
Voting legitimizes the

Voting legitimizes the State. The State is an institution of force and coercion which provides people the means to commit immoral acts which they might not otherwise commit on their own. The State provides a moral disconnect which conveniently shields people from guilt, shame, risk, and consequences. As a result, over half of Americans receive income from the State and 20% of the workforce works for the State.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Give me an

magilum wrote:
Give me an example of something in society you care about, and how you're going to change it.

I care about people being robbed by taxation, so I will spread knowledge on how to avoid taxes.

I care about people's rights being violated by the police, so I will tell them how to deal with cops.

I care about people falling into useless political traps (like voting), so I will tell them where they are.

I care about people obeying without reason to obey, so I will tell them why obedience is not virtuous.

I care about freedom and wealth, so I will spread information about freedom and wealth to all those who will hear me.

I care about people being lied to by politicians, so I will expose those lies.

Get it?

 

 

Jarem Asyder wrote:
I'll have more of an effect than if I sit on my ass and bitch about a right that people have died for.

Not if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 15 minutes to make a strong, compelling argument to somebody that is receptive and change somebody's mind. I've changed people's minds on the state in 10 minutes, it isn't hard if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 20 minutes to get in your car and go vote in November. By contrast, that 20 minutes will be spend toward zero change. Is there a probability it might change something? Yes, like there's a chance you'll hit the jackpot 10 times in a row. Is it worth the effort? No, it's better spent elsewhere. You'll get more by putting $5 towards a beer than you'll get by putting it in a slot machine.

Quote:
I'm not deluding myself that my one vote could change everything, but I'm not playing into the cynical apathetic worldview that so many people have.

You either believe voting changes something or you don't. Which is it?

Quote:
I have my senator's and representative's voting records a click away and make my voice heard, I keep up on current events and pay attention to what every presidential candidate is doing. And every two years I use my priveledge of voting and cast a ballot for the person I believe is the least fucked up and might just have enough stones to actually challenge the way things have been in washington, and move towards a fairer system, and put the interests of America before the interests of groups that just throw money at the politicians to get them.

Uh-huh. And how many times has this effort paid off so far?

 

Rothbard wrote:
Voting legitimizes the State. The State is an institution of force and coercion which provides people the means to commit immoral acts which they might not otherwise commit on their own. The State provides a moral disconnect which conveniently shields people from guilt, shame, risk, and consequences. As a result, over half of Americans receive income from the State and 20% of the workforce works for the State.

This man speaks the truth! Too bad Rothbard died in '95.


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Not if you're doing

Quote:
Not if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 15 minutes to make a strong, compelling argument to somebody that is receptive and change somebody's mind. I've changed people's minds on the state in 10 minutes, it isn't hard if you're doing it right. It takes maybe 20 minutes to get in your car and go vote in November. By contrast, that 20 minutes will be spend toward zero change. Is there a probability it might change something? Yes, like there's a chance you'll hit the jackpot 10 times in a row. Is it worth the effort? No, it's better spent elsewhere. You'll get more by putting $5 towards a beer than you'll get by putting it in a slot machine.

The same can be said about someone going out and getting people out to vote for their candidates, passing out flyers, helping to run voter reg. booths, etc. I find its better to work within the system than to nihilistically write it off because its been abused by special interests.

Quote:
You either believe voting changes something or you don't. Which is it?

I believe that voting changes things, but whne you have a large number of completely apathetic and politically retarded individuals who couldn't give a rat's ass to give up 20 minutes to an hour to register and vote, or think that voting is too hard or not worth it, then it takes away from the overall ability. If candidate A is looking for Voting Bloc A to vote for him, and Candidate B is looking for voting bloc B to vote, but half of Voting bloc A doesn't even vote, then Candidate B will win. A non-vote is just as bad as a vote for a politician you don't like.

Quote:
Uh-huh. And how many times has this effort paid off so far?

I can't really say at this point. I've only been old enough to vote in two elections (04 and 06). The candidate I voted for has only cast two votes that I disagreed with (Iraq war funding, and NSA wiretap.)

To turn the question around, how well has your political inactivism done? Are we close to some magical utopian society where everything works perfectly according to your ideal of a state? Are we even close?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm not wowed by the

I'm not wowed by the anarchist stance so far. At the guarantee of sounding like an asshole, that's pretty much the attitude most people your (and often my) age take on things. Being a radical is cheap, easy, and totally meaningless most of the time. I'm far from having mainstream views, but I realize I'm not monkeywrenching the feds by making thermite or not watching primetime TV. I mean, is there something systematic, to where you can clearly goal being accomplished, that you are involved in?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Jarem Asyder wrote: The

Jarem Asyder wrote:

The same can be said about someone going out and getting people out to vote for their candidates, passing out flyers, helping to run voter reg. booths, etc. I find its better to work within the system than to nihilistically write it off because its been abused by special interests.

So it's worth the effort to get 500 people together to see if any one of you can win a jackpot 10 times in a row? You still have no chance of affecting change.

Quote:
I believe that voting changes things, but whne you have a large number of completely apathetic and politically retarded individuals who couldn't give a rat's ass to give up 20 minutes to an hour to register and vote, or think that voting is too hard or not worth it, then it takes away from the overall ability.

Sure, but there's no completely apathetic or politically retarded individuals here, and even so you had almost no chance of changing anything to begin with.

Quote:
If candidate A is looking for Voting Bloc A to vote for him, and Candidate B is looking for voting bloc B to vote, but half of Voting bloc A doesn't even vote, then Candidate B will win. A non-vote is just as bad as a vote for a politician you don't like.

I don't like any politicians. Why should I vote for a politician I don't like when not voting is just as bad as voting for a politician I don't like? Nonvoting is easier to do also.

Quote:
I can't really say at this point. I've only been old enough to vote in two elections (04 and 06). The candidate I voted for has only cast two votes that I disagreed with (Iraq war funding, and NSA wiretap.)

In other words, no percievable affect. 

Quote:
To turn the question around, how well has your political inactivism done? Are we close to some magical utopian society where everything works perfectly according to your ideal of a state? Are we even close?

We? No, "we" are not. But I am. I can only speak for myself. I am living according to my ideal of a state.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'm not

magilum wrote:
I'm not wowed by the anarchist stance so far. At the guarantee of sounding like an asshole, that's pretty much the attitude most people your (and often my) age take on things. Being a radical is cheap, easy, and totally meaningless most of the time. I'm far from having mainstream views, but I realize I'm not monkeywrenching the feds by making thermite or not watching primetime TV. I mean, is there something systematic, to where you can clearly goal being accomplished, that you are involved in?

My goal is my own freedom, and I've achieved that. My main goal has been accomplished. My other goals, getting others to free themselves, I'm working on that, and yes, I can see it working. Not so much here, but this place helps me sharpen my razors and it's fun to argue with people.


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'm not

magilum wrote:
I'm not wowed by the anarchist stance so far.

You and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily. Would you prefer to have to submit all of your decisions to State central-planners for approval? Are State central-planners more qualified to run your life than you?

Anarchism doesn't mean living without rules. You have rules of conduct in your home, do you not? Suppose your guests don't respect the rules. Do you go running to the government and get a law passed or do you handle it?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the Big Brother

Thanks for the Big Brother scenario.

All I see from you guys is bombastic theorizing. That's fine: that's what being a 17-25 year-old is like in the first world. But there's a difference between making a bump key, reading the Poor Man's James Bond, or hanging out at the Chestnut Tree Cafe, and offering a social and economic solution that works for the variety of people in this country/world and has a snowball's chance of actually being established. It's literally all just talk.

BTW, this is a total threadjacking.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and have fun watching a

Oh, and have fun watching a lot of your gung-ho "radical" friends become yuppie reptiles.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:...offering

magilum wrote:
...offering a social and economic solution that works for the variety of people in this country/world and has a snowball's chance of actually being established.

It does work for the variety of people in this country and world, because it's the only policy that allows for everybody to choose their own solution. It's the government, the one-size-fits-all government, that is the absurdity, supposing it can offer a social and economic solution that works for the variety of people in the country.

And how does one establish anarchy? Of course it has a snowball's chance of being established. Anarchy isn't something you establish. It's something you recognize. It is always there if you would just open your eyes to see it.

Quote:
BTW, this is a total threadjacking.

Stop talking to us and we won't be able to continue hijacking the thread.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I asked "Who ya gonna vote

I asked "Who ya gonna vote for," not, "ZOMG votig is useeless amirite??? lollers."
Put the "Fight Club" DVD away, buddy.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
If you didn't want to know,

If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.

magilum wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything.


What does?


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi Having seen your

Zhwazi

Having seen your answers, and seen you parrot the same responses over and over again, I've found it rather useless to continue arguing with you. I must admit, you do sound something like an angry thirteen year old who thinks "the man" is out to get him.

If you refuse to use your right to vote (or are just too young to use it and worried about "the man&quotEye-wink that is of course, your right. But the truth of the matter is, you DON'T offer a real alternative to the state. I would wager that a majority of people are pretty content with the laws and regulations that the state gives us, and of the group that is not content, most of them are not willing to give up many of the social safety nets that our state has in place.

Our representative republic works, yes is has had and will have hiccups. Yes many aspects of the system have been hijacked by special interests, but it has faced worse and weathered it fine. It is still infinately better than older monarchial governments and dictatorships. Frankly, I like that the state protects copyrights and patents, which, as an artist, is especially helpful for me not to get screwed over by a client or some idiot trying to plagerize my work.

With that said, and to get this thread on track again, I'll reiterate that my most favored candidate is Obama, as I am willing to overlook inexperience for something completely new in teh white house, I think if he gets the nomination he'd be smart to look for someone with experience who is a bit more centrist as a running mate, and would probably have a slightly better time in the general than hillary because he doesn't have all the clinton baggage. He's also the only front runner who has remained consistent on his stance on Iraq.  


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: All I see

magilum wrote:
All I see from you guys is bombastic theorizing.

I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to by this comment, but I'm assuming you're referring to the anarchist ideas expressed in this thread. As I stated earlier, you and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily and I think it's reasonable to assume that you and those millions of others would prefer to engage in those acts at your own discretion without first having to run them by State central-planners for approval. There's nothing theoretical about it.

magilum wrote:
...this is a total threadjacking.

"None of the above" is a perfectly legitimate option.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Rothbard wrote:magilum

Rothbard wrote:

magilum wrote:
All I see from you guys is bombastic theorizing.

I'm not entirely certain what you're referring to by this comment, but I'm assuming you're referring to the anarchist ideas expressed in this thread. As I stated earlier, you and millions of others engage in potentially hundreds of leaderless, non-violent acts daily and I think it's reasonable to assume that you and those millions of others would prefer to engage in those acts at your own discretion without first having to run them by State central-planners for approval. There's nothing theoretical about it.

magilum wrote:
...this is a total threadjacking.

"None of the above" is a perfectly legitimate option.


Right, putting Kroger bags over parking meters and mixing Canadian cents into the rolls you give to the bank. J-walking, stealing packets of Wrigley's, and giving the wrong time. Using a fake name on your Guns and Ammo subscription card, and not declaring the money you made selling pot. Yeah, sure showed the feds what's up.
You know, until now, I've enjoyed committing petty acts against our culture; arguing with people, trying to get them to question their assumptions. But seeing that kind of thing defended here as important subversion, it just looks sad. I wonder if that's how I come off to the people I've argued with.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Jarem Asyder wrote: Having

Jarem Asyder wrote:
Having seen your answers, and seen you parrot the same responses over and over again, I've found it rather useless to continue arguing with you. I must admit, you do sound something like an angry thirteen year old who thinks "the man" is out to get him.

Dismissal ad hominem. 

Quote:
If you refuse to use your right to vote (or are just too young to use it and worried about "the man&quotEye-wink that is of course, your right. But the truth of the matter is, you DON'T offer a real alternative to the state. I would wager that a majority of people are pretty content with the laws and regulations that the state gives us, and of the group that is not content, most of them are not willing to give up many of the social safety nets that our state has in place.

Voting is a privilege, not a right. I'm old enough to vote and registered to vote (republican) before I became an anarchist.

I do offer a real alternative to the state, because I offer reality as is actually is. The state is a legal fiction, lies backed by guns backed by lies. There's no alternative to anarchy. Even under a state, you have anarchy.

Whether or not most people are happy with it is a question largely of how well they buy into the lies of the politicians. 

Quote:
Our representative republic works

Not because it "is a representative republic" (like such a thing exists), but in spite of it. If you want it to work better, you need to get rid of the state. Even soviet communism "worked". Any system will "work", but there are better ways of doing things.

Quote:
yes is has had and will have hiccups.

Hiccups that anarchy can't possibly experience.

Quote:
Yes many aspects of the system have been hijacked by special interests, but it has faced worse and weathered it fine.

I ask you: What would it look like if it hadn't "weathered it fine"? If it hadn't gotten through it okay, how would you know? Wouldn't people be saying "Well, the state still exists, so it weathered X just fine"? How can you know it did anything like "weathered it fine" with no standard of comparison? You speak bullshit, sir. You couldn't have the knowledge that you claim to have. You're just trying to make the state look good.

Quote:
It is still infinately better than older monarchial governments and dictatorships.

No it's not. Older monarchial governments never had more than say, 8% of the GDP under their control. The warmaking powers of the state were limited by the debt the King incurred. Today, by contrast, the US has 40% of it's GDP in it's bank account and a large portion of the rest of the economy is regulated. A "representative" government is the worst form of government because it confuses people. "We are the government." "Taxation is voluntary." "We owe it to ourselves." In this confusion the state is free to grow into the leviathan it is today. 

Quote:
Frankly, I like that the state protects copyrights and patents, which, as an artist, is especially helpful for me not to get screwed over by a client or some idiot trying to plagerize my work.

Unfortunately you have no right to force other people not to do what they want with their own property, including recreate your property as much as they want. Intellectual property is a contradiction.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Let's follow this detour to

Let's follow this detour to the bitter end. Do you have a job and pay taxes?
Let's pretend there's a loosely defined "anarchism index." Your participation in mainstream society--holding a job, paying taxes, driving a car, having an ID, buying from vendors that pay taxes or are publicly subsidized--contributes a certain degree "legitimacy" to the "establishment"/state. Let's say there's also the converse: things that we can do contrary to the wishes of the state, but are not simply freedoms available within the state system or infringements upon unenforcible laws. Now, aside from being a loudmouth, what are you doing to counteract your contributions to the state?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Let's follow

magilum wrote:
Let's follow this detour to the bitter end. Do you have a job and pay taxes?

I don't have a formal job, as in I have no "employer" and I'm not an "employee", I don't have a W-2, and I don't pay taxes. Even for the short time that I did, I wasn't paying income taxes. That's not to say I'm not earning any money of course.

Quote:
Let's pretend there's a loosely defined "anarchism index." Your participation in mainstream society--holding a job, paying taxes, driving a car, having an ID, buying from vendors that pay taxes or are publicly subsidized--contributes a certain degree "legitimacy" to the "establishment"/state.

No it doesn't. Legitimacy is entirely perceived. Actions do not confer legitimacy, thoughts do. Legitimacy is entirely subjective.

Quote:
Let's say there's also the converse: things that we can do contrary to the wishes of the state, but are not simply freedoms available within the state system or infringements upon unenforcible laws. Now, aside from being a loudmouth, what are you doing to counteract your contributions to the state?

Explaining to people why the state is illegitimate is a big part of it. I am new enough to this that I'm spending more time learning how to live without the state than actually going out and "counteracting my contributions to the state", but it's like investment. Learn how to do it now and it'll become easier later.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It says in your profile that

It says in your profile that you work at KFC. Getting paid under the table I suppose. Good for you, but I wish you could see it's just youth. I'm not discouraging your going against the grain, but there's really little substance to what you're saying. There's an irrationality at work here, and you don't seem aware of it. It's the smashing of telephone kiosks Burgess considered necessary at some point in life, but this isn't a political ideology in practice.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:It says in

magilum wrote:
It says in your profile that you work at KFC.

I haven't updated that since I registered here. I don't work there anymore. That was my only W-2 job (which I mentioned) and for some reason they weren't taking out taxes.

Quote:
Getting paid under the table I suppose. Good for you, but I wish you could see it's just youth. I'm not discouraging your going against the grain, but there's really little substance to what you're saying. There's an irrationality at work here, and you don't seem aware of it. It's the smashing of telephone kiosks Burgess considered necessary at some point in life, but this isn't a political ideology in practice.

If you'd like to refute anarchism, please do, there's a whole thread about it in this section. If you don't want to, and you'd rather just continue dismissing it with ad hominems, then I'm going to start calling you on ad hominem like I should have been doing earlier.

I'm following Murray Rothbard and Samuel Edward Konkin III, neither of whom were just anarchists out of youth, both of whom died of old age as anarchists. I'm using the same arguments they would be using, working from the same premises, through the same reasoning. That renders your "it's just because you're young" dismissal virtually toothless. If you can refute Rothbard's position on anarchism, then you've refuted mine. But until you attack Rothbard's position, you haven't attacked my position with any argument that sticks.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I haven't updated that

I haven't updated that since I registered here. I don't work there anymore. That was my only W-2 job (which I mentioned) and for some reason they weren't taking out taxes.

 

If you'd like to refute anarchism, please do, there's a whole thread about it in this section. If you don't want to, and you'd rather just continue dismissing it with ad hominems, then I'm going to start calling you on ad hominem like I should have been doing earlier.

 

I'm following Murray Rothbard and Samuel Edward Konkin III, neither of whom were just anarchists out of youth, both of whom died of old age as anarchists. I'm using the same arguments they would be using, working from the same premises, through the same reasoning. That renders your "it's just because you're young" dismissal virtually toothless. If you can refute Rothbard's position on anarchism, then you've refuted mine. But until you attack Rothbard's position, you haven't attacked my position with any argument that sticks.

 

I don't know what their brand of anarchism meant in practice, only yours. It's not their age that is of consequence, it's yours. It sounds condescending, but it's such a cliche because it's true. It's easy to be a "radical" at twenty. All the universities are full of "objectivists" and "socialists" who will eventually settle into middle management. I'm not out to refute anarchism, or any other political ideology as a theoretical exercise. I thought we'd already had enough of each other in the libertarian thread, but you sidestepped my question to the forum (specifically about who you're going to vote for) to interject more "anti-establishment" rhetoric and crap on the topic at hand. Voting's not effective, and the system is FUBAR, you say. Perhaps this is so. But you haven't offered solutions. Do you think I, and thousands of others my age, don't own guns and bitch about corporate subsidies? We aren't accomplishing anything. NOTHING. We need an actual solution that doesn't just work for all the fit, care-free twenty-somethings. We have families, sick relatives, and tons of other shit to deal with. This glib anarchy talk is just grating as hell.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Well do you want to "follow

Well do you want to "follow this detour to the bitter end" or not? If you do, refute, which you said you wouldn't do. If you don't refute, you just follow this detour until you get tired of it, rather than to the bitter end. Either way your interjection of pointless rhetoric betrays your hypocrisy.

I might have been content with just saying "I'm not stupid enough to think voting actually changes anything." You did invite more anti-establishment rhetoric by inviting me to continue. Don't complain to me about how this is "just grating as hell." Jarem stopped the conversation, and I'm not talking to him anymore because he isn't talking to me. Whoever wants to end the conversation must yield the right of last word to the other party. I'm not intent on ending it, as I'm enjoying this (despite your condescension), so long as you reply to me, I will reply to you.

I have offered solutions to the problems I care about. And in principle, solutions are possible for all the other issues too. Because the government is just a group of people. Not magical people. They can't do a damn thing that you or I couldn't do just by virtue of their status as bureaucrats, nor can they do it cheaper or better. If there is any solution at all, there is a non-state solution. It's not my job to offer you a solution to every problem in your life, it's yours. Don't accuse me of not offering solutions that I don't owe you.

Your consistent interjection of ageist ad hominems cause your words to ring hollow of real meaning. Bring substance, or stop talking.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You're all talk. Look at the

You're all talk. Look at the solutions you wrote. None of them are anything but talk on your part. There is absolutely nothing for me to refute. I asked you about libertarianism in the other thread, and anarchism in this one, out of simple curiousity. I wanted to know what it meant for one person in practice. Now I know. Nothing of any consequence.
I often get mad in political debates. I'm not this time, cos it's just too asinine and ineffectual to matter.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: You're all

magilum wrote:
You're all talk. Look at the solutions you wrote. None of them are anything but talk on your part.

Quote:
I care about people being robbed by taxation, so I will spread knowledge on how to avoid taxes.

I care about people's rights being violated by the police, so I will tell them how to deal with cops.

I care about people falling into useless political traps (like voting), so I will tell them where they are.

I care about people obeying without reason to obey, so I will tell them why obedience is not virtuous.

I care about freedom and wealth, so I will spread information about freedom and wealth to all those who will hear me.

I care about people being lied to by politicians, so I will expose those lies.

Quoted for reminder. Do you deny that any of my solutions are going to have the desired effect? Informing people is a critical part of any social or political movement, especially when it's small. Not much can be done until numbers are increased. Talk happens to be a low-risk, high-reward undertaking in these conditions. Is this the strategy for the whole project of an anarchist revolution? Of course not. But if I gave the later stages without giving the prior stages I'd look like an idiot. 

Quote:
There is absolutely nothing for me to refute. I asked you about libertarianism in the other thread, and anarchism in this one, out of simple curiousity. I wanted to know what it meant for one person in practice. Now I know. Nothing of any consequence.

Not of direct consequence, and not of much immediate consequence at all. But not of no consequence.

Quote:
I often get mad in political debates. I'm not this time, cos it's just too asinine and ineffectual to matter.

If you get mad in political debates you're doing something wrong. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I called it "all talk" with

I called it "all talk" with full awareness of what you wrote. I've met dozens of ineffectual "radicals." "Revolution?" LOL.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
It only took 60 years or so

It only took 60 years or so between the Communist Manifesto and the Communist Revolution in Mexico, and just a few years later, in Russia. Don't underestimate the ability of radical ideas to become widely adopted unexpectedly.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
If you'd like to knock off

If you'd like to knock off the condescending dismissive bullcrap feel free to do so anytime you'd like.


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
Voting in elections isn't a

Voting in elections isn't a right. It's a State-granted privilege. Voting in elections is permitted by the State only to State-approved individuals.

There's another kind of voting which takes place in the free-market, and it doesn't facilitate theft and violence. You vote every time you choose to patronize certain organizations as opposed to others. This is the only kind of vote that really matters.

The real alternative to the State is the free-market.

You're correct. Most are not willing to give up many of the social safety-nets provided by the State. The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. People who live at the expense of others are freeloaders.

The State patent system is governed entirely by politics. As a result, absurdities ensue such as lawsuits over one-click Internet shopping and navigation menus on MP3 players. Slashdot.org routinely posts stories about such abuses. State patents are more often used to sue competition out of business than protect property.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Freeloaders? Like, say,

Freeloaders? Like, say, people who make unavoidable use of state-provided resources but leave it to the rest of us to pay the taxes? Laughing out loud
This shit is hysterical.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Freeloaders?

magilum wrote:
Freeloaders? Like, say, people who make unavoidable use of state-provided resources but leave it to the rest of us to pay the taxes? Laughing out loud
This shit is hysterical.

Not just hysterical but hypocritical.  They whine about government and how everyone is so reliant on it but gladly use everything society has provided. Take for instance the internet.  A taxpayer financed invention, but of course the government is no good and doesn't provide anything.

I can't help but think of that scene from Life of Brian where they bitch about how bad the Romans are and ask, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"  Then they spend a long time listing what advances the Romans have brought to the backward community.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Take note: I'm the one not

Take note: I'm the one not paying taxes. "Rothbard" is the one bitching about freeloaders. Assuming "Rothbard" is paying taxes, he's got some right to bitch about freeloaders. I don't. But I'm not complaining about them. I have no moral objection to freeloading. There's no hypocrisy because we're two different people.

Most of the things the government has provided would have been provided without the government had the government not existed. I say "most" because in many cases the government has provided too much. The roads are vastly overbuilt, for instance. I don't say that "the government is no good and doesn't provide anything", I say that "the government is unnecessary and everything it provides can be provided without the government."


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
So where in the world is

So where in the world is your ideal community by which you compare to the modern ones with their imposing government?  I'd like to see what the comparison would be between a repressive government like Sweden and your idyllic community.


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Rothbard wrote: The State

Rothbard wrote:

The State patent system is governed entirely by politics. As a result, absurdities ensue such as lawsuits over one-click Internet shopping and navigation menus on MP3 players. Slashdot.org routinely posts stories about such abuses. State patents are more often used to sue competition out of business than protect property.

I wasn't going to chime in again, I promised myself.

But I need to make a note about intellectual property rights here. As IP is essentially the only thing I have to ensure I could ever make money off of my work.

Intellectual property is just like tangible property. If I were to build tables and chairs and sell them, I would be allowed to charge what I felt was appropriate for the time, labor costs, etc to make a profit on said furniture. IP has a slightly different problem. Say my chairs have a special feature in them that makes them unique (I dunno, lets say cupholders.) Since I came up with that advantage its completely fair for me to charge a little extra for this uniqueness, now if someone comes along and rips off my idea and makes his own cupholder chairs then he is essentially stealing my IP. Thats what patents are for, it protects IP the same way laws against stealing protect tangible property.

Now lets say you have completely intangible, 100% intellectual property, like music or, in my case, video art. Again, copyrights ensure that I can make a video or a song and it can not get used illegally without my permission. If there was no state to ensure that, I could get ripped off by a client I'm doing a commission for and it wouldn't matter, someone could take my video off of youtube and start selling it and I couldn't do a damn thing. (I will note though, that I am NOT against fair use clause, or public domain laws, which both keep IP and patents in check.) Artists and musicians would have no real way of supporting themselves through their work. 

As for the RIAA nonsense, that is a different issue that I am opposed to, since that is an industry that is screwing their artists over and overpricing their music while going after people who cant fight back against civil suits.  


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Freeloaders?

magilum wrote:
Freeloaders? Like, say, people who make unavoidable use of state-provided resources but leave it to the rest of us to pay the taxes?

If use of said resources is unavoidable then how can people draw any moral distinction with regard to their use? They can't unless they tacitly approve of this arrangement by voting.

The State often impedes competition by exercising monopoly control over certain resources in many jurisdictions or by granting monopoly privilege to a single provider. The solution to this is to get the government out of the way so that competuition can flourish rather than ensuring that everyone pays their "fair share."


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Rothbard wrote: The State

Rothbard wrote:

The State often impedes competition by exercising monopoly control over certain resources in many jurisdictions or by granting monopoly privilege to a single provider. The solution to this is to get the government out of the way so that competuition can flourish rather than ensuring that everyone pays their "fair share."

Yes, and American Tobacco and Standard Oil were figments of our imagination.  Today we still see mergers and acquisitions so companies can increase their marketshare and eliminate competition.  Are we to believe that without government regulations corporations will work to bolster competition at the expense of profits?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Rothbard wrote: magilum

Rothbard wrote:

magilum wrote:
Freeloaders? Like, say, people who make unavoidable use of state-provided resources but leave it to the rest of us to pay the taxes?

If use of said resources is unavoidable then how can people draw any moral distinction with regard to their use? They can't unless they tacitly approve of this arrangement by voting.

The State often impedes competition by exercising monopoly control over certain resources in many jurisdictions or by granting monopoly privilege to a single provider. The solution to this is to get the government out of the way so that competuition can flourish rather than ensuring that everyone pays their "fair share."


I can't help but notice your solution is rhetorical, while my taxes are not. I guess you're OK with anarchists who have given themselves the freedom to be freeloaders. Such emancipation!


Rothbard
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-08-16
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: Take for

D-cubed wrote:
Take for instance the internet. A taxpayer financed invention, but of course the government is no good and doesn't provide anything.

The State has nothing whatsoever to do with today's Internet. The State financed ARPANET to facilitate distributed computing in the 1960s. What we know to be the Internet today didn't materialize until decades later and is entirely different.

Furthermore, thanks to State-granted monopolies in many jurisdictions, people have only one high-speed Internet provider to choose from and some have only dial-up. Fortunately, the market is working its magic to circumvent State obstructions and bring consumers what they want.

Next you'll be telling me that we should thank the State for velcro, microwave ovens, teflon, and Tang (all urban myths).


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote: So where in

D-cubed wrote:
So where in the world is your ideal community by which you compare to the modern ones with their imposing government? I'd like to see what the comparison would be between a repressive government like Sweden and your idyllic community.

Depends what you mean. If you see things for how they really are, it's hiding from the government.

If you mean a place where there is absolutely no government, that no government claims jurisdiction over, there isn't one yet. If there was you can be pretty sure I would have moved there by now.

Jarem Asyder wrote:
Intellectual property is just like tangible property.

If I have a dollar and you have a dollar and we trade dollars, we each have one dollar.

If I have an idea and you have an idea and we trade ideas, we both have two ideas.

It is not "just like tangible property".

Quote:
...now if someone comes along and rips off my idea and makes his own cupholder chairs then he is essentially stealing my IP.

Theft is taking control of something that someone else has exclusive right to control. You have no exclusive right to control the ideas in other peoples' heads, on their hard drives, or in their cameras.