*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Oct 31, 2014, 11:40:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
658143 Posts in 9262 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 60 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Print
Author Topic: The latest article made me laugh and laugh!  (Read 17825 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #75 on: Sep 16, 2004, 01:51:51 PM »

Quote from: "John"
Just to be a pedant about it, "anarchy" would actually literally mean "absence of origin" ("arche" = beginning, origin; "an" = negating particle) therefore not necessarily lacking all forms of governance: just no seat of power, no authority without consent. The key distinction is that liberatarianism is all about THE INDIVIDUAL!!! and anarchy, while attractive to many individualists, is really about protecting the herd.

Anything of any value anywhere began as a pipe dream, in my admittedly idealistic opinion.


You are my hero of the day.  Maybe even the whole week.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
swilkes
Registered user

Posts: 1032


« Reply #76 on: Sep 16, 2004, 02:40:22 PM »

This is fast turning into my favorite thread. It would securely hold that title if we got back to more of:

Quote
Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. Oh man. Excuse me.


Because I had a good chuckle the other day seeing a bunch of LaRouchies at the Foggy Bottom Metro stop gathered together SINGING SPIRITUALS, while a few of them passed out literature discussing the "Satanic Sexual Revolution" and how it ties in to various assassination attempts on Mr. LaRouche. I actually read one of these newsletters once, and it kinda shocked (though didn't really surprise) me how much sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia are inherent in LaRouche's world-view.  But at the end, you just have to laugh, I mean, has anyone seen LaRouche alive lately?

Also in attendance at the Metro were the Jews For Jesus folks, who seem to be legion in our nation's capital, or at least in its public transpo systems. I noticed no attempt by the JfJ's to convert the Libs, nor vice versa.  Why not?
Logged
Keith from TTIKTDA
Registered user

Posts: 865


« Reply #77 on: Sep 16, 2004, 05:22:41 PM »

It seems somehow appropriate that our most serious and intelligent and generally awesome thread is, on surface, about how funny the last article was.
Logged

--Keith

http://www.indiekids.org
(YES! I got a domain!)
sedita
Registered user

Posts: 261


« Reply #78 on: Sep 16, 2004, 09:54:09 PM »

shut up sedita.
Logged

so remember, on a scale from one to awesome, i'm super great.
SPACERACE
Registered user

Posts: 12155


« Reply #79 on: Sep 16, 2004, 10:13:31 PM »

Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"
Anarchism is the abolition of government and the replacement therof with autonomous, communistic collectives.

Libertarianism is the reduction of government to little more than a civil court system and printer of money, rooted in capitalistic tradtition.

This is why they are opposites.


But: they both share a very strong "help out your peers" message. In an anarchist society, I don't think I need to explain where that comes in.

In a libertarian society, I figure that if you boil it down to pure individual rights, etc, you're not going to get very far without a little help from your neighbor. And though I read commandercranky's post, I have a feeling that most "realistic" libertarians (c'mon I'm sure there are a couple) would scoff at a model that's so cold and uncaring. Yes, it places a massive emphasis on the individual, but it simply could not work if absolutely everyone just minded their own shit 100% of the time.

Then again, we aren't really talking about political models that would work, now, are we.
Logged

Supplier of highest-quality synthetic duck butter
Keith from TTIKTDA
Registered user

Posts: 865


« Reply #80 on: Sep 16, 2004, 11:03:28 PM »

Quote from: "reeseboisse"
I figure that if you boil it down to pure individual rights, etc, you're not going to get very far without a little help from your neighbor.
...
 I have a feeling that most "realistic" libertarians (c'mon I'm sure there are a couple) would scoff at a model that's so cold and uncaring.


Have you read Ayn Rand? If not, than you have now idea how very very very silly that sounds.
Logged

--Keith

http://www.indiekids.org
(YES! I got a domain!)
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #81 on: Sep 17, 2004, 02:17:07 AM »

Quote from: "reeseboisse"
Then again, we aren't really talking about political models that would work, now, are we.


That burns.

Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"
Have you read Ayn Rand? If not, than you have now idea how very very very silly that sounds.


Thanks for saying that so I didn't have to.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
afarrell
Registered user

Posts: 8


« Reply #82 on: Sep 17, 2004, 07:29:33 AM »

Most of the Anarchists that I know are quite lefty, and generally as concerned with practical issues (bin tax, us warplanes out of shannon, critical mass) (okay, "practical" issues) than writing screeds about the revolution. A lot of them would probably agree that anarchy isn't going to happen in their lifetime (and some of them will after a few pints suggest this is a good thing), but the road to anarchy is activism, and that is a road that they're happy to be on for the forseeable future. Which is not to say that Anarchism is some Together-like utopia, there are plenty of headwrecking other factions, more interested in selling their papers and gathering votes. I just don't know them :-)

I don't know any Libertarians, American Style, but I've seen a lot of them online over the years, and I've always got the impression that if you gave them a personalised "Get out of paying taxes forever" card, they'd lose their political motivation right sharp.
Logged
bmc
Registered user

Posts: 267


« Reply #83 on: Sep 17, 2004, 09:54:50 AM »

Quote from: "John"
There's one renegade anti-AA group that has 1) zero visibility and 2) miniscule reach.


John - are you referring to the Organization for Secular Sobriety here?  I don't know much about them, except that my grandmother was involved with them for a long time.  Their approach worked for her, and I've always had the idea that they were a realistic alternative.  I'd be sorry to hear that wasn't the case.

(Their web presence is pretty lame, which I guess is not a good sign.)
Logged

-bc
justinh
Registered user

Posts: 3083


« Reply #84 on: Sep 17, 2004, 12:20:15 PM »

going back to your criticism of libertarianism jeb, it might be interesting for you to check out that book kevin is/was always talking about--the machinery of freedom.  i mean, i'm obviously not a libertarian, but i did find some of the arguments interesting and compelling, and thus i think it's worth reading to understand what's really going on with the ideology.
Logged
Nickosaurus
Registered user

Posts: 1795


« Reply #85 on: Sep 17, 2004, 03:56:32 PM »

I really like the direction this thread has taken, though I'm bummed I missed most of it.

I'm probably very late with this coment, but with the AA issue, yes, it is a clear church and state non-seperation, but for once it's a non-seperation that is actually helping people. If there was a better way, I would obviously support that, but until there is a new program that's just as effective I'm willing to accept it. There are much more thinly veiled seperation of church and state issues that our current administration is soaking in, which we should all be much more concerned with.

When it comes to libertarianism and anarchy, I may be totally off base here, since I'm not really an LP expert, but I always thought that libertarianism was about maintaining liberties for the individual, not eliminating government like anarchism. If that was the case, I don't think we'd see libertarians on the ballot.
Logged

This must be where pies go when they die
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #86 on: Sep 17, 2004, 04:06:14 PM »

well, nick... sorta. but then again, a lot of the major social programs that jeb, an anarchist, was feeling weird about having gutted are also social programs that the libertarians would get rid of. they'd also, to put this in perspective, ideally like to get rid of taxpayer-funded versions of the post office, the military, domestic law enforcement of all types, public schooling, and the list goes on. as far as i can tell, libertarians would ideally like to see all functions of government other than that of greasing the wheels for capitalism replaced by private industry. of course, this would greatly increase individual freedom (the hook by which they draw in young people)... but at what cost?
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #87 on: Sep 17, 2004, 04:10:32 PM »

Quote from: "justinh"
going back to your criticism of libertarianism jeb, it might be interesting for you to check out that book kevin is/was always talking about--the machinery of freedom.  i mean, i'm obviously not a libertarian, but i did find some of the arguments interesting and compelling, and thus i think it's worth reading to understand what's really going on with the ideology.


Yeah, I'm not super familiar with David Friedman, but I've read a lot of his daddy's stuff, and I think it's mostly insane bullshit that doesn't hold up to a whole lot of scrutiny.  It's funny that I can feel confident saying that about a man who won a Nobel Prize, huh?  I'd assume David is talking the same kind of crap, and, honestly, I think I've read enough about neoliberalism to know that I don't like it and don't think it would work the way its proponents claim it would.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #88 on: Sep 17, 2004, 04:13:29 PM »

Quote from: "Andrew_TSKS"
of course, this would greatly increase individual freedom (the hook by which they draw in young people)... but at what cost?


I think that kinda depends on how you define freedom, though, because I think that in order to have real liberty, capitalism would have to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I'd write more but I have to go to work right now.  Weeee!
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Nickosaurus
Registered user

Posts: 1795


« Reply #89 on: Sep 17, 2004, 04:19:14 PM »

Also, I have a question about anarchy. Why is it generally associated with the left, when the "Less government is the best government" is a very right-wing idea?
Logged

This must be where pies go when they die
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #90 on: Sep 17, 2004, 06:04:15 PM »

nick, that is EXACTLY MY POINT.


and now, i will let other people answer the question more thoroughly.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
SPACERACE
Registered user

Posts: 12155


« Reply #91 on: Sep 17, 2004, 06:56:43 PM »

Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"
Quote from: "reeseboisse"
I figure that if you boil it down to pure individual rights, etc, you're not going to get very far without a little help from your neighbor.
...
 I have a feeling that most "realistic" libertarians (c'mon I'm sure there are a couple) would scoff at a model that's so cold and uncaring.


Have you read Ayn Rand? If not, than you have now idea how very very very silly that sounds.


No, I haven't, so I suppose I'm ignorant. Let me just say this though: I have a lot (and I mean a lot) of trouble with both anarchism and libertarianism. Due to this, the version of libertarianism that I present is, I guess, a somewhat bastardized version: it is, in my opinion, a version that's a bit closer to what we have now, and not as extreme as some people's idea of it. It's just me making it a little bit less silly (sorry, resident libertarians.) Maybe that's not real libertarianism, and you guys can feel free to tear my argument to pieces because of that. I just don't think that one can replace almost every public service available today with a private model and expect it to work. To be very frank, I think that's incredibly stupid, and if anyone tries to argue that stance, the best they're going to get from me is a funny look. So, I present a version I find less silly: one that minimizes government, while not making it fricking worthless. Again, I guess that's an unnacceptable version, which really only makes me believe that anyone who hopes for a libertarian government is out of their bloody mind.

Anarchism, I don't feel as strongly about. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think it could work on a small scale, and in fact it has. But, I don't think that it could work on a large scale, unless society started again from scratch, which it isn't about to do, and especially not in this country. The people who currently inhabit our little planet are, for the most part, unnable (unwilling?) to be as self-sufficient as they would need to be. We're too used to being able to grab some food and a beer out of the fridge when we're hungry, and I think that most people in this country would look at you like Neutral if you handed them a hoe and told them the revolution was here.

I'm sorry to have rambled, but this gets me going.
Logged

Supplier of highest-quality synthetic duck butter
justinh
Registered user

Posts: 3083


« Reply #92 on: Sep 17, 2004, 07:04:53 PM »

Quote from: "jebreject"


Yeah, I'm not super familiar with David Friedman, but I've read a lot of his daddy's stuff, and I think it's mostly insane bullshit that doesn't hold up to a whole lot of scrutiny.  It's funny that I can feel confident saying that about a man who won a Nobel Prize, huh?  I'd assume David is talking the same kind of crap, and, honestly, I think I've read enough about neoliberalism to know that I don't like it and don't think it would work the way its proponents claim it would.


yeah, i dunno, i've never read ol' milton, but from a perspective of curiousity, i like how that book sort of puts forth a view of how a libertarian world would work.  

of course, yeah, i think the same thing of libertarianism that i do of anarchism. i like reading about it, but think that instead of the vision that the people lay out, it would end up in chaos, warfare, and famine.  

and as far as simlilarties betwixt anarchism and libertarianism go.  the political compass goes both ways for social ideas and economic ideas.  so in terms of being socially liberal, libertarians and anarchists are similiar.  however (depending on the anarchist), most anarchists believe in a communist, controlled economy, and libertarians believe in a completely free market economy (an idea that tends to be thought of as 'right').  modern republicans believe in a society that controls socially and has a completely free market economy, both of which are considered 'right'.  

however, it gets complicated because the current republican party, though they preach a reduction in government, tend to actually increase the size of government, and instead, as some kind of surrogate, cut taxes.  i don't know, it's weird.  and, of course, you have a lot of democrats these days embracing a deregulated marketplace, which isn't exactly 'left'.  

this is kind of a neat little quiz about the political compass.
Logged
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #93 on: Sep 17, 2004, 11:13:10 PM »

if by "controlled economy" you mean "the workers control the means of production," then yes.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #94 on: Sep 18, 2004, 02:04:50 PM »

i just don't get this whole thing, man. how can there be control of economy without government? how can the workers be assured of control of the means of production, when under "anarchy", any para-military militia group who's been stockpiling guns for decades could just show up and enslave all of them? who would they turn to for help? and where is anarchy then?

i don't really expect these questions to be answerable at this point in human history. i guess my whole point is that, until the violent/controlling impulses are bred out of humanity, anarchy is impossible in practical terms (except on a very small scale--within a commune of like-minded individuals, who are separate from and protected from everyone else in the whole world).

and before anyone tries to tell me that the violent/controlling impulses of humans were created by society, let me offer you the counterexamples of wars between primitive tribes in africa, or for that matter between tribes of gorillas.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
Keith from TTIKTDA
Registered user

Posts: 865


« Reply #95 on: Sep 18, 2004, 02:07:31 PM »

Violent impulses (or rather, violent impulses related to theft -  emotional action is something we'll probably never conquer), are borne of scarcity.

Therefore, before anarchy, we must bring an end to scarcity. In other words, we need to develop means of production so advanced and so efficient, that no work is required and everyone can have as much as they want/need.

Then it'll work.

Yay Gift Economy Pipe Dreams!
Logged

--Keith

http://www.indiekids.org
(YES! I got a domain!)
John
edit0r
Registered user

Posts: 10925


« Reply #96 on: Sep 18, 2004, 02:42:04 PM »

Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"
Violent impulses (or rather, violent impulses related to theft -  emotional action is something we'll probably never conquer), are borne of scarcity.

Therefore, before anarchy, we must bring an end to scarcity. In other words, we need to develop means of production so advanced and so efficient, that no work is required and everyone can have as much as they want/need.

Then it'll work.

Yay Gift Economy Pipe Dreams!


I keep meaning to leave this thread, 'cause it's arrived at a sort of ideological gridlock, but: "scarcity" is a myth - there's "scarcity" owing to who has control of resources, but no actual shortage of resources. In point of fact, though, the only thing that isn't plentiful everywhere is fresh water. There is an abundance of food on the planet. Everybody could go vegetarian today & there'd still be an overabundance of food.
Logged
justinh
Registered user

Posts: 3083


« Reply #97 on: Sep 18, 2004, 02:42:46 PM »

Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"

Therefore, before anarchy, we must bring an end to scarcity. In other words, we need to develop means of production so advanced and so efficient, that no work is required and everyone can have as much as they want/need.


this sounds rad.  where do i sign up?  let's start the anti-scarcity party for future anarchy! ASPfFA! sounds good to me.
Logged
Keith from TTIKTDA
Registered user

Posts: 865


« Reply #98 on: Sep 18, 2004, 03:15:02 PM »

Quote from: "John"
Quote from: "Keith from TTIKTDA"
Violent impulses (or rather, violent impulses related to theft -  emotional action is something we'll probably never conquer), are borne of scarcity.

Therefore, before anarchy, we must bring an end to scarcity. In other words, we need to develop means of production so advanced and so efficient, that no work is required and everyone can have as much as they want/need.

Then it'll work.

Yay Gift Economy Pipe Dreams!


I keep meaning to leave this thread, 'cause it's arrived at a sort of ideological gridlock, but: "scarcity" is a myth - there's "scarcity" owing to who has control of resources, but no actual shortage of resources. In point of fact, though, the only thing that isn't plentiful everywhere is fresh water. There is an abundance of food on the planet. Everybody could go vegetarian today & there'd still be an overabundance of food.


Not true. There's still scarcity. Just not of neccesities.

But we don't fight wars over neccesities.

Basically, until we get Star Trek style replicator thingies that can produce anything out of nothing, we will be in a position where people can fight over stuff. Hence, there is still scarcity.
Logged

--Keith

http://www.indiekids.org
(YES! I got a domain!)
Keith from TTIKTDA
Registered user

Posts: 865


« Reply #99 on: Sep 18, 2004, 03:19:36 PM »

Also John, while it may be true that the raw amount of food in the world > the amount of food needed in the world, the means by which that food can be transported and stored eeffieintly to get to those areas where there are clear and definite shortages require resources such as petroleum.

And if you even TRY to tell me that Oil isn't scarce...
Logged

--Keith

http://www.indiekids.org
(YES! I got a domain!)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Print
LPTJ | Last Plane Forums | Last Plane | Topic: The latest article made me laugh and laugh!
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc