Tuesday's Presidential Election

[Godslayer Jillian]

Fine; there might be some people we will have to simply eradicate. If your goal is to bring me down to your level, guess what: Anarchofascism > statist fascism.
Truth is, you're just being hyperbolic because:
1) You're an idiot and therefore couldn't possibly actually take action on what you say.
or
2) You're just one of those geeky kids that feel all special when they bark loud. Sort of those bullshit kids that can't stop talking about being all superior and Nietzschean.

[KontanKarite]

Anarchofascism... What is that? You're free whether you like it or not?

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Fine; there might be some people we will have to simply eradicate.

Heil Hitler!

You weasel. You're going to have to eradicate the majority of the human race. Most, if not all, people on this planet willingly support the oppression of others in order to better their own situation.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If your goal is to bring me down to your level, guess what: Anarchofascism > statist fascism.

My goal is...well, what is my goal? Mainly to amuse myself by poking holes in your beliefs. But also to actually see how insanely far you'll take your beliefs. I give you an 8 on the nut-case scale.

But Anarchofascism? Really. You've gone so far left you come around to the extreme right. I didn't realize that was possibly.

So let me get this straight. You're going to create an anarchic state through the use of tyranny? I suspect either sarcasm or desperation in this assertion.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Truth is, you're just being hyperbolic because:
1) You're an idiot and therefore couldn't possibly actually take action on what you say.
or
2) You're just one of those geeky kids that feel all special when they bark loud. Sort of those bullshit kids that can't stop talking about being all superior and Nietzschean.

So, because you can't refute my arguments, I'm deficient as a human being? Nice. I suppose my mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries as well.

To be honest, I'm neither. I'm merely a member of a capitalist society working my way up the ladder by jumping through the hoops in front of me in order to make my way to as much wealth and power as I can manage. That it might be a result of unequal distribution of resources or unfairness is irrelevant to me.

In fact, the suffering of fellow human beings is largely irrelevant to other human beings, which is why such things as slavery, wars of conquest, ****, and many other things you consider "bad" have been allowed so often in history.

Anarchy might work with one human out of every 10. But for every really good human out there, I can give you ten bad. For ever person who saves a life, ten murderers. For every act of great charity, ten thefts. For every truly great relationship, ten bad relationships or rapes.

So, I guess the question should be - if you're really, really serious about it - is an Anarchic society worth killing 9 out of 10 people for? Granting that some people are just sheep, let's drastically reduce the number to 3 out of ten people. Hey, I'll even grant you a truly biased scale in your favor - let's say out of every 10 people, 3 are evil, 3 are sheep, and 4 are actually self-interest-deny-ingly-good.

Is an Anarchic society worth killing 1.8 billion people to achieve?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Anarchofascism... What is that?

An obvious contradiction. I'm playing with his exaggerations.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

To be honest, I was more attacking JCC there. But frankly, you're just as naive in your worship of your "special principle".

People are social creatures with an inherent desire for a pecking order. You can see it any time you put a group together, whether of complete strangers or familiar friends. And in any situation where you have social creatures, you are going to have disagreements.

Amen. tooshort

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

An obvious contradiction. I'm playing with his exaggerations.

Yeah...sarcasm. I stil dealt with it, as it's too fun not to bash...

But, unsurprisingly, you still can't explain a solution for human selfishness.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You're not talking about human selfishness.
Where the fuck do you make the leap of faith from "value to the world logically begins by valuing myself" to "if I could make someone suffer, I would"

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You're not talking about human selfishness.
Where the fuck do you make the leap of faith from "value to the world logically begins by valuing myself" to "if I could make someone suffer, I would"

What leap? I think that most of the human suffering caused by other humans is easily attributable to other human's selfishness, not sadism.

If I were to go and destroy an anarchic society, it wouldn't be because I like having slaves, but because I like not having to work. If I were to eat more than my fair share of the food, it's because I like eating. If I were to...well, you get the idea.

The problem is that you somehow expect that everyone is going to suddenly decide to start valuing the golden rule just because they have enough (which isn't guaranteed in and of itself, anyway - who says there will be enough?).

If that's the case, then why do so many people keep going after achieving a livable income and quality of life for themselves? Why did Saddam have to have several "palaces"? Why does Donald Trump have to keep earning money? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsi executives try to make more money?

Here's a thought - if people were what you claim them to be, capitalism would work just as well as any other method in terms of fairness. (I argue that capitalism is the only thing that works, just to be clear on my own beliefs, but that's irrelevant.)

The fact is that humans always want more. There is never enough for complete satisfaction. And we will, as the predators we are, take what we want by force if it is possible. For every little anarchic commune, I can point to thousands of similar small villages that were wiped out by other small villages in tiny little genocidal actions. Human history is so clogged with bloodshed and war over what other people have, by people of all ideological stripes, that trying to write a history not including killing would be like breathing without air.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

If I were to go and destroy an anarchic society, it wouldn't be because I like having slaves, but because I like not having to work. If I were to eat more than my fair share of the food, it's because I like eating. If I were to...well, you get the idea.

The idea. Tonight. Be there.

[Godslayer Jillian]

With your concept of Sin and all, I would expect you to understand the difference between immediate pleasure and real pleasure.

Someone somewhere in relatively little time compared to our whole evolutionary legacy, decided to race others down to rock bottom, fuck them up before he got fucked up. Society has been built from patching on that ever since.
But the 'race to the bottom' is nowhere near human nature.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

What leap? I think that most of the human suffering caused by other humans is easily attributable to other human's selfishness, not sadism.

If I were to go and destroy an anarchic society, it wouldn't be because I like having slaves, but because I like not having to work. If I were to eat more than my fair share of the food, it's because I like eating. If I were to...well, you get the idea.

The problem is that you somehow expect that everyone is going to suddenly decide to start valuing the golden rule just because they have enough (which isn't guaranteed in and of itself, anyway - who says there will be enough?).

If that's the case, then why do so many people keep going after achieving a livable income and quality of life for themselves? Why did Saddam have to have several "palaces"? Why does Donald Trump have to keep earning money? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsi executives try to make more money?

Here's a thought - if people were what you claim them to be, capitalism would work just as well as any other method in terms of fairness. (I argue that capitalism is the only thing that works, just to be clear on my own beliefs, but that's irrelevant.)

The fact is that humans always want more. There is never enough for complete satisfaction. And we will, as the predators we are, take what we want by force if it is possible. For every little anarchic commune, I can point to thousands of similar small villages that were wiped out by other small villages in tiny little genocidal actions. Human history is so clogged with bloodshed and war over what other people have, by people of all ideological stripes, that trying to write a history not including killing would be like breathing without air.

I feel really sorry for you, someone so self serving isn't likely to find any true happiness. I'm not saying that as a shot at you or anything, I truly do feel sorry for people like you.

[Albert Mond]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2008_edit1.jpg

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

With your concept of Sin and all, I would expect you to understand the difference between immediate pleasure and real pleasure.

Someone somewhere in relatively little time compared to our whole evolutionary legacy, decided to race others down to rock bottom, fuck them up before he got fucked up. Society has been built from patching on that ever since.
But the 'race to the bottom' is nowhere near human nature.

So, you are saying that the entire history of human bloodshed is due to some near-human ape deciding to brain all the other apes first?

So what makes you think that we've progressed beyond that at all? Science? Art? Music? All of these things are ephemeral compared to the biological drives of humanity, the predatory instincts we are born with. At least according to the theory of evolution, since I argue from an atheistic basis here.

Now, let's be honest about something here: people are not tyrants because they are masochists. People LIKE being the center of attention, the seat of power, etc. And people who are there, are happier. Oh, sure, they may get depressed or have problems, but would you rather be depressed in a tiny mud hut with flies landing on you or a mansion, all other things being equal? Also, consider the fact that if poorer people were actually happier, rich people would be giving their money away. People seek the maximum amount of happiness and comfort they can get.

And, coexistent with that last axiom is the fact that people cannot experience the pain or sadness of another. Sure, you can sympathize or empathize, but you cannot feel it. Until someone figures out a way to turn us all into the Borg, no one is really, truly going to naturally care about another as much as themselves. And until they do, the human desire for maximum self-happiness and self-comfort is going to rule.

That in itself is an excellent reason why collectivist societies don't work past a certain point, but what is really awesome about your philosophy is that you want a collectivist economy with an extremely individualistic society. It's like trying to set yourself on fire while immersing yourself in liquid nitrogen.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Solumina

I feel really sorry for you, someone so self serving isn't likely to find any true happiness. I'm not saying that as a shot at you or anything, I truly do feel sorry for people like you.

I'd wager a fair sum of money that I'm happier than you. Unfortunately, it's a subjective quality.

Or is it my failure to consider myself a good person that irritates you?

[ionic_angel]

Um. Hmm. Can't edit...

Anyway, given that some people seem to overreact to other people believing things, I think I'll make it clear that while I think Anarchs are nuts, I also support their right to believe in Anarchy.

Now back to my regularly scheduled bashing of your political stance. Oh right. Please post something.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

I'd wager a fair sum of money that I'm happier than you. Unfortunately, it's a subjective quality.

Or is it my failure to consider myself a good person that irritates you?

I'm not irritated. All of the information available to me indicates that people are made happy by their community. You on the other hand seek only to do what is best for you, failing to see that what is best for you is in fact to put your community ahead of you, bettering the world around you and in turn bettering your own life. Being happy really isn't subjective, I think you may be confusing it with joy, which is a whole different kind of thing and is pretty subjective.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

Anarchy only works in a world that's already perfect.

Well said.

[JCC]

Actually, we wouldn't have to eradicate anyone who didn't put us in danger. Opposing views are fine, eh, but when you don't work for the community, the community don't work for you.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Fine; there might be some people we will have to simply eradicate. If your goal is to bring me down to your level, guess what: Anarchofascism > statist fascism.

So now you've gone beyond implying that people need to die, and have actually come out and said it. You're going to "eradicate" the ones that get in your way. You still haven't explained to me how this is any different from any dictator in history imposing rule by the sword.

Nice word choice, by the way. "Eradicate" is just so much more emphatic than "kill". It affords us a look at how your mind works.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Actually, we wouldn't have to eradicate anyone who didn't put us in danger. Opposing views are fine, eh, but when you don't work for the community, the community don't work for you.

You won't eradicate anyone, so long as they agree with you completely and do what you say? The politics of a toddler. You should've been working for the Bush administration.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

You won't eradicate anyone, so long as they agree with you completely and do what you say? The politics of a toddler. You should've been working for the Bush administration.

No, we won't eradicate anyone that doesn't try and eradicate us first through violence. However, since anarchism effectively is the politics of teamwork, if someone doesn't work, they don't reap the benefits. That's not exterminating them, that's "why should I work for someone who doesn't have the decency to work for my benefit, even if we differ ideologically?"

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

No, we won't eradicate anyone that doesn't try and eradicate us first through violence. However, since anarchism effectively is the politics of teamwork, if someone doesn't work, they don't reap the benefits. That's not exterminating them, that's "why should I work for someone who doesn't have the decency to work for my benefit, even if we differ ideologically?"

Again, you plan to challenge the people in power, expect them to back down peacefully, and then have everyone jump into this live-and-let-live egalitarianism? The thought is ideological to the point of absurdity. How can violence not result from this sort of thinking?

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Again, you plan to challenge the people in power, expect them to back down peacefully, and then have everyone jump into this live-and-let-live egalitarianism? The thought is ideological to the point of absurdity. How can violence not result from this sort of thinking?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think JCC is trying to say that violence wouldn't occur. I think what he's saying is that people would be intolerant of "slave drivers" or people who refuse to work for the benefit of the community as a whole. Maybe the community would put up with it for a while but eventually they are going to get sick of it and do something about it. I think he's also saying that someone who refuses to work for the benefit of the community because of self-interests, would again, eventually become intolerable.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by ~~Auriel~~

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think JCC is trying to say that violence wouldn't occur. I think what he's saying is that people would be intolerant of "slave drivers" or people who refuse to work for the benefit of the community as a whole. Maybe the community would put up with it for a while but eventually they are going to get sick of it and do something about it. I think he's also saying that someone who refuses to work for the benefit of the community because of self-interests, would again, eventually become intolerable.

And Pin was clearly saying that violence would occur from it.

[~~Auriel~~]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

And Pin was clearly saying that violence would occur from it.

Seems like they have similar perspectives. Just explaining them differently.