Your Political Views

[Aaroneet]

Liberal/Idealist. Government-monitored business, stagnation of imperialism, against the idea of high-ranking business officials running for public office, varying taxes (depending on circumstance), pro-increased domestic production.

[badteccy]

Wait mindless1...weren't you leaving?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Badteccy, limit those comments to the threads where one can be personal.
This thread is obviously subjective, but it hardly requires interaction between Gnetters, so there's no reasonable excuse for a personal attack in here.

Originally Posted by Circle V

Libertarian. Small government, low taxes, personal freedom. "Your right to swing your fist around ends at your neighbor's cheek."

Hey, where have you been?! By the way, I agree.

[Circle V]

I've been busy. Love and schoolwork.

Libertarianism implies free-market capitalism, for all the socialists out there.

[Circle V]

...de verdad, I lost interest in the site when Super_Spright was banned.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Circle V

Libertarianism implies free-market capitalism, for all the socialists out there.

And for anyone not in the United States, "libertarian" does not mean in America what it means where you live. It means something in the range of classic liberal / laissez-faire capitalist / market anarchist / minarchist. Think anti-government or minimal-government propertarianism.

Drake

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Mir

I don't know, the whole point is moot. Its not the form of governance in place that is the problem, its the people who are elected that are the problem.

BINGO!!!



A lot of different systems would be successful if the people carrying out the expected duties were honest people of integrity. Put these kimd of people in charge. Put the criminals in jail.

[Mookie Lugubrious]

Hey I had a brainstorm last night at the gas station.

Reactive Politics

Instead of a political identity (democrat, republican, green etc..) with set mores and ideologies, you would have constituency dependant voting. that is to say that all decisions would be made by referendum in a sense (by webvote). This would apply to congressman, though I wouldn't want a president of such an anti-party, but I think at the local and even congressional level a reactive politics like this could come into its own.

There would also have to be some sort of phone vote as well.

If it were up to me I'd name it the Reactionary Party.

At any rate, isn't this how democracy is supposed to work?

[Mookie Lugubrious]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

BINGO!!!



A lot of different systems would be successful if the people carrying out the expected duties were honest people of integrity. Put these kimd of people in charge. Put the criminals in jail.

It's a blowjobocracy, man, not meritocracy. If only..

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Mookie Lugubrious

It's a blowjobocracy, man, not meritocracy. If only..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bcaVSTsYyOI

[Mookie Lugubrious]

Mr Show is God.

[badteccy]

I apologize.

[Arkham Asylum]

I am a anarchist viewing all governments to be a hack against the very fabric of existance and I am also a immoralist as I don't follow any moral creed although I do have a personal code.

(Insert anti God in there too as I am a atheist.)

The very notions of science a civic determinism called progress I also view to be a another trick of the mind or a tool to enslave the masses as it is simple individual judgments based on desire. What many call logic,reason or rationality is nothing but assumptions based off of the uncertainty principle.

As Nietzsche would say there are no facts, obligations, a set rules in the cosmos but only interpretations and necessities. In short I am anti human but then again what society calls humanity today I believe is nothing of the sort but more of a outer artificial shell.

[Arkham Asylum]

Forgive the various flaws in the structure of my post.

Apparently I have surpassed the number of times in editing my post.

( My computer has been pissing me off lately and if it keeps doing so it is likely to become target practice in the backyard.)

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Predicate human relationships on cooperation, rather than violence.

Read: "anarchist".

Everything else is some version of this: "We know what's best, and if you don't agree, you are wrong, so we'll will use clubs and guns to force the issue."

Drake

By the same coin the anarchists have the privilege of return fire.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally Posted by Vako

You may want to take it easy on judging people of different ideologies than you as "ignorant".

Mutualism is an intriguing idea which I will most likely explore. Is that open minded enough for you? Sans-sarcasm.

Mutualism will never happen as society survives on the very suffering of others in the state of inequality.

If there was mutualism where would society get it's slaves from?

Who then would be under the whip?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Arkham Asylum

By the same coin the anarchists have the privilege of return fire.

Maybe. You get your ultra-pacifist anarchists and your anarchists who believe in sticking up for themselves. The point is, the anarchist never starts the shooting, at least in principle. The only priviledge the anarchist may happen to claim is, as you say, that of return fire.

...society survives on the very suffering of others in the state of inequality. If there was mutualism where would society get it's slaves from? Who then would be under the whip?

The question marks that end those sentences are explanation points that beckon anarchy. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

Oh for gods sake!

Sorry to be a nagging obnoxious adult here..but, Anarchy is for children who do not have a good grasp of how society or human social structures are set up to benefit individuals. A side product is human cohabitation for mutual gain. Don't like governments or society? Too bad, you've been benefiting from them since you were born, whether you like it or not. I'm more than happy to set you out on your own in the desert, plains or tundra and see how you like living off the land and governing yourself. I could post a technical definition of anarchy, but that'd be too pretentious. <yeah I know, why stop now right>

Someone mentioned hating god and being an atheist. How can you hate something you don't believe in? Being someone who believes in nothing is one thing. If you want to make a blatant anti reliegious comment then make it, and not mask it with the guise of non belief. My personal belief is that there is something, probably not what any of the current major or pseudo religions think it is. But I won't refer to hate of another religion as part of my beliefs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. Check your political views with all the facts you can gather. My own views have changed greatly in the last ten years. Religous beliefs, same deal, except you might want some introspection if they contain an amount of hate for one thing or another.

Words of wisdom on my birthday.. since apparently I'm a year older and <hopefully> wiser...lol

[Drake Dun]

You cannot make my ideas ridiculous by fiat. If you want to say something meaningful about them, you'll need to address them on their merits. The dubious alternate tactics are not appreciated.

Anyway, happy birthday. Mine's soon too.

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

I'm sorry if you seem to think my logic, or should I say, logical retroflection into ones own views is offensive.

By using logical reasoning, it's a well known fact that human culture has surpassed anything in history, and advance to this level due to societal culture. Saying that such culture should be banned is like shooting yourself in the foot. Even the basic and simplest human tribes such as the Bushman of africa, or Aboriginies of Australia have government. Even basic families are a government of sort. To think you can do away with government, in any form, is akin to thinking you can give up oxygen. If you don't like the government, fine. I don't at some times also. But, look at yourself in the mirror. The person you look at is the same kind that works in government. If you doubt it, walk into court or a federal building and look around. They're all human too, and don't live on another planet.

And on the religious note. It seems to be a popular bandwagon to jump on hating god or xtianity. Fine, I don't care for them much either. But do you think constantly esposing hate is helping anything? From experience, I know hate is an addictive and horrific addiction. Also from experience, hate blinds you to facts and logic. It may fuel revolutions and change in some cases, but only in an extremely small amount. Logic is the key to human existance imho. If hate or extreme ideas are expressed as the first word or two, I usually shut the person off. It becomes obvious that they have no interest in a logical discussion or by proxy have a logical idea behind their feeling for a particular subject.
If you are in the anti-god categorey, I suggest saying you're an Agnostic, as this is a person who denies the existance of god. As an atheist you have no belief in god or the afterlife period.

Well, I thought I'd explained myself better in my previous post. But maybethis will help.

Also, Happy birthday too Drake.

[Drake Dun]

Ah, that's better. Now we can debate. Buahahaha.

By using logical reasoning, it's a well known fact that human culture has surpassed anything in history, and advance to this level due to societal culture. Saying that such culture should be banned is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Anarchists on the whole are not against society, culture, or progress. On the contrary, I think anarchism is mostly about the betterment of all three. In fact, I sometimes suspect that in the long term, anarchy is the direction society is already headed in, quite without regard to what I have to say about it.

The essence of anarchy is rejection of hierarchy and coercion. It is an ethic of life, love, and freedom. It's not, despite the popular (and sometimes deliberately inculcated) misconception, about tearing everything down, lighting it on fire, and dancing gleefully while the children scream in fear. It's about society getting over its historical hiccups.

Take a look at the past several centuries of human history. The following qualify in my mind as some of mankind's more worthy social accomplishments (some of these are not 100% complete, but all of them are substantially accomplished):

The end of slavery (this is fucking HUGE). The abolishment of legally entrenched class. The end of legal subjugation of women. The end of legally entrenched racial hierarchies. The fall from grace of totalitarianism (e.g. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia). The secularization of government. The rise in the latter half of the 20th century of a wide-spread anti-war consciousness. The advent of civil rights, including the right to say anything you want about the people in power, and the right not to be treated like a bitch by the government without at least some reason.

The list goes on. All of these tend to the freedom of individuals from arbitrary curtailment of their liberty. That is, toward anarchy.

I have the impression that you do not have a very specific picture of what "anarchism" means, or in the alternative, that you have a specific picture which is off the mark. I think the best way to understand anarchism, in its broadest sense, is not as a political theory, but as an anti-politics, which encompasses a paralell of many brands of thought found in standard politics.

Politics: "How should we make people behave after we've kicked the fuck out of them?"
Anarchism: "How should we organize things after we've gotten over this kicking-the-fuck-out-of-each-other phase?"

For example, you might be surprised to find out that there are anarchists who self-identify as capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

You'll probably be less surprised to discover that the mainstream of anarchy views the anarcho-capitalists with suspicion, to say the least. Anarchism as a movement does have common roots with "socialism", "communism", and other vaguely leftist -isms which have become increasingly difficult to define over time. But the point is, it's easy to be anti-state without fitting the image of the sniveling leftist.

Even the basic and simplest human tribes such as the Bushman of africa, or Aboriginies of Australia have government. Even basic families are a government of sort. To think you can do away with government, in any form, is akin to thinking you can give up oxygen.

Here is where I ask you to distinguish betwen organization, and coercion (which in its highest form is government). That is the key issue, I think. Anarchists are against coercion, not organization. Government is when you have a group of people (politicians, police, etc.) who impose a set of rules upon the people generally through institutionalized threat of force. Not when you have a group of people working together according to norms they have collectively established. Primitive societies are all, by definition, pre-state, thus anarchist.

These are not my own creative definitions. Right now I'm reading "The Origins of Human Society" by Peter Bogucki, who frankly identifies himself as a "nominal" Republican toward the beginning of the book (anthropologists never take a clear stance on anything, it seems). He places the transition of humanity from egalitarianism to "trans-egalitarianism" (still pre-state) between around 4000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. So, taking a conservative estimate for the origin of anatomically-modern humans at 100,000 years ago, and our rather strict standard of egalitarianism, humans have lived in a state of anarchy for 94-96% of their time on Earth.

Granted that we do not live under the same circumstances as our paeleolithic ancestors. But we have already dumped several of our more odious inventions made since then (mentioned above). So no, I cannot accept the assumption that government is written into the human condition, and always has been, and always must be.

If you don't like the government, fine. I don't at some times also. But, look at yourself in the mirror. The person you look at is the same kind that works in government. If you doubt it, walk into court or a federal building and look around. They're all human too, and don't live on another planet.

This is IMO the best part of your post, and it shows excellent insight. I think there are a lot of anarchists who could benefit from taking a deep breath and taking what you said here seriously. Just because some joker works for the IRS or the DHS does not mean that he is a devious monster who enjoys bruisifying his hapless fellow man. You average police officer may be an extension of the state's organism of violence, but that doesn't mean that he goes home and night and spends his free time wringing his hands and devising new, sick ways to brutalize civilians.

They are people, with the same set of motivations, dreams, fears, and what have you, as me or you. And the roles they have fallen into were carved out by history, not by malificent design.

I'm sorry to say it, but if you detect that there is a certain silly "rebel without a cause" element present in the anarchist movement... you are right. I do not resent these people. They have the right spirit. If they think that throwing a rock at a member of a police riot squad is striking a blow for the revolution, they're playing out a fantasy that comes down to the same old tired good guys / bad guys B.S. But it's the same fantasy as is played out by the DHS employee who strikes a blow for America by infiltrating a harmless anti-war group. Both of these people are trying to move toward something they think is better, and that's as much as I can ask of them.

On the topic of religion, as near as I can tell your comments are not directed to me, so I'll let somebody else respond to them. If they were directed to me, please let me know which post of mine they were made in reference to, and I'll punish you with a horribly long spiel again. Warning's fair!

Also, Happy birthday too Drake.

Gracias.

Drake

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Oh for gods sake!

Sorry to be a nagging obnoxious adult here..but, Anarchy is for children who do not have a good grasp of how society or human social structures are set up to benefit individuals. A side product is human cohabitation for mutual gain. Don't like governments or society? Too bad, you've been benefiting from them since you were born, whether you like it or not. I'm more than happy to set you out on your own in the desert, plains or tundra and see how you like living off the land and governing yourself. I could post a technical definition of anarchy, but that'd be too pretentious. <yeah I know, why stop now right>

Someone mentioned hating god and being an atheist. How can you hate something you don't believe in? Being someone who believes in nothing is one thing. If you want to make a blatant anti reliegious comment then make it, and not mask it with the guise of non belief. My personal belief is that there is something, probably not what any of the current major or pseudo religions think it is. But I won't refer to hate of another religion as part of my beliefs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. Check your political views with all the facts you can gather. My own views have changed greatly in the last ten years. Religous beliefs, same deal, except you might want some introspection if they contain an amount of hate for one thing or another.

Words of wisdom on my birthday.. since apparently I'm a year older and <hopefully> wiser...lol

Anarchy is for children who do not have a good grasp of how society or human social structures are set up to benefit individuals.

Tell me, how do slaves benefit at the expense of the few?

I never quite understood that concept.

A side product is human cohabitation for mutual gain.

There is no such thing as mutualism in society. It's a myth.

Don't like governments or society? Too bad, you've been benefiting from them since you were born, whether you like it or not.

Slave mentality.

I'm more than happy to set you out on your own in the desert, plains or tundra and see how you like living off the land and governing yourself.

You would never get the chance.......

I could post a technical definition of anarchy, but that'd be too pretentious. <yeah I know, why stop now right>

I am sure it would be too convenient.

Someone mentioned hating god and being an atheist. How can you hate something you don't believe in?

It is quite easy really.

Being someone who believes in nothing is one thing. If you want to make a blatant anti reliegious comment then make it, and not mask it with the guise of non belief.

What is that suppose to mean?

My personal belief is that there is something, probably not what any of the current major or pseudo religions think it is. But I won't refer to hate of another religion as part of my beliefs.

I hate most religions. Sorry I am not a pacifist.

[Arkham Asylum]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Oh for gods sake!

Sorry to be a nagging obnoxious adult here..but, Anarchy is for children who do not have a good grasp of how society or human social structures are set up to benefit individuals. A side product is human cohabitation for mutual gain. Don't like governments or society? Too bad, you've been benefiting from them since you were born, whether you like it or not. I'm more than happy to set you out on your own in the desert, plains or tundra and see how you like living off the land and governing yourself. I could post a technical definition of anarchy, but that'd be too pretentious. <yeah I know, why stop now right>

Someone mentioned hating god and being an atheist. How can you hate something you don't believe in? Being someone who believes in nothing is one thing. If you want to make a blatant anti reliegious comment then make it, and not mask it with the guise of non belief. My personal belief is that there is something, probably not what any of the current major or pseudo religions think it is. But I won't refer to hate of another religion as part of my beliefs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is. Check your political views with all the facts you can gather. My own views have changed greatly in the last ten years. Religous beliefs, same deal, except you might want some introspection if they contain an amount of hate for one thing or another.

Words of wisdom on my birthday.. since apparently I'm a year older and <hopefully> wiser...lol

I guess what I'm trying to say is. Check your political views with all the facts you can gather. My own views have changed greatly in the last ten years. Religous beliefs, same deal, except you might want some introspection if they contain an amount of hate for one thing or another.

I have done enough introspection for five lives.

Words of wisdom on my birthday..

Happy birthday.

since apparently I'm a year older and

Your probally not older than me.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

...is for children who do not have a good grasp of how...

That's where I stopped taking this post seriously.

[HumanePain]

Whoa! That was an awesome post Drake! That should be taught before college, in high school before we are conditioned what to think.

And regarding the definition and it's relevance to current society, I must agree; in my experience California is closer than the majority of the other states in terms of being a living example of a culture approaching anarchy as defined in your post. Less hierarchy, less coercion. Yes, there is still the occasional Rodney King beating, but for the most part, the media helps keep the government in check.

I must say that since joining Gnet almost a year ago I have gained a very valuable if albeit informal education on this site! And not just about writing.



By the way, I am currently sedated, so I apologize if my post is all over the road.