Thanks for proving my point.

It's been stated that I am by no means a member of the Majority on this site.

and when I speak up a member of the Majority (I guess seeking approval from the rest of said Majority) tries to get me to shut up.


Such behavior also ties in with well established "Pack Mentality" studies.

And because a person in the Majority doesn't want to listen to the Minority we see the seed that Corruption grows from.

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's a problem.

Well, not a problem in your case, you're an asshole, but generally speaking.

Man what you guys haven't picked up from the very moment I signed on is the fact that my being on here has been a social experiment.

And the majority of you have acted as expected.

Just as any other group of human beings that encounter someone different.

Didn't I already ask you go to fuck yourself? Get on that sooner rather than later.

Well Deadmanwalking, what you haven't picked up is that this entire forum and all of it's posts is ,in fact, a controlled experiment wherein *you* are the test subject. The data we have extracted from your interactions within this forum is very "interesting" to say the least.

Now you guys know why I've stayed on here for so long.

Don't blame me for your petty insecurities.

I handed you the rope,you guys chose what to do with it.

Jesus, this is the sort of shit that they make documentaries about. You've come into a social setting where you couldn't adapt to the requirements set by the exemplary intelligence of its alpha male, myself, and to compensate for the fact that you are a fat and miserable dead-ender living in a tin hut with his zombie survival kit you fabricate an entirely ridiculous story that you're some kind of fucking professor conducting a sociopolitical experiment into the dangers of direct democracy. This is priceless, doc.

Dependence in one person to run over your life and a hundred thousand others' somehow doesn't harm society? There's nothing wrong when THEY control the people? Even assuming your stupid understanding of direct democracy, it's not OK for everyone to "control others" but it's OK for ONE to control them?
That's fucking fascist.

national socialism is the perfect gpverment

Yea, it worked out great for Nazi Germany!

[/sarcasm]

it would have if hitler hadnt goten syfulus and went crazy

National Socialism (or in fact any socialist society that is not democratic, like the Nazi party) has one main drawback. Ok, that's bullshit, it has countless drawbacks. One in particular is this. If everyone is relying on the government for distribution of resources and community planning, then the government would be a big and integral part of the daily life. If the government is not democratic and representative of the people's desire, the feeling of, "Bigger Brother" will grow and grow quickly.

That's the main problem with government as a whole though, in terms of public opinion. There is a large tendency for the government-governed relationship to become a type of Them vs. Us scenario. If there is any type of governing body, a council, a committee, a bureaucracy, etc, then there needs to be a feeling that the body is a direct part of the community and a direct part of the populace. The people would need to feel this body is a part of themselves, not an external force like a parent. This is essentially impossible on very large scales. Even the most democratically ideal Federation would eventually grow into a Them vs. Us relationship.

As such, the only way to even have a council or committee, or body of any kind, is on the immediate local community level, and it would have to be both voluntary and democratic, as well as fluid and organic. An example would be in a town of 1,000 that covered forty-nine square miles, including agricultural land, the ideal situation for deciding things would be if a member of every household congregated and set policy, discussing things until a solution could be found that was agreeable to all. This is obviously highly idealistic, and of course there will always be someone unhappy, but this would be a drastically lower rate of dissatisfaction than what a government the size of the United States has. It is entirely imaginable, going back to my theoretical town, that all 1,000 members could congregate and discuss things, with them breaking into smaller groups then gathering to compare ideas.

The reason I typed all of this out is, other than to prove that I can type more than six sentences without swearing, that I wanted to give the people who doubt the practicality of anarchist communism on the day to day basis. I wanted to give a good, albeit crude, example of what such a community would be like. To my admittedly limited understanding of Anarchist Syndicalism, the system of factories and labor unions would make it easier to have larger societies, but more power would have to be given to these labor unions, which is one of my reservations about Syndicalism. I will say now, as a disclaimer, I know very little of Anarchist Syndicalism, so if I have said anything in error, don't hesitate to correct me.

I never said that it was okay for one individual to try and control all I feel that is just as bad as all trying to control the individual.

And yet you believe in a representative democracy. To your credit, at least this is probably because you can't see the deficiencies and contradictions of your stupid beliefs, rather than blatant denial of the obvious.

There's far worse alternatives to a representative democracy though.

Some form of Anarcho-socialism is fine by me. I don't think I'd be too picky as to how the community wanted to trade in an anarchist society.

Of course there are. You still need delegates in anarcho-syndicalism.
All I'm pointing out is that Deadman's beliefs have no fucking consistency at all. He just wants to dryhump the American Constitution for no reason at all. Then again, that's how fetishes work.

Voted Anarcho-communism.

You would die in the woods.

I'll take that with a healthy dose of salt.

You seem to think that Anarchy will be peaceful and orderly,when it is the exact opposite of peace and order.

To which I'd like to add...

"Hey pot I'm Kettle....now which one of us is supposed to be black?"

Go fuck yourself, professor.

That's the best you can do?

Pathetic.

He wouldn't waste his best on you.

He's not arguing for chaos. Anarchy in this sense is "no hierarchical power structure," not "no society."

Great beginners guide.

_______________________________

Hate not the Raven,
For wearing Black;
For it serves,
The will of it's creator,
that it is So.

~anon~