Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 12:05:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Why I hate engaging in internet debates. on: February 04, 2012, 07:59:59 PM
Quote
Whatever, let's just not even get into it, I've been down this road way too many times and it's damn annoying. I've actually had nightmares where I mount and beat the life out of my dad all because of his ridiculous beliefs. Yes, I hate low government type people that much.

NatsuTerran sounds like a rational individual.  Just appeal to reason and logic.  I'm sure it will work.

Haha, I actually skipped over that one. He might have edited or posted after the threads were split, but I don't remember reading all that before. I found the post and am responding, but only because he opened easy doors.

Edit: Yes, his reasoning capabilities are the reason I got annoyed and decided to start this topic on this forum.
2  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Why I hate engaging in internet debates. on: February 04, 2012, 06:57:32 PM
Everytime I see a post from ThinkAnarchy, all I can think of is

"Kaw, ka-kaw, ka-ka-ka-kaw!"
Cha-chee, cha-chee, cha-chee, cha-chee!"
"A coodle doodle doo, a coodle doodle doo!"
"Coo coo ka-cha! Coo coo ka cha!"

I have put a poisonous substance into the body I own... So I can't tell if you clicked on the link and are mocking the people responding to me or me in this here thread.   Wink I'm leaning to you having clicked on the link though... I'm a paranoid mother fucker, what can I say?

Edit: Damnit, I just realized it was a joke about my avatar. Good one by the way.  Grin
3  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Why I hate engaging in internet debates. on: February 04, 2012, 06:49:53 PM
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9297.0

I figured I would include the discussion if anyone is interested. Firstly, I would greatly appreciate advice on how to make my arguments stronger. Second, I thought others might get some enjoyment reading the progression of this debate.

One of the moderators split the thread from it's original topic of global warming, which was just.
 
I'm done for with the subject for a while, but will get back into it later tonight or monday once people start responding again.
4  General Category / General Discussion / Why I hate engaging in internet debates. on: January 31, 2012, 04:34:06 PM
I am involved in a discussion about Global Warming and I received this response. Granted, I'm not a great debater, I'm actually pretty poor at it. Part of the reason is that I tend to just get pissed off and not able to think clearly. This statement simply rang of so much ignorance... Just thought I would share it.

Quote
LOL. I will never understand libertarians. What a joke. EPA is a public good. It is indispensable to society as a whole, which means it would not make a good profit as a business because it cannot be used in the private sector. It's just $30 bucks a year dude, you really think you'd be better off with that money in your pocket and living on a hell on earth? You can't measure everything in terms of economics. Just because you personally are too short-sighted to see that many people want this govt coercion to keep our environment safer, doesn't mean we should appeal to you. What's good for the group is good for all individuals. What's good for individuals is very often bad for the group.
5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Areas of the web that Anonymous frequents on: January 06, 2012, 11:08:15 PM
Yeah, they still announce some of their plans & calls to action on 4chan. Be prepared to sift through a lot of porn though. Lulzsec (I think is the name) also has it's own forum somewhere, but I don't remember the domain name.

Sorry to veer, but I love your avatar.

Thank you, I borrowed it from some part of the internet.
6  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Areas of the web that Anonymous frequents on: January 06, 2012, 09:33:02 PM
Yeah, they still announce some of their plans & calls to action on 4chan. Be prepared to sift through a lot of porn though. Lulzsec (I think is the name) also has it's own forum somewhere, but I don't remember the domain name.
7  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Re: Gary North debates Walter Block on getting a PhD in Economics on: January 06, 2012, 05:07:34 PM
Moreover, if your goal is to change minds of influential people, being a profesor is by far the most effective position to do it from.  

Not only that, but Dr. Block infiltrated the economic department at Loyola, got tenure, suggested other Austrian economists for teaching positions, and has turned the university into one of the only ones that teaches Austrian rather than keynesian economics. The university officials were clearly ignorant of what was going on.

Unfortunately they recently applied for a graduate program, with letters of interest being sent in from around the world. I think the school denied the program though.

I haven't watched the video yet, but have it bookmarked as well.
8  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A voting anarchist... on: January 05, 2012, 03:27:57 PM
Yes, well I'm now of the mind he can't win. Not because of a lack of support, but it already appears from the Iowa primary they are tampering with votes. So I guess the argument is moot now.

Luckily I won't have to struggle with moral problem of voting since my states caucus is one of the last. If he runs as an independent the debate might start back up in my mind though.
9  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Where do you buy your food? on: January 05, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
My girlfriend and I recently wanted to lose some weight and switched to a mostly paleo diet, with fantastic results. We do most of our shopping at Whole Foods now and buy organic vegetables, fruits, and their grass fed beef. Along with natural coconut oil and the likes. Plus I can eat as much organic bacon, meat, butter, and though its debated dairy as I like, while still maintaining a healthy weight. We aren't as hungry now though, so we eat much less.

We are thinking about joining the local co-op for a $25 a month fee and getting a basket of the fruits and vegetables they harvest every month.

We buy mostly organic, but there are some processed foods I still ingest, but in much lower quantities than I used to.
10  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Do we need to convince a majority to form an anarchist society on: January 05, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
With the American Empire in it's current state, I would imagine an anarchist society within it's current borders would be very short lived. I doubt they would nuke the small anarchist society, but they would most certainly invade to recapture the lost territory. Seeing how difficult it is for a country like Iran to get a nuke, I can't imagine a small population of anarchists doing much better in acquiring one.

Nukes also aren't a weapon of self-defense. I kind of view nukes as this. If a man pulls out a gun in a crowd of innocent children with the intention of shooting them. Your justified and in the moral right to shoot at him with a pistol, assault rifle etc. If a few children get hit by your gunfire, the blood is mostly on the criminals hands who intended to do harm. If however you pull out a grenade launcher and fire it into the crowd to take out the thug, you knowingly and needlessly sacrificed the lives of many innocents to take out your intended target. It is a bit off topic from the point of your post, but I think an anarchist society using a nuke (not necessarily owning one) would violate the NAP principle.

With that said, would put a 0.01% chance on an anarchist society lasting more than 6 months within the American borders.

I think it would stand a far better shot in a territory with less nationalistic pride, or an underpowered military.

I do agree with your premise though, that a simple majority is not enough. The anon attacks are a good example of what the minority can do.

Also the violation of property rights shouldn't be needed in setting up an anarcho-capitalist society. Doug Casey or another anarchist would simply have to claim sovereignty on his already existing property and start selling pieces of it to like minded individuals. An anarcho-communist could do similar and allow like minded individuals the opportunity to move onto it.

I'm a bit tired and out of it today, so it's entirely possible I missed the point of OP, if so I apologize.
11  General Category / General Discussion / Re: 2012 Predictions on: January 01, 2012, 11:49:52 PM
War with Iran, possible US city gets nuked. Martial law. Or that might all happen just AFTER Obama gets re-elected.

War with Iran seems very likely. I notice not only is the propaganda machine in overdrive right now, but on Lew Rockwell, they keep posting pro-Iranian (for lack of a better term) videos. It seems they are getting a bit worried over there as well.

I agree with the guy who said Obama's reelection depends on a new war. I imagine the war will start a few months before the election. If Iran doesn't take the bait, I'm sure the U.S. will have no problem sinking one of their own vessels while blaming it on the Iranians.

I doubt U.S. cities would get nuked though unless it turned into a WW which it would have the potential to.
12  General Category / General Discussion / Re: 2012 Predictions on: January 01, 2012, 02:44:50 PM
I don't make predictions, but I doubt the odds would be that high for a 70-something year old man dying... Granted he is far more healthy than most his age, but you would never get those kinds of odds.

Yes, but the odds of TWO 70+ year old men dying in the same year? That's compounded.

Ahh, I completely read over the second man. Yeah, you would get better odds on that kind of bet. I imagine your right about the Obama one, too.
13  General Category / General Discussion / Re: 2012 Predictions on: January 01, 2012, 04:55:11 AM
I don't make predictions, but I doubt the odds would be that high for a 70-something year old man dying... Granted he is far more healthy than most his age, but you would never get those kinds of odds.
14  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Iowa Caucus Predictions? on: December 31, 2011, 08:10:28 PM
Well they just released the new Iowa Registry poll and all I could see was the headline. I'm guessing the server is overwhelmed right now from people flooding it. But the headline said Santorum is still surging, Mitt Romney is in the lead, and both Santorum and Paul are still within striking distance.
15  General Category / General Discussion / Re: A voting anarchist... on: December 31, 2011, 04:10:14 PM


Your overall argument essentially seems to boil down to this, "By voting for the minarchist we are legitimizing the state, and you're too principled for that."

There's more than just that. The feeling of VOLUNTARILY legitimizing the state, voting when I know it's futile, and I know I'm stooping to this ridiculous level for no apparent reason, is something that makes my life worse. Whatever "advertising" it could do for libertarianism is miniscule compared to the value I get from being able to tell people that I don't vote. It's really hypocritical for me to claim that voting is pointless and won't change anything, and that I don't believe in government if I'm going to also tell people I voted for Ron Paul. It makes me look crooked. It makes market anarchism look bad too. I often criticize ancoms for being democratic-socialists. I don't want market anarchists to be compared to republicans. Market anarchism is not "right-wing."

I agree that voting is essentially useless, however there are some legitimate reasons for an anarchist to vote. To use the term liberally, many Anarcho-Capitalists vote with their feet (as the saying goes.) That kind of voting certainly does more than political voting, seeing as you are actively moving to a lower tax state, or one with greater economic and personal freedoms, but it is in a loose way a form of voting.

We seem to be looking at this part from two slightly different perspectives. I have never really told anyone voting is pointless, simply about why the government should not be murdering innocents, why drug users should not be imprisoned, why the markets should be free, and why anarchism would be the ideal form of government (for lack of a better term.)

I have not voted politically since converting to this way of thought, but my reasons have been because it always was the lesser of two evils. Both candidates would joyfully spark wars with other nations, limit economic freedom, continue to overflow the prisons with non-violent criminals. I urge people not to vote in that sense, I suppose.

However, my argument is this, by us not supporting the minarchist we are doing more to harm our principles and goals than anything else. Our goal is to spread the message of liberty and change the thinking of the rest of the population. I'm not of the belief we have to convert people from Statists to anarchists, instead they need to be eased into this way of thinking, which is why I love libertarianism and minarchism.

That's fine. Is voting really helping though? Could you do more good from not-voting? Everyone's cost-benefit analysis is different. I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong. For me, it's clear that both at a personal level and at the anarchism movement level, the costs of voting outweigh the benefits....looking at it from the other perspective, the benefits of not-voting are much greater than the "costs" which I find negligible.
Voting in almost all political cases does not help. The don't vote message isn't going to resinate with most voters,however, which is why I don't use it. Many people are going to vote and I would prefer to try and sway their vote to Ron Paul instead of Newt, Perry, or Obama. I'm still not sure if I will personally vote, it is honestly one of those things I keep flipping back and forth on; both sides make very compelling arguments and I have yet to come to a solid conclusion. I have decided a while ago to help the Paul campaign though, and try and get those who do believe in voting to vote for someone who I believe will increase freedoms.

If those on this forum, who feel those of us who will vote and help Paul's campaign are violating their espoused beliefs, tell me your plans for fulfilling our shared goals.

I don't think it violates anarchist beliefs "per se" since you legitimately believe that it's just a means to an end, but I find it counterproductive. I would much rather debate those same people, and tell them that Ron Paul can't win. I would tell them that the point of the RP Revolution is to discover that he can never win. That's the point of it all. To get you to market anarchism. Use the RP closet anarchist theory and say that the point of his campaign is to get people reading mises.org and LRC and to convert them to market anarchism. That's better than wasting your time on a political campaign, imo. You are welcome to disagree.
I don't completely disagree. I think it is premature to say he certainly can't win. It is fairly obvious from the numbers that a greater number of the population is finding Ron Paul more appealing than in 2008. It's still not clear if it's enough numbers to win the nomination though. It also is likely the establishment would ensure he doesn't win, which might be what you meant by "he can't win." The more supporters he has the more likely other people will be to listen to his message. Also, there will likely be more voters who will feel disenfranchised and as if the system failed them who might be more ripe for listening to the An-cap philosophy.
The mentality of many anarchists is far more damaging to the cause of liberty than legitimizing the state through voting for a man who will decrease the power of the state.


This is where I start to strongly disagree with you. RP will not be able to effect change. He can't win. That's the first part. Second, even if he did, he couldn't change much at all. If he attempted to, he would initiate the SHTF storm, and everyone would remember that the empire ended with a libertarian in charge, setting the movement back a thousand years (this last sentence is paraphrased from stefbot)
I'm fine with your disagreeing, I wanted to throw that in there to ruffle some feathers and ensure a response. I would like to know your reasons for knowing the Empire will end during a Paul presidency.

My thinking initially was that our best option would be to wait for the Empire to crumble in on itself, and yes if it self destructed with him in office it would do a lot to harm our cause. I think that would be unlikely though since he would not maintain the policies that inevitably lead to the destruction of empires. I'm also unsure if it would be in our best efforts to hope for a presidency that would lead to the collapse. My thinking here is that if the majority of citizens are not ready for Anarcho-Capitalism, they would immediately begin building a new government. It could start out small and they would maybe leave us alone for a while, but eventually a new coercive empire would likely replace the old.

Before I can respond more directly to your point of the Empire collapsing under Paul, I need to know more about why you think it would.
Ron Paul doesn't win the state continues to grow. Ron Paul does win, the state shrinks, innocents will not die at the hands of the state, the income tax could be abolished, among many other anarchist ideals.
The state will continue to grow, because RP can't win. Even if he could win, I don't think the state would shrink...perhaps grow less quickly? maybe. But he certainly could not abolish the income tax, or do anything major. But, the debate is pointless, because he cannot win.
If he won, he could pardon all non-violent criminals, not sign off on any new bills or war declarations, repeal executive orders. I agree though, there isn't much he could do without the support of the legislature.

So you tell me, who here honestly cares about improved freedom and who cares more about their principles. Who are the ideologues and who is actually doing something to increase freedom?

Voting and donating to a campaign will not help. I value your attitude of action over idealism, and I greatly appreciate your energy. If all of us were as energetic as you, we'd be much better off. I think your efforts could be more effective if put to use elsewhere. I believe you are a smart person, and I think you could come up with better ways to use your time.
Well I donate time and effort but not money. We all have the same general goals, there will just be differences on how we attempt to fullfil them.

Some of us don't "live" purely for our anarchist ideals. We want to be able to run our businesses without being harassed, protest without being arrested, etc.
Completely agree. I don't think a political (or apolitical) ideology should dominate anyone's life. There is much more to do. Unfortunately, you are not going to be able to run your business without being harassed. Ron Paul is not a savior.
You are correct, he is not a savior. But people may be able to run their businesses without being harassed as much. The biggest would likely be the medical marijuana clinics in California.

In closing, what better way to attack the state than by helping to elect a man who opposes most of it's power, a man the establishment fears; all through the process the state itself set up and endorses?
I think any way is better, because they have some chance of success. Ron Paul absolutely cannot win (I also think that is the most important point you can make when debating his supporters).
It would be if you had a crystal ball to see into the future.

Thank you for the responses. I said I was tired of this debate, but oddly it's still fun. Also, I apologize if there are major typos or incomplete sentences. It's hard to find them with this much text with little time. I think I caught everything glaring though.
Pages: [1] 2
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!