Daily Anarchist Forum
March 24, 2019, 02:33:30 AM *
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 3 ... 28
1  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Tapatalk? on: December 17, 2014, 10:13:46 PM
The one time I tried tapatalk I found it more of a pain than just a web page--topics weren't lined up in a way that made sense, I couldn't navigate, and this on a site that bugs me to try it on tapatalk.  Better just to have a mobile page for the forum.

That is one bad thing about it. Just when you're use to a layout they change it around. I thought they had it down and their new sets up is horrible. I wish they'd stick with a format that works and tinker with it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel all the time.
2  General Category / General Discussion / Tapatalk? on: December 13, 2014, 09:12:09 PM
Seth,

Have you ever considered making the forum avaliable on Tapatalk? I'm on my phone most of the time and while I can post here on it, it's somewhat or a pain. Also if I'm at work or out somewhere, all the forums I post on are on Tapatalk so it's easy to move between them. That and the program was made to make posting easier on phones and other mobile devices.

Finally you can search their directory for whatever subject you want.



That's all I found and that bottom site is the only "ancap" one that came up. I'm sure you could get some more people here if you gave them a way to post and join easier from their phones.

Just a thought.
3  General Category / Lounge / Re: So How's life? on: December 13, 2014, 09:02:23 PM
I recently did standup comedy and will be doing it again. I haven't done any policitalc/anarchist humor yet. The thing is I'm no George Carlin or Bill Hicks. Starting out you want to be a little funny and not overly preachy.

I got a motorcycle over the summer, '99 750 Katana and have been having a blast with it.

I've been trying to be more outgoing, meet new people, and try new things.

Work has been hell but that's what it is. I'm actually really good.
4  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Opinions on Ayn Rand on: December 13, 2014, 08:51:47 PM
If I'm not mistaken, she created Objectivism as a philisophival counter to Marxism to explain why it's bullshit. In that regard she succeeded but then tried to turn it into this life philosophy that is wishy wqshy.
5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Snowden's girlfriend is with him in Moscow, new film reveals on: December 13, 2014, 08:42:51 PM
Yeah he's winning at life.
6  General Category / General Discussion / Re: What happened here? Where did everybody go? on: December 13, 2014, 08:39:54 PM
I've been busy. That and I've been getting out a lot more and doing things (skydiving, standup comedy, etc.). I really just am not online much anymore period. I still drop by from time to time but not like I use to.
7  General Category / General Discussion / Re: I'm in Love on: July 04, 2014, 05:09:34 AM
So...what do we have to do to get her, or others like her, posting on here?

How do you know they are not already here?

Because last I saw on the site makeup we had like two females and both hadn't posted in literally years.
8  General Category / General Discussion / I'm in Love on: June 19, 2014, 09:54:41 PM
20 of the Hottest Libertarian Women Alive

Quote
#5. Whitney Davis

She’s frequently posting radical stuff on Facebook and she’s always out there doing battle with minarchists, reppin’ hardcore anarchocapitalism every chance she gets. Whitney Davis does a lot of outreach for Young Americans for Liberty and right now she lives in Los Angeles and studies electrical engineering. Shocked? Don’t be. She’s wicked smart and hella beautiful.

So...what do we have to do to get her, or others like her, posting on here?

Now I know what you're thinking.

"Gee Tear-Down-the-Wall it sounds like you're focused on your own desires over spreading the message of anarchy. You also sound desperate and sad to use this site for some kind of daring platform."

Well all I can say to that is, guilty as charged!
9  General Category / General Discussion / Re: The California rampage on: May 26, 2014, 05:53:29 PM
Legalize prostitution.
10  General Category / General Discussion / That word you keep using... on: April 30, 2014, 10:34:51 AM
It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Quote
A self-proclaimed anarchist group says it has a new target: Uber.

The group called "Counterforce" claims to have stopped 10 Uber cars on Saturday night in Seattle, hoping to disrupt business for the popular mobile app company.

"Saturday night is the busiest ever," said Uber driver Amanuel Haile.

And with all the bar hopping, Seattle's Capitol Hill is one of the company's busiest areas.

Perhaps that is why the protesters picked that night and that neighborhood to target Uber vehicles. They posted photos on a website, claiming to have detained 10 cars in front of hundreds of witnesses, because Uber is "one of the most disgusting tech companies in existence."

The site goes on to say "multiple families will lose a significant portion of their monthly incomes when Uber overtakes smaller taxi services."

"This is my life, why would they do that?" asked Haile, when he heard about the disruptions. "I have to protect the passenger for sure, ask 'What is this about?' and stay calm."

Brook Steger, GM for Uber Seattle, posted a response in a blog on the company site. She only knows of one driver having service interrupted Saturday night.

And to counter the anarchists' claim about Uber forcing families to lose income, she said, "Many small business owners we partner with are college students, immigrants, and residents looking to supplement their income."

Of the four businesses near the intersection of Harvard and Pine, where the anarchist photos appear to be taken, none of them remember seeing any protesters Saturday night, and some question why they would target Uber.

"I don't know," said Dale Metteer, a bartender at Linda's. "I've never seen it as a super corporate company."

With May Day approaching, Seattle Police says it's warning anyone in a car that gets surrounded by protesters to stay calm, stay in the car, and if you're worried about your safety, call 911.

Some Capitol Hill businesses are not taking any chances. Last year, a string of windows were smashed and car vandalized by protestors marching to the downtown core. The owner of Mia’s Café on Capitol Hill says she will close early this year to avoid any confrontations.
11  General Category / General Discussion / Re: New York gun owner ignore new gun registration law on: April 26, 2014, 07:49:15 AM
This country is one big ass powder keg soaked in gasoline.
12  General Category / General Discussion / Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government on: March 26, 2014, 05:52:48 PM
Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government

Quote
As it says next to my picture, I defend laissez-faire capitalism. “Anti-government” is the term Leftists use to smear this position. And, amazingly, some calling themselves “libertarians” are indeed anti-government across the board; they argue for what they call “anarcho-capitalism.”

“Free competition works so well for everything else,” these anarchists say, “why not for governmental services, too?”

But that argument comes from an anti-capitalist premise. Like the Marxists, who prate about “exploitation” and “wage slavery,” the anarchists are ignoring the crucial, fundamental, life-and-death difference between trade and force.

Marxists claim that capitalistic acts use force. “Anarcho-capitalists” claim that acts of force can be capitalistic. Though they come at it from different directions, both ignore or evade the fact that producing and exchanging values is the opposite of physical force.

Production is the creation of value, and trade is the voluntary exchange of value for value, to mutual benefit. Force is destruction, or the threat of it. It may be the destruction of a value, as when a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window. Or it may be the destruction of destruction, as when a policeman pulls a gun on that hoodlum and hauls him off to jail. But in either case, it is the opposite of wealth-creation and voluntary trade.

Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value. The threat of force is used to make someone obey, to thwart his will. The only moral use of force is in self-defense, to protect one’s rights.

    It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. (Atlas Shrugged)

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.

Ask yourself what it means to have a “competition” in governmental services. It’s a “competition” in wielding force, a “competition” in subjugating others, a “competition” in making people obey commands. That’s not “competition,” it’s violent conflict. On a large scale, it’s war.

The shootout at the O.K. Corral was not a case of “competition.” Actual competition is a peaceful rivalry to gain dollars–dollars paid voluntarily in uncoerced trade.

Governments are necessary–because we need to be secure from force initiated by criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders.

The genius of the American system is that it limited government, reining it in by a Constitution, with checks and balances and the provision that no law can be passed unless it is “necessary and proper” to the government’s sole purpose: to protect individual rights–to protect them against their violation by physical force.

Tragically, the original American theory of government was breached, shelved, trashed long ago. But that’s another story.

The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes “competitors.” It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.

“A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control–i.e., under objectively defined laws.” (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

There can be only one supreme law of the land and only one government to enforce it. (State and local governments are necessarily subordinate to the federal government.)

Could conflict among “competing governments” be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?–enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign “competing governments.” She looked at me grimly and said, “You mean like at the U.N.?”

A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a “right” to “compete” with the government–i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a “right” by joining with others to go into the “business” of wielding force.

To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten the citizens’ rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.

The government has to regard such private force as a threat–i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. The threat of force is force. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.

Note that a proper government does not prohibit a man from using force to defend himself in an emergency, when recourse to the government is not available; but it does, properly, require him to prove objectively, at a trial, that he was acting in emergency self-defense. Similarly, the government does not ban private guards; but it does, properly, bring private guards under its supervision by licensing them, and does not grant them any special rights or immunities: they remain subject to the government’s authority and its laws. They cannot make their own laws.

“There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own.)” (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

The attempt to invoke individual rights to justify “competing” with the government collapses at the first attempt to concretize what it would mean in reality. Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

Regarding the purported betrayal, one can only respond: if this be treason, make the most of it.

In fact, of course, there is no conflict between individual rights and outlawing private force: there is no right to the arbitrary use of force. No political or moral principle could require the police to stand by helplessly while others use force arbitrarily–i.e., according to whatever private notions of justice they happen to hold.

Bear in mind that, in fact, those who would be granted the right to enforce their own notions of justice include Leftists who consider government intervention in the economy to be retaliation against business activities that the leftists claim is “economic force.” It would include Palestinian terrorists who claim that random slaughter is “retaliation” against “Zionist imperialism.” It would include those who hold abortion to be murder and bomb abortion clinics as “retaliation” in defense of the “rights” of the unborn, and Islamists who clamor to let “Sharia law” operate within Western nations.

In any society, disputes over who has the right to what are inescapable. Even strictly rational men will have disagreements of this kind, and the possibility of human irrationality, which is inherent in free will, multiplies the number of such disputes.

The issue, then is: how are political and legal disputes to be settled: by might or by right–by street fighting or by the application of objective, philosophically validated procedures?

The anarchists object to the very idea of a monopoly on force. That only shows that they cannot grasp what force is. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolize. The cop or the gunman says: “We’ll do it my way, not your way–or else.” There is no such thing as force that allows dissenters to go their own way.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman who doesn’t want it, only one of them can have their way. It’s either “Back off” or rape. Either way, it’s a monopoly.

A violent conflict ends in the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. Peaceful trade is the opposite: no side is vanquished; both parties to the trade gain. Trade is win-win. A business profits by selling the buyer something he would rather have than the money he spends for it. Barring a mistaken decision, both parties benefit.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by “competing” force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on “the market” cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

This has not prevented the anarchists from speaking of “the market for liberty” (i.e., the market for the market).

By their talk of “competition” in the context of government, the anarchists among the libertarians endorse the statists’ equation of production and force. “Competition” refers to the voluntary exchange of values, not to the exchange of gunfire.

In terms of current events, anarchism means Lebanon, Somalia, and the Taliban. Nothing could discredit capitalism more than to link “freedom” with such horrors.
13  General Category / General Discussion / Re: You're a Racist if you use Bitcoin on: March 01, 2014, 09:55:35 AM
For those that found that too long to read, here is the short version:

If you use bitcoin, you are probably white and dislike government in money. 

If you dislike government in money, you don't like minorities. 

So you are white and don't like minorities, therefore racist. 

Race is always in these people's heads or class, or nationality, or sex. Without collectives to label, these people are lost. Scariest thing in the world for a progressive is if individuals start seeing themselves as individuals and not part of groups.
14  General Category / General Discussion / You're a Racist if you use Bitcoin on: March 01, 2014, 09:38:42 AM
From our friends over at Think Progress.

Quote
Every once in a while — most recently with the collapse of online exchange site Mt Gox — the world starts paying attention to Bitcoin, the hacker-project-cum-digital-currency that has garnered the love of a certain subset of people on the internet. Who are those people? According to an online poll from Simulacrum, the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male. By users’ accounts, those men are mostly white.

Breaking that down, about 95 percent of Bitcoin users are men, about 61 percent say they’re not religious, and about 44 percent describe themselves as “libertarian / anarcho-capitalist.” On the last point, the political ideology of Bitcoin users is evident from the fact that the whole idea behind Bitcoin is that it segregates economic markets and currency from a country’s government. Bitcoin aims to be a universal currency, connecting people “peer-to-peer” instead of through set institutions. It wants to replace our current economic system and practices in their entirety — changing the way we buy goods and distribute money. The libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists as the case may be, don’t trust the government to handle their money. They’re the same people who want to “end the fed.”

Those libertarian tendencies are generally held by white men. “Compared to the general population,” an American Values survey reported last year, “libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young.” Specifically, 94 percent are white, and 68 percent are men.

Why does Bitcoin specifically have this demographic makeup? Well, there’s a fair amount of privilege built directly into the currency: In order to buy the sometimes wildly expensive currency, Bitcoin users need to be wealthy. And they can afford to put their wealth into a currency that isn’t widely accepted or even recognized. Plus, they move easily through the financial and digital space — the process of “mining” bitcoins demands it; it is all about knowing coding and decryption and how to use an exchange. The sum total of these things — advanced knowledge of computer science, wealth — are also markings of the young, white male.

But they’re not the only ones who are operating outside of our enshrined banking system. Other groups, the demographic opposites of the Bitcoin crowd, are doing the same. The clinical terminology for those people is the “unbanked” — they rely on informal, instead of formalized, systems of trading or borrowing capital. Why? The unbanked, comprised of women and people of color, are much more frequently turned down for auto loans, mortgages, and investment advice. Or, when they go into formalized systems, the government isn’t there to protect them. Instead, they’re taken advantage of by unregulated banking — unbanked households on average spend over $2,400, about 10 percent of their income, to use services like payday lending and check cashing.

So they seek options outside of the banking system as mainstream America knows it. One example is a sou-sou. Formally known as a Rotating Savings and Credit Association, and called a “min,” “sub,” “partner,” or “sociedad” by various ethnic groups, sou-sous originated in West Africa and were brought to the United States by Caribbean and African immigrants. They’re effectively community banks: A group of people put money at regular intervals into a shared fund and then at regular intervals distribute out that lump sum to one person in the group. So, for example, a group of 10 people would put in $1,000 a month, and once a month one person would receive $10,000 to do with as they please. It works simultaneously as a savings plan and a credit plan — all without interest. And sou-sou participants say that there’s more accountability and obligation to the fund because you know the other people in it.

Obviously, the structures of sou-sous and Bitcoin are vastly different. Bitcoin users reject the premise of a currency backed by the government entirely, while communities of color that participate in sou-sous are simply shut out from the system that exists and still rely on our country’s currency. But the question stands as to why Bitcoin doesn’t reflect the ranks of the unbanked at all. Why isn’t the crypto-currency of the future taking hold among communities other than the elite?

Bitcoin users’ rejection of the government reflects the luxury of being able to live well without state support, while the less advantaged desperately need a larger government role in the banking system to help them them overcome deep, systemic bias.

That American system of banking and government regulation has failed at points, but it’s worked more often than a libertarian system would. Despite being wronged by the system again and again, women and people of color actually don’t want a smaller government. They are the ones who need more institutional support, not less, to be financially successful. When payday lenders are skimming off their paychecks, they support policies like Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) plan to turn U.S. Postal Service offices into local banks. When black and Latino people alleged that they were being denied auto loans based on their skin color, the Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stepped in to sue the bank responsible. Similarly, when gays and lesbians found they were being denied mortgages by Bank of America based on their sexual orientation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development sued, citing its own anti-discrimination protections.

The fact that Bitcoin’s followers deeply oppose this sort of aggressive government action explains why their aspirations to building a universal currency aren’t working. The people who most need alternatives to the current banking system are seeking policy alternatives, not libertarian stabs at undermining the state. While they might be able to find a fix to the technological problems plaguing Bitcoin and Mt Gox, that’s a problem they haven’t solved.
15  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Guys, there's something important you need to know... on: February 16, 2014, 10:25:44 PM
I Saw it today. I can see it but then again I don't see it as well.

http://seanwmalone.blogspot.com/2014/02/sorry-guysthe-lego-movie-is-not.html?m=1

This guy thinks it's more anti-business. Other sites are claiming it as well.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/02/07/critics-love-anti-consumerism-lego
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
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!