But what about the roads? Common argument against Libertarian/Anarchy Debunked.

[ChesusRice]

the ones enshrined in the US constitution and the legitimate amendments passed through the amendment process.

basically the constitution from 1900 and earlier. before we became a banana republic with a cooler national anthem.

1 Our national anthem is almost as bad as Canada's

2 I see you are in a rush to do away with the civil rights that minorities and women have gained

I guess that is par for the course for an angry right wing loon such as yourself

Vagina
Just saying

 

[Dr Kynes]

and you are a marxist racist elitist twat with delusions of adequacy. feel free to ascribe to me any other beliefs you wish, you are irrelevant, and ignored.

enjoy your self-satisfaction.

 

[deprave]

libertarians can have all the dreamy fantasies they like, being a libertarian myself i have no problem with that. libertarians are like truew communists, incapable of harming others with their harmless beliefs.

anarchists however desire the destruction of every civil and social order for their own pleasure. their fantasies are the ruin of nations, and the end of societies. Anarchists are the Visigoths and Vandals who tear apart the roman nation which is all that is preventing the collapse of the civilization upon which they depend.

anarchists are the dipshits who sit on a tree limb then saw it off without considering the fall.

anarchists are the dumbass skaters who assemble a rickety ramp of random junk, then when they break their asses in half they sue the owners of the nearest house for not stopping them.

anarchists are the shitstains who squat in an empty industrial building, then burn it down with their ashcan fire expecting the fire department to save their dumb asses.

anarchists are the morons who think their cellphone is a magic wand that will summon help to the remotest mountaintop when they go out extreme snowboarding despite the blizzard warnings from "The Man"

your so full of shit, many have given anarchy a bad name indeed, can't disagree, and social anarchy is dumb, but this is just not true. I don't understand how you are a libertarian and know little to nothing about political philosophy.

One thing every Libertarian has to eventually admit/realize is that they themselves are anarchist to some degree, at least in the same spectrum, you preach variation of minarchism philosophy yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

so I guees in your own words, your a "dipshit" ....I guees your also a "marxist"...fucking "dipshit"....your a smart guy but when it comes to political philosophy you are talking out of your ass

 

[deprave]

Has deprave discussed barter yet? I was curious what is used to pay for stuff in post government world

Barter is a social anarchist belief. I don't really like the idea but I think its kind of cool. lol, ask Rossanne Bar

 

[ChesusRice]

your a smart guy but when it comes to political philosophy you are talking out of your ass

Giving him way way too much credit

 

[deprave]

Who do I call if the neighbors bear eats my dog or rat? A Lawyer or insurance company
Then I die from drinking bad water? How do you call people when your dead?

Does my family take the neighbor to court? Yep
What if My neighbor can afford better lawyers because my out of pocket medical expenses before i died bankrupted us? Pro bono

Oh wait
No courts There is still courts, you didn't read the thread or research this.
I forgot

response in red

 

[deprave]

see you starting to get it with the last part ,but the first part you have to understand according to deprave ideas your neighbor will help you and not allow your water tester to be eaten... you in turn will do the same. Same with the mail. You can't open it only pass it alone..remember Neighbor good..Government bad.

and if case to neighbors do get into a quarrel we can have another neighbor to come by in an ice cream truck playing Rodney King "Can we all get along"

Why would I believe in such silliness. Your just being ridiculous. I chuckled lol

 

[deprave]

wasn't deprave saying we could do away with courts so no lawyers? i think you'd have to rely on your security to sort out poisonings

Never said that, please read thread. Around page 5 and 6 I believe are some examples of dispute resolutions

 

[ChesusRice]

Why would I believe in such silliness. Your just being ridiculous. I chuckled lol

Yeah we were having fun with it

And it is after my sniffing dog or rat dies that I call the lawyer
Then I die because I no longer have the protection of the sniffer mammals

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Who protects you from the government when it says you're a drug kingpin, raids you, says they thought you drew a weapon, kills you and goes woopsie, it was the wrong address! Your family can't even sue because you escalated the situation by drawing a fake weapon and pretending to be a drug kingpin.

 

[ChesusRice]

Who protects you from the government when it says you're a drug kingpin, raids you, says they thought you drew a weapon, kills you and goes woopsie, it was the wrong address! Your family can't even sue because you escalated the situation by drawing a fake weapon and pretending to be a drug kingpin.

Lesson is

Don't draw a fake weapon

 

[Dr Kynes]

your so full of shit, many have given anarchy a bad name indeed, can't disagree, and social anarchy is dumb, but this is just not true. I don't understand how you are a libertarian and know little to nothing about political philosophy.

One thing every Libertarian has to eventually admit/realize is that they themselves are anarchist to some degree, at least in the same spectrum, you preach variation of minarchism philosophy yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism




so I guees in your own words, your a "dipshit" ....I guees your also a "marxist"...fucking "dipshit"....your a smart guy but when it comes to political philosophy you are talking out of your ass

when your political "philosphy" (which is actually Sophistry) has to be finestoned so carefully that every minor variation needs it's own hyphenate name or portmanteau of silliness, you can ALWAYS No-True-Scotsman your way out of a tight situation. This is the same lame tactic used by marxists to explain why marxism really-for-true surely does work! you just need the right flavour of marxism! and the right marxist to run it! and a properly radicalized marxist polulation! and just a little more time to get to the creamy center of the workers paradise!

theres always an excuse why marxism doesnt work, and theres always an excuse why super-ultra-hyphenated-anarchism doesnt work. because anarchism is just marxism rebranded without the beards, the germans and the violent revolution of the peasantry. an wikipedia article doesnt re-unite a half-assed idea with the long lost missing half of it's ass, cuz you see, ANY JACKOFF CAN WRITE A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE! or in fact, any article. you see, paper will lie still, and let you write anything on it. paper doesnt judge the fitness of an idea, thinking people do. when your favorite political theory is full of the same high flown ideals, and inescapable failing as marxism, then your idea becomes almost indistinguishable form marxism.

lets hit the high points:

No authoritarian structure in it's purest form
All persons are "equal"... somehow.
Everything is equitably distributed.... somehow.
Spends most of it's time explaining why it would work, without explaining the mechanisms by which it purports to operate
Declares dozens of different variations to be inferior to the pure product (which is whatever variation the speaker is selling)
Once it's in place youll see how smooth it runs... somehow.
Doubters are just not educated on the subject
Doubters should read this poorly mimeographed pamphlet or flyer
If you still have doubts you should read the pamphlet again.
Doubt is counterproductive to the advancement of the agenda
Questions are best asked AFTER the "revolution" is complete
Once the "revolution" has occurred theres no going back.
Dont worry the (insert Dear Leader or Invisible Hand of the Market here) will make everything work out in the end.

sounds a lot like marxism to me.

gettin all butthurt because somebody isnt swallowing your favorite flavour of the week anarcho-fill-in-the-blank-ism doesnt mean that person is stupid for rejecting your brilliance, it means they arent buying what you are selling. I'm old enough to have seen the slow gradual evolution of hyphenated anarchism move from being obviously marxist bullshit to more nebulously utopian bullshit over the course of my life. Im not buying, and you might want to think how your dream society would work when bernie maddof or barack hussein obama join the party. unfettered greed, or the populist demagogue would both turn your paradise into a shithouse. together they would transform your utopia into our current system in just a few years.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Kynes,

Have you ever read any of Lysander Spooner?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Kynes,

Have you ever read any of Lysander Spooner?

nope, ive read descartes voltaire marx engles trotsky lenin mussolini mao hitler neitsche rand kant plato sophocles aristotle deider and clemmens, but no spooners. im too selective to read everything, i prefer to stick to the giants of the feild.

ok i just gogled him and heres what i got from his extremely complimentary wiki page:

a unitarian - X
a deist - X
fake lawyer - X
failed fake lawyer - X
advocates unlicensed physicians - X
abolitionist - O
failed real estate speculator - X
farmboy - O
"Boomerang Kid" - X
Failed mail service tycoon - X
in favor of usury - X

then there's this little nugget of brilliance:

"George Woodcock describes Spooner's essays as an "eloquent elaboration" of Josiah Warren and the early American development of Proudhon's ideas, and associates his works with that of Stephen Pearl Andrews"

this phrase stands alone, shimmering in it's own specially crafted spotlight. this is pure masturbation. the only time anybody drops that many obscure names with no attribution or explanation is to make themselves feel smart when the reader thinks "WhoDaFuq??"

or the very next line (in a seperate new section):

"Spooner became a member of the socialist First International" edit: (thats exactly how the wiki-brain trust wrote it. they dont realize that socialism and communism are different either. how surprising. /sarcasm)

yet "anarchism" is not marxism. nope, not at all.

i dont see where anything this bonehead might have scribbled would be any more relevatory than his biography that opens by describing him as an "entrepreneur" then lists only a series of dismal business failure before he embraced marxism.

theres shit i agree with in marx mussolini and even hitler, cuz even a stopped clock is right twice a day. but that doesnt mean i should embrace his "philosophy" which seems to be just the same old marxism (which was new when he was still living i guess) under spiffy new slogans.

personallly i would rather re-read atlas shrugged or the fountainhead than dig into a series of commie screeds by a marx plagiarist. yep i said it. he stole marx's intellectual property. he was a pirate. so i guess he wasnt all bad.

 

[skunkd0c]

nope, ive read descartes voltaire marx engles trotsky lenin mussolini mao hitler neitsche rand kant plato sophocles aristotle deider and clemmens, but no spooners. im too selective to read everything, i prefer to stick to the giants of the feild.

You forgot YouTube and Wikipedia .. that is where these kids get all their great new ideas from LOL

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

nope, ive read descartes voltaire marx engles trotsky lenin mussolini mao hitler neitsche rand kant plato sophocles aristotle deider and clemmens, but no spooners. im too selective to read everything, i prefer to stick to the giants of the feild.

wow thats a great list . . . .. half of em have tried to commit genocide or some other violent and discriminative act agianst humanity


i now know why people are so devout about things . . . it is all about them and their, enlightenment or superiority, or their achievements, the second your realize that all you are is a collection of tissues that work together and create self awareness and life and propagation of life . . . .. you see the utter truth that not one thing among us makes us special or different and that we are all the same . . . let go of preconceived ideas of self or I, and become drunk with the idea that we deserve to live with civil liberty and we is everyone, be the positivity in your universe not the Debbie downer

 

[Dr Kynes]

You forgot YouTube and Wikipedia .. that is where these kids get all their great new ideas from LOL

nahh really, communism will totally work, once the right dudes get in power, yeah. then we will have benevolent anarchy and everybody will be free....

by the way i love the spock's beard action. that episode is what the future would be like if anarchist ran the federation instead of marxists.

stabbing is a great way to get ahead as long as you have all the knives.

 

[Dr Kynes]

wow thats a great list . . . .. half of em have tried to commit genocide or some other violent and discriminative act agianst humanity


i now know why people are so devout about things . . . it is all about them and their, enlightenment or superiority, or their achievements, the second your realize that all you are is a collection of tissues that work together and create self awareness and life and propagation of life . . . .. you see the utter truth that not one thing among us makes us special or different and that we are all the same . . . let go of preconceived ideas of self or I, and become drunk with the idea that we deserve to live with civil liberty and we is everyone, be the positivity in your universe not the Debbie downer

yeah! that fuckin twat voltaire! somebody needs to put him in his place! and that dimwit descartes too! what a prick!

man plato is lucky he isnt alive today or he would be right next to sandusky in the prison showers!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

"In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth," Lysander Spooner.

Sounds like he totally plagiarizes Marx there.

 

[Dr Kynes]

"In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth," Lysander Spooner.

Sounds like he totally plagiarizes Marx there.

im not sayin he cant have a few things on point, but if his main thrust is so well entwined with the marxist and communist ideology i dont think theres much there of interest for me. i stopped reading philosophies as an academic study years ago, i read confucius and mencius, plato and sophocles, rand and voltaire because they offer a world view that matches many of my own understandings. all the marxist and communist writers were studied to learn what the hypoe was about. it all left a bad taste in my mouth, and i dont really want any more.

same goes for the koran and hadith, read em, thought they were hateful bullshit designed to control the populace with threats. I rejected them categorically. i feel no desire to delve deeper into the other writers of moslem thought.

the same goes for the bible, and apocrypha

and the torah, talmud, quabballah and esoteric judaism

likewise the book of mormon, the pearl of great price and the other mormon books.

the bagvad ghita and a few other hindu texts were interesting but i dont feel the need for more.

i have put a few spooner texts in my list to read eventually but what i have skimmed so far sounds more like sophistry and idealism mixed with primitive marxist ideology.

i can say this, i may disagree with just about every conclusion every marxist anarchist socialist and facist has ever shat out, to one degree or another, but they are all better than Immanuel Kant. he's just a twat.