FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
He is nothing if not a man of principle.
Are there any smart Trump supporters?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It's not nice to shit on floors, especially without the consent of the owner. If I believed in the present legal system, I'd definitely think that oughta be illegal.
Attachments
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If the premise is human interactions should be on a peaceful, voluntary and consensual basis and that nobody has a right to delegate rights they do not possess.
My conclusions have been consistent to that.
i think it's great that trump now gets to experience the same level of frustration that the 'little people' get..it's funny that he just figured out the system is rigged and he's squealing like a spoiled little pig brat wealthy shithead that he is.
the frustration is so, that if he waves his arms any faster..he's going to lay an egg.
OH! and NOW he sees it with sanders, too!
Trump: The Two-Party Political System Is 100% Rigged, "It's A Crooked Deal," "I See It With Bernie Too"
the frustration is so, that if he waves his arms any faster..he's going to lay an egg.
OH! and NOW he sees it with sanders, too!
Trump: The Two-Party Political System Is 100% Rigged, "It's A Crooked Deal," "I See It With Bernie Too"
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
Ok...your conclusion is still based on a scenario where not all factors are taken into account...thus making your conclusion erronious, but for arguments sake if we are judging this based on intension as opposed to application....fine.
Because your intension being pure is great, but still won't make this function any better or allow you to avoid its inherent pitfalls.
No one is arguing your intension, just in how you think your going to achieve it.
(Well...at least I'm not arguing your intension, some others might be).
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My intentions are not in tension. They're quite relaxed.
I appreciate that you appreciate and acknowledge my intentions too.
I've considered all the factors and have concluded
1) I don't own others
2) Others don't me
3) Human interactions are either voluntary consensual and peaceful or they are involuntary and often not peaceful
4) Nobody should attempt to delegate a right they do not possess (it's a form of theft)
I'll take my chances attending to any problems of "too much freedom" as opposed to, too little freedom.
If you're interested there's a decent video on youtube, describing "what anarchy isn't".
A man called Larken Rose and his wife put it together. You could find a plethora of his videos on line.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Who has the right to tell you to stop at a stop sign?
Is anyone in control of your life by making you stop at a stop sign so that you don't possibly kill somebody?
Again, direct questions, direct answers, please
Is anyone in control of your life by making you stop at a stop sign so that you don't possibly kill somebody?
Again, direct questions, direct answers, please
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
1) The owner of the road would be a good place to start. Except if it is a "public road" and owned by everyone....who should I ask?
2) Somebody is usually in control of my life. Sometimes it's me, which is the way it should be. Sometimes it isn't me, which can be a little frustrating.
If it's a deserted road and there is no other traffic, how would I be able to kill somebody?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do stop signs hold any authority?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
They're inanimate, but do come in handy. If I owned a road I'd want to let travelers know of potential hazards or when to use caution. Good customer service often leads to repeat business, it's a win -win.
Okay, I'll bite. Are you saying in a world without a central coercive authority, there could never be a stop sign or roads ?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that if there are no consequences for not stopping, people won't stop. Look at how people drive in other countries where they don't enforce things like stop sign laws
So if there is no central governing body enforcing the law, how can there be any consequences for breaking any laws? I know you think vigilante justice is better because you automatically discount the state's legitimacy (because it's infallible because people run it), but you identifying the problem you have with the state's legitimacy doesn't answer the problems that have been pointed out about your favored system of justice. There are many good reasons first world countries evolved past vigilante style systems of justice and why the third world hasn't
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
Those are not "all" the factors....not in any sense. There are as many differing factors as there are individual incidents/circumstances.The fact that you add "and often not peaceful" illustrates this.
Which leads full circle back to this...
Also, stop putting words in peoples mouths.
We will ignore the implication of considering your ideal as creating "too much freedom" given the potential for the taking advantage of children(and others).... for now...(although honestly in that scenario there's only 1 person being given waaaaaay "too much freedom" and it aint the kid)..and move on to the fact that I dont believe your premise to be valid in the first place and certainly dont view it capable of creating "too much freedom" at all...I would even argue that in some cases it may impair some peoples freedoms or safety more then the current system. Personally im not willing to discount either peoples ability to con each other nor their ability to be taken advantage of. Including children's.
The reality is that this universal rule of yours will not create universal freedom. It will simply rearrange who has what amount of it, leaving an entirely new deficiency elsewhere.
I dont know where this burning desire to simplify one of the most complex systems in human interaction down to 1 universal principle comes from, but its fundamentally flawed and will never work as you have continually stated it will. No matter how much circular logic you throw at it.
Sorry man.
Last edited:
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
ya,know...the funny thing is neither padawan or I are pro big government....but Its inept, corrupt government bought and paid for by big business that's the real issue...
I never understood why some idealists would throw away a great system like democracy in favor of a world without organized governance... Point being if im spending my time in an ideal fantasy world why dont I simply envision a democracy that functions properly without corruption? One capable of evolving with society and the times, like it was intended....
....and a unicorn for every garage!
....You get what im saying.
I never understood why some idealists would throw away a great system like democracy in favor of a world without organized governance... Point being if im spending my time in an ideal fantasy world why dont I simply envision a democracy that functions properly without corruption? One capable of evolving with society and the times, like it was intended....
....and a unicorn for every garage!
....You get what im saying.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yet you didn't answer why "in principle" you agreed with me, but in practice you are willing to discard your principles and embrace the idea that some people can use offensive force and you're okay with it.
Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I don't get what you are saying and, no offense, but neither do you. You misstated what a society without an involuntary hierarchy is and does.
A democracy can't function "properly" if the individuals who are potential members have no option of declining being a member. Democracy in the present form, is a forcibly imposed involuntary form of human organization. By it's nature it CAN'T function properly.
Voluntaryism, Panarchy or Anarchy are often misstated as having as "no rules or governing concepts", which isn't true. They simply don't embrace a coercion based involuntary means in order to function, exist or gain membership, your form of government, democracy, does.
If you would be kind enough to give me your definitions for Voluntaryism, Anarchy and Panarchy that might be helpful in understanding where you've misunderstood.
No, I don't get what you are saying and no offense, neither do you.
You've inverted things and miscast what Anarchy is. It doesn't mean there are no rules necessarily, it's more the idea of no rulers. There is a difference.
Democracy is a form of government which derives memberships from involuntary means. Therefore you DISAGREE with it, at least according to what you said your principles are.
Voluntarism, Panarchy and Anarchy do not use involuntary means to force people into being "members".
Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer your definitions of Anarchy, Panarchy and Voluntarism so that we are using the same terms and having an agreement on what the terms actually mean?
I had previously mentioned a decent video by Larken Rose "What Anarchy Isn't" as something you might consider watching.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If the central governing body derives it's membership using methods which would be wrong for you or I to do, why would they have your confidence ?
Whether laws embrace it or not, it is always wrong to steal, commit fraud or use offensive force, yet you discard that idea and grant an exception to do those very things to people who have told you they are your leaders.
What it seems that you are really asking is, how would disputes be resolved absent a central coercive authority. Is that it?
That is a good question, but doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen absent the present form of coercion based governance. You've drawn a false conclusion.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
If you don't get what I'm saying you are in no position to tell others they dont either. I get what I'm saying. So does padawan and seemingly the other folks reading this thread.
No amount of pointing out the flaws of the current system will validate yours.
And I didn't misstate it. I didn't "state it" at all. Can you please stop completely making shit up in an attempt to steer the conversation back to your talking points? I mean c,mon man....your taking a comment about a fantasy in which government magicaly works and using it to stear us back to the broken record of why your idea is somehow validated shearly by democracies shortcomings?
Because an irrelevant negative always proves a positive, right?
What part of "ideal fantasy world" don't you get? The whole point was that if your world view relys on a scenario that doesnt exist to function (namely...on a world where a universal rule magically covers all eventualities) why don't we just envision a democracy that functions while we're daydreaming?....So you then pointing out what is inherently wrong with democracy as a response shows either an inability to keep up with the conversation or truly as you said, you just "don't get it"....
P.S. also you've already brought that point up...its really the only one you've got....and it STILL doesn't validate your ideals ability to function as described....
Yes yes....for the 4th time, I get all that. and again...stop telling me what I mean ..so far you have been wrong every time you have done so and its a b.s. way to try to stear my points into something that helps your 1 point... Either state which part of an anarchistic movement you think is applicable to your 1 point or stop bringing it up. You alluding to our lack of knowledge and giving a link to what anarchy means is not proof you have any better clue about it then I do. It mearly shows you know how to link to it. Nor is the link lending weight to your argument.
The thing is YOU haven't added any of those "anarchistic guidelines" to your little "manifesto"...so is it my job to insert the blanks into your ideal for it to function? Or are you just adding bits as you go?
If something is missing that will make your ideal function properly then that's your job to present in the moment, not my job to guess after the fact.
I didn't take anything else into consideration because YOU didn't present anything else. So don't play this off as OUR ignorance for not agreeing with you, if anything it would be ineptitude in YOUR presentation....although in this case its simply that we don't agree with you.
But personally it sounds like you're caught in a number of logical fallacies and are now trying to dig your way out as opposed to simply copping to a half boiled idea.
For all you have written so far, in all the different ways you have tried to present it this is really the only thing you've had to say...
And as it stands its such an oversimplification as well as inflexible to any nuance that it simply won't function as described. It has nothing to do with democracy, or our understanding of anarchistic movements. Its entirely because of the shortcomings of your argument.
So if we're going to keep riding this rollercoaster of circular logic of yours I'm just going to keep responding with...
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
OK, you said it. We get it. Your message is not that interesting or complicated. At all. So, message received, you can go away now.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He reminds me of Al Gore who took 20-30 minutes to make a 2 minute point. Soooo in love with his own words.
one major difference -- Al Gore had a valid point.
FauxRoux
Well-Known Member
He does seem to suffer from a burning need to be right...as opposed to correct.
I never understood the need for that kind of validation....or the fear of being "wrong" for that matter..
The part that kills me are the constant attempts to educate us in this apparently deeply complicated ideal that we somehow just don't get.
Last edited: