buttery420
Active Member
I believe in freedom of the individual over all things. A neo-conservative agenda will never bring that, that's why I'm an anarchist.
What is a Neoconservative?
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
buttery420
Active Member
Neither will a social democratic agenda, due to the nature of the system we live in. We need perpetual economic growth or the world will go bankrupt. It's a terrible system.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
neocon means you want to kill brown people in the middle east for oil (among more)
buttery420
Active Member
^ Hey this guys on to something : )
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Are you an anarchist that would allow those that want a government to have one?
buttery420
Active Member
Certainly, there are a lot of misconceptions about anarchism. However instead of federal government monopoly we would see something more like community government.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Would you allow somebdy the option of not participating in community government?
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
or a state the option of leaving a union?
gloomysmokes707
Active Member
im sorry but neoconservatives here in california just seem like a bunch of racist assholes... no offense im sure your not an asshole though. lol
buttery420
Active Member
Yes.
I don't quite know what you mean by this?
There is always the option not to participate in the development of the community, but wouldn't it be in your interests to do so?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sometimes participating can be in a persons best interests. Sometimes not.
For instance in a given community if a person has 12 children, they might easier rationalize why EVERYBODY must pay for schools etc. If a person that has no children and a low income is in the same community they may determine it is not in their interest to participate.
When we force people to act in ways that are not in their best interests, what are we doing? Some would say we are benefitting society. I disagree, society cannot benefit if we use force against otherwise peaceful people. As proof, I submit the history of the world and the present state of chaos. There is ALWAYS a war going on somewhere, do to one set of people "knowing" what is best for another.
My underlying belief is nobody should make others decisions for them, due to the immorality of it and often the impracticality of it. Some people call me a Voluntaryist...it's probably a close description.
I believe the nonaggression principle is the best basis to create a moral and a prosperous society. I endorse acts of kindness.
I agree with you that "anarchy" is often erroneously depicted in a violent way.
The absence of an all encompassing government is the world I seek. Freedom to participate or not.
buttery420
Active Member
In an educated society, people understand the need for good quality education in order to provide for the community. I think it would be a very small minority who would disagree. Lack of education in a population leads to all kinds of social issues.
I couldn't agree more
You actually sound more like an anarchist.
Would you defend yourself if someone was hurting you? If you could arm the indigenous populations of the world to defend themselves against past violent colonization would you? Blind passivism is just not rational, though I do understand what you are trying to say.
This is not likely to be achieved through non-violence unfortunately.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Education can happen without it being a "publicly funded" event. I endorse education. I do not endorse extorting to fund it. You say lack of education leads to all sorts of problems. So does the violent nature of government, wouldn't you say?In an educated society, people understand the need for good quality education in order to provide for the community. I think it would be a very small minority who would disagree. Lack of education in a population leads to all kinds of social issues.
I couldn't agree more
You actually sound more like an anarchist.
Would you defend yourself if someone was hurting you? If you could arm the indigenous populations of the world to defend themselves against past violent colonization would you? Blind passivism is just not rational, though I do understand what you are trying to say.
This is not likely to be achieved through non-violence unfortunately.
Defending myself ? Yes. I am not a Pacifist. I am a little older now, but I am still quite capable of defending myself, with or without weapons. It is a natural right, to defend ones self. I oppose the INITIATION of force. I've never looked for trouble, it's been awhile but I've bloodied a nose or two, when the aggressor insisted upon that method of conflict resolution. I used to be quite the fitness fanatic, sometimes that meant people assumed I wanted to fight them.
Would I arm indigenus populations etc. ? Did you just go and see the movie Avatar or something?
undertheice
Well-Known Member
the problem then becomes, what is "good quality education" and who makes that decision. we see this problem now with a state sponsored education system that is wholly inadequate and is far too agenda driven. lately i have been noticing psa's touting the need to stress math and science in our schools. we find ourselves lagging behind in this area and suddenly the push is on to make up for lost time. but at what cost will this agenda be forwarded? will we neglect the humanities in favor a a more scientific approach to life? will we educate art, philosophy and morality right out of our children for the sake of technological advancement? such social engineering through education can only breed the sort of orwellian society that many of us dread, that leads to the annihilation of the individual.
voluntarism is anarchism in its purest form, without all the baggage it has accumulated through economic and political pressures. voluntarism places a higher value on the individual and his determination of where he believes his life should lead.
buttery420
Active Member
Education can happen without it being a "publicly funded" event. I endorse education. I do not endorse extorting to fund it. You say lack of education leads to all sorts of problems. So does the violent nature of government, wouldn't you say?
Of coarse, but I am completely opposed to government in the form it takes in contemporary society. I never suggested extorting $$ to fund education.
Defending myself ? Yes. I am not a Pacifist. I am a little older now, but I am still quite capable of defending myself, with or without weapons. It is a natural right, to defend ones self. I oppose the INITIATION of force. I've never looked for trouble, it's been awhile but I've bloodied a nose or two, when the aggressor insisted upon that method of conflict resolution. I used to be quite the fitness fanatic, sometimes that meant people assumed I wanted to fight them.
Would I arm indigenus populations etc. ? Did you just go and see the movie Avatar or something?
Lol I did see avatar recently but this was a question put to me a while ago that led me to the realization that certain situations require non-passivism : )
Of coarse, but I am completely opposed to government in the form it takes in contemporary society. I never suggested extorting $$ to fund education.
Defending myself ? Yes. I am not a Pacifist. I am a little older now, but I am still quite capable of defending myself, with or without weapons. It is a natural right, to defend ones self. I oppose the INITIATION of force. I've never looked for trouble, it's been awhile but I've bloodied a nose or two, when the aggressor insisted upon that method of conflict resolution. I used to be quite the fitness fanatic, sometimes that meant people assumed I wanted to fight them.
Would I arm indigenus populations etc. ? Did you just go and see the movie Avatar or something?
Lol I did see avatar recently but this was a question put to me a while ago that led me to the realization that certain situations require non-passivism : )
buttery420
Active Member
That's existentialism
As for individualism as a political ideology? All I can say is social change has never come about by a single human being.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
meaningful social change can only come about through the actions of a single human being, then another and another and another.....
forced change only remains as long as the force is in place.
buttery420
Active Member
I agree but thoughts are very rarely unique and are inspired by previous generations, by history, by the books that we read etc. So really social change is a process that takes a long time and a chain of individuals expressing and acting upon these thoughts, a single individual can not take credit for that.
Once again I agree, but that doesn't negate belief in non-passivism and I'm by no means implying we continue to treat children like prisoners or base the curriculum on the belief that the child is a commodity as you implied in a previous post.
Woodstock.Hippie
New Member
[youtube]-cHhq5CVCmA[/youtube]
What happens when the Ethic Of Reciprocity is entangled with the Law Of Attraction?
[youtube]Frd0CPYuZgU[/youtube]
Shut Up And Vote
That's existentialism
As for individualism as a political ideology?
All I can say is social change has never come about by a single human being.
This dancing dude is definitely one of the Original Hippies that googled and got " Woodstock Industries On The Road Again ".
What happens when the Ethic Of Reciprocity is entangled with the Law Of Attraction?
[youtube]Frd0CPYuZgU[/youtube]
Shut Up And Vote