Login or register
Online User List [+] Online: (1): uglychino, anonymous(5).
#10063 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/06/2012) [-]
The politics board is full of white male teenagers that fancy themselves as "conservative libertarians".
User avatar #10134 to #10063 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/07/2012) [-]
Radical Anarchist here.
No teenager, though.
User avatar #10145 to #10134 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/07/2012) [-]
Oh, anarchists. I've never discussed anything with an anarchist before, so I've really only got the Anarchist Manifesto and other documents to go by.

Would you care to describe and explain your view on anarchism?
#10461 to #10145 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2012) [-]
I'm referring to the comment I've screencapped here.
And boy, there are a lot of mistakes in it.

First off, the ancient tribes of Gaul and eastern Europe were sure as hell neither anarchist nor voluntary societies. They were ruled by chieftains, tribal nobles or druids or shamanic priests.
In essence, you just demonstrated how leaders and ancient governments failed to protect their citizens/subjects.

So you mean a government can give back rights and freedoms it has previously violated, infringed and taken? I guess that is technically correct, but not very satisfactory.

Anarchism is a lack of violent rule. Nothing else.
It says nothing about the structure, organisation or customs of a society.
Hold the government accountable? With legislation? My friend, last time I checked it's the government deciding on what is law and what isn't. Last time I checked it's the government holding guns to our heads and not the other way 'round.
You want to hold your government accountable? The only way to do that is a violent revolution. Be careful what you wish for.

Oh, I can see the ideology practically dripping out of your little paragraph on political apathy. And no, you're wrong again.
Political apathy sets in when people think/realise they have no say in what the government does. Political apathy arises when people feel that voting changes nothing, when people think every party is corrupt and worthless and it doesn't even matter who's in charge.
Political apathy is a symptom, government is the cause. The private sector is not the cause of corruption, the government is. The private sector is merely buying a service the government decides to provide to them.

You just do not understand what a voluntary society is. Please google it, look it up or you will never understand what I'm saying.
As it is, it's absolutely clear you fail to grasp the very concept. You're thinking in matters and conditions that just do not apply to a ruler-less society.
User avatar #10511 to #10461 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/13/2012) [-]
Your little voluntary community will require leadership. Whether it be with an elected leader, or by direct democracy. There will be some form of governance. The tribes were simply representations of small communities that were anarchistic in many respects.

Anarchism is the lack of accountable rule.

Did I say I support representative democracy? No. I support direct democracy. And as I previously stated that I feel communities should be trained and armed into militias to police themselves, I find the notion of revolution acceptable, depending on the movement's goals.

Political apathy is not wanting to change the existing government. Or, in your case, remove it entirely. I'm happier that my government is a social democratic government, as opposed to an entirely libertarian government, but I'm still not happy with it. Thus my interest in politics.

The private sector encourages corruption. The cause of corruption is, actually, a sociological issue, because of capitalism. The private sector is merely acting in accordance to the capitalist influences on society.

I'm quite well aware of what a voluntary society is. Some aspects, such as people's militias, I support. Others, I don't.
User avatar #10154 to #10145 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/07/2012) [-]
It's very simple and straight-forward, really.

Universal and total self-determination of every human being.
There is no right to exact coercion, force or even violence against anyone other for whatever reason and an inalienable right of everyone to defend themselves as well as others from each form or shape of aggression.

That's it, actually. Everything else is nothing but the application of this principle of freedom.
User avatar #10156 to #10154 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/07/2012) [-]
Do you think that now that we have cities with such large populations, it's possible to lose a strong, central authority, without immense destruction and death?
User avatar #10160 to #10156 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/07/2012) [-]
User avatar #10188 to #10160 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/08/2012) [-]
You do understand that it is highly improbable, considering crime already exists within cities? It would be extremely difficult to organise a city-wide militia to police the area before suffering mass amounts of damage and death.
User avatar #10202 to #10188 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/08/2012) [-]
I am not talking about a sudden full-stop breakdown of society a la The Walking Dead.

I am talking about the people taking back their rights and rendering an authoritarian state obsolete over time and in individual, small steps, creating over time a coercion-free voluntary society.
User avatar #10203 to #10202 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/08/2012) [-]
Coercion free society? That's impossible. It won't be long before city-states are formed, and the state begins its transformation from small city-states to empires again.
User avatar #10205 to #10203 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/08/2012) [-]
That's a widespread myth, but a fallacious one.
There is no reason why people would be categorically unable to protect their rights and freedoms.
User avatar #10249 to #10205 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/09/2012) [-]
People can protect their rights and freedoms, of course, but it depends on their opponents. Organised militias can effectively defend a community, but what happens when a large militia with imperialist ambitions comes along?
User avatar #10315 to #10249 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/10/2012) [-]
My guess is that numerous smaller ones will team up as the large one would be a threat to all of them.
User avatar #10344 to #10315 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
Much like the city-states of Greece against Persia, I assume? Such a temporary confederation would simply break apart right away, and there's no assurance that enough communities would align in order to combat their opponent. Simply look at how some Greek city-states allied with the Persians.
User avatar #10346 to #10344 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
You want to throw baseless assumptions on unknowables around? Go ahead. Oh wait, you're already doing it.
User avatar #10350 to #10346 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
Assumptions? No, not at all. Presumptions. Anarchist society is, essentially, similar to Greek city-states of the ancient world, although Greek city-states were larger and more powerful than communities in communistic or anarchist societies.

You're get to provide any credible refute besides from 'hurr durr da guberment is ebil'.
#10353 to #10350 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
"Anarchist society is, essentially, similar to Greek city-states of the ancient world"

Oh gods, the fail is strong in this one.
The ancient polis of Greece were in no way ruler-less. They were kingdoms, tyrannies, aristocracies, ruled by senates, and so on.
The fact an anarchist society has no way to hold slaves should have been a dead giveaway, actually.

"You're get to provide any credible refute besides from 'hurr durr da guberment is ebil'."
I think you might have accidentally your sentence.
As I explained early on, I believe every human being has the right to total self-determination. Governments violate that right by default, therefore I think it is wrong.
It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.
User avatar #10354 to #10353 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
Without a transitional stage, such as how socialism is sometimes thought to accompany communism, anarchism is doomed to fall to the rise of, predominately, autocracies .

"You're yet* to". The sentence was otherwise understandable from the context.

Suggesting the idea of self-determination is fine, but to propose an unpractical 'alternative' isn't the right way to support your idea. Without a form of governance that maximises individual freedoms and rights, and secures those freedoms and rights against threat, you're doomed to be oppressed.
User avatar #10358 to #10354 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
You're presenting awfully many assertions without argument. Just saying.

Again, there is no reason why a voluntary society would be unable to keep itself that way.
On the contrary, there is barely a target less attractive to an imperialist, autocratic system than a voluntary society.

"Without a form of governance that maximises individual freedoms and rights, and secures those freedoms and rights against threat, you're doomed to be oppressed."
Wrong. Exactly wrong.
You do not need a government to "maximise freedom". Who the hell told you that?
On the contrary, the only thing a government does, the only thing it realistically can do at all, is to infringe on the free choices of its citizens/victims via laws and the violent enforcement of them.

"Government" is an idiotic, short-sighted and utterly destructive way to try and ensure ones rights and freedoms. With the monopoly of violence, which is the cornerstone of any government, it is only a matter of time until your government stops working for you and makes you work for it.

tl;dr: You don't protect your freedom by setting up a violent oppressor.
That should be pretty obvious, actually.
User avatar #10359 to #10358 - oxan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
Why would an anarchist community be an unpopular target to imperialists? The threat to the community would be based upon the relevant exploitable resources nearby, or under the control of the community.

And yes, yes you do need a government to maximise freedom. It's not something to be told, it should be a self-evident fact. There is no reason that a government cannot maximise freedoms, and remain 'anarchist' in many aspects of the lives of the people. It is political apathy that has resulted in oppressive governments. We, as the people, allowed oppression to be a characteristic of government. Ignorance of the proletariat allowed the capitalists to assume power. However, just like the previous ruling classes removed by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat have the ability to place themselves as the ruling class.

Anarchism is an idiotic and short-sighted way to ensure personal rights and freedoms, and is ultimately destructive for rights and freedoms. Government oppression is the result of political apathy.

If the bourgeoisie influence is removed, and appropriate regulations introduced, democracy is achievable, as is maximising personal rights and freedoms. There needs to be a force to protect your rights and freedoms. Your small, individual anarchist community is not powerful enough to defend your rights and freedoms.
User avatar #10361 to #10359 - techketzer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2012) [-]
How would the aggressor rule the society or keep it from rebelling when there is no governmental system to overtake?
The people are used to freedom of will and choice, so any regulation will be inevitably conceived as oppression, every tax imposed on them will be seen as exploitation.
Most likely, the people have a great ability to coordinate joined private efforts and are not at all dependent on anything the new government could provide them with, not to mention an aggressor typically does not attack in order to make gifts.
Also, they most likely are very well armed, experienced and coordinated because of no restrictions on weapons and the mindset of having to provide your own safety.

Overtaking and integrating a voluntary society into an autocratic empire is a high-effort, high-risk task, much much harder than corrupting an existing government into your control.

How does a government maximise freedoms? What exactly does it do when it's maximising freedoms?
At its core, Government is institutionalized coercion. I can't wrap my head around how one supposedly can maximise freedoms through coercion.

Political apathy? So you're saying the moment we look away government starts grabbing power and abusing it? That's quite an insight, my friend, well done.

Anarchism is the lack of structural violence and oppression, nothing else. How is that idiotic? How is it destructive to individual freedom when there is nothing that could even attack it?

Democracy may be achievable, but surely not desirable.
Don't try to tell me you have any intention of living your life the way 51% think you should. You're too smart to try that.

A voluntary society is not necessarily any weaker than an oppressed.
The government can mobilize nothing the citizens cannot provide.
User avatar #10443 to #10361 - oxan
0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2012) [-]
Small, anarchistic communities have been crushed all throughout history by autocratic empires. What difference is there now? Very little. If done effectively, it's easy. Do you not think that the tribes conquered by the Roman Empire were upset at taxation? Of course they were, but had no choice.

A government can easily maximise freedoms, that's not a difficult concept. Laws are passed, or revoked. Bam, freedoms. Additionally, you now have a structure with power to protect those freedoms from outside aggression. A noteworthy example was a general strike in early 1900s United States at a car factory. Unfortunately, I can't remember the exact name, but you can easily find it. Anyway: the police and thugs hired by the company attempted to violently break up the strike. In response, the President deployed the National Guard, not to aid the police, but to defend the strikers from the aggression of the police.

Now, before you mention that the police are a tool of government violence, I'll let you know right away that I agree, as do many socialists. Like anarchists, most of us promote the organisation of people's militias to police themselves. I just thought that was something important to note...

Anarchism is a lack of structure. It can easily be crushed. I'd much rather live in a socially libertarian socialist society, where the government can, with appropriate legislation, be held accountable.

To political apathy... Generally, when political apathy takes over is when the private sector swoops in and calls for deregulation and achieves more power. This is what leads government to corruption. Thus, it is important to ensure that corporate influence is barred from politics.

Direct Democracy is currently the best system we can muster. The bare minimum structure of a anarchist community is having direct democracy to decide community matters, because don't pretend you'll be living alone in a cave.

And I'm out of characters: gov' provides quick organisaiton of militias.
#10073 to #10063 - oxan
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/06/2012) [-]
Socialist reporting in.
User avatar #10209 to #10073 - FuckingMagnets
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/08/2012) [-]
Very funny.