Before we promote anarchy should we not try a functioning democracy?

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I'm so confused.

 

Do you, or do you not want to impose your leaders on me?

I'm of the mind that most of us have the disposition to operate in the peaceful, don't hurt me, I won't hurt you..realm. Thus my fundamental problem with anarchy is that I feel that the rule of might well be much more prevalent under anarchy. You can see it in the global violence and corruption correlations.

 

When the rule of law fails, you get less enforcement on violence and then Yoda logic kicks in. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger etc.

 

No matter what your system, if you plan to raise your children in a relatively safe environment, you do need a militia to protect the rule of law (violence, possessions etc). Then you need to judge, penance..you can see how quickly you end up needing a way to govern all that, you can't have everyone shouting 'Throw them in the pit' with half the evidence.

 

Anyone who knew they were innocent would then decide to retaliate against the Pitt callers..it would escalate quickly with nothing in place to calm it down other than last man standing.

  

 

 

You never answered Michael's question.

 

You basically said that statism interests you because you're interested in statism.

 

But why does it interest you so much?

 

Why in your very long response did you not even reply to Michael's point about peaceful parenting?

 

As a side question of my own, how many podcasts have you listened to? If you started at show #1, I think you'd find answers to many of your questions. Perhaps you'd even find the answer to Michael's question.

I'm new to this? I'm not interested in Satanism (though I understand many believe that the New World Order are actually following that agenda. I'm of the mind they simply intend to manage the heard through the manipulation of currency.

[NotDarkYet]

Let me ask the question again.

 

Do you, or DONT you want to impose your system on me?

 

If you do, then you agree that some people should initiate violence against others to get what they want.

 

Use all the word salad you want..you can't get around it.  And calling this logic "simplistic" isn't an argument.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I'm so confused.

 

Do you, or do you not want to impose your leaders on me?

No. But if run my child over in your car, I'd want the people in my community who corporate as a police force to arrest you, the lawyers in my community (you will be appointed one if you want) to gather evidence and a Judge to decide what your penance should be. I will carry on making training on medical products because left to anarchy I would have to stop doing that, potentially murder the wrong person and then have a member of your family go after my family. I'd also not want you to drive a car on our roads without being qualified and insured. I don't care how the standards for the training and insurance is agreed, I simply can't see a solution being proposed without 10 people really working on that while the rest of us get on with the stuff we need to feed our kids. You would not have the freedom to place my family at risk. So long as co-exist..that means some rules.

 

What I want you do do...is not let crony liars impose themselves on you you do this by supporting only those who prove themselves to you by providing an Anarchic Private contract backed by accountability.

 

In all likelihood it means you have no-one to vote for anyway since 0.01% of people might offer and about 5% of people are scum, but at least if you take that approach...an Anarchist might stand and create more anarchy in the Oligarchy. an Oligarchy is dependent on subversion and control of all elements. Anarchy is the essence of no control so a few Anarchists in government right now (demanding a 911 investigation) would be great.

 

Our government does not require a private contract of required action by political candidates.  To provide one would be therefore Anarchic.

[NotDarkYet]

If everybody gets to interact voluntarily, then we have a market.  

 

I don't know why you're going into so much detail.  

 

The market will guide those decisions. 

 

To wit:  Practical Anarchy:  http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/PA/Practical_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux.mp3

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Democracy is indeed majority forcing it's will on the minority. Anarchy is the most strongest and most vicious doing what the hell they can to a peaceful society. You see that in the Middle Easy now. That's Anarchy, small Waring fractions. don't blame the religious head, take away that and you would perhaps have a few more factions.

 

Either you don't understand what you're arguing agianst or you do and you are deliberately attacking a straw-man. Anarchy means without rulers. Rulers refers to a coercive hierarchy. So anarchy means without coercive rulers. The warring factions in the middle east are not only coercive rulers but their situation has been caused to a large degree by coercive rulers from democracies. 

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Doing things my own way does not mean on my own. I'd obviously still hire other people to help and since I do not have to get a majority vote to get the projects I want to get done I am not limited by the factors that limit government projects. 

 

Why is it that you think without some government/god/overlord telling people what to do everything will descend into violence and gang warfare? Even if it did would that not open up a HUGE market niche for protection services (obviously with these protection services I'd want reassurance that they would not try to gain power over me and would be extremely skeptical until I could know for sure)? Especially if we focus on good/peaceful parenting, why do you think people never raised around violence would resort to violence (and the popular conception of anarchy) simply because the threat of the state is gone? Not to mention in an anarchist society (true anarchist not popular anarchist) people would be held even more accountable for their actions because the few "evil" people would not have the guns of the state to go hide behind.

 

 

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. At some point you will have to be the doer in something you are unable to trust you have fair access to. Then there is not enough to go round, 'Whose child gets the eye treatment today' and it decends into poplar anarchy. The moment the vioence starts..you need a system that can make it stop and the only force that can do that must be 1. Big enough and 2. If it is to have lastig legitamacy, provide fair justice afterwards. Without fair justice...the violence is simley put on hold until the parents stop watching.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. At some point you will have to be the doer in something you are able to trust you have an equal stake in. Then there is not enogh to go round, whose child gets the eye treatment and it decends into poplar anarchy.

 

Can you demonstrate a single necessary service the government provides that can't be provided without it? 

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Either you don't understand what you're arguing agianst or you do and you are deliberately attacking a straw-man. Anarchy means without rulers. Rulers refers to a coercive hierarchy. So anarchy means without coercive rulers. The warring factions in the middle east are not only coercive rulers but their situation has been caused to a large degree by coercive rulers from democracies. 

 

I which case you should be in support of voter consumer rights. It's about removing cohersion. Hey, I'd support all legislative heriachy being re-electied every 4 years and only ever standing one term and needing steer clear of revolving door work for the rest of their lives. I'm not going to be able to eliminate coersive rulers when I don't even demand a contract along those lines when they stand..or offer to stand along those lines so that fellow anarchists can tell me from a coersive ruler.

[jpahmad]

Interesting video. However, there are some areas where he falls short.

 

He says this society and their advanced tech showed up "surprisingly" out of nowhere. There is growing evidence that the accepted historical time line of modern human development is very wrong in that the dates need to be pushed back thousands of years. Graham Hancock's work is a good source for all the different archeological sites around the world which are pointing to this.

 

 

He never said that in the video.  The Indus didn't "arise out of nothing".  It evolved from the early Harrapan, which evolved form the pre-Harrapan, which evolved from the neolithic cultures in the area, which evolved from the stone age people who originally settled the land.  

 

 

 

In the video it is also said that the Egyptians were the source of the "dominator" system that we are still in today. New evidence is also challenging this belief by showing that this only occurred at the end of the Egyptian society when the priest class gained power and invented the idea of buying spiritual salvation from imaginary dangers. For thousands of years prior to this the people that lived in that area had a society very similar to the one described in your video, a heterarchy of skilled people living in a society centered around water.

 

 

 

There is no evidence showing that the Ancient Egyptian was anything other than a territorial state.  Look at the other video on Egypt on the same channel.  The idea that the Ancient Egyptian society was heterarchy is an absolute joke and there is not one text you can point to that will suggests this.  The sources used in to support the information in the video are listed in the description.  Why don't you check them out.

[Kurtis]

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds an dorganisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect.

You do not respond to people's questions or arguments.

 

Now you are bringing forth the infamous statist "but what about roads?" 'argument'.

 

Since you said you are new, and you didn't answer my previous question, I'll assume you haven't listened to the early shows like I suggested. If you truly are interested in these topics then that's a great place to start.

 

Until you do that, or exhibit some humility, I'm done following this post.

 

Best of luck.

[jpahmad]

The idea that we "need" oppressive masters to create order and peace is merely a fabrication started relatively recently in our modern state of being.

 

 

 

Who's ideas is that?  Not mine.  It certainly wasn't suggested in the video.  The video was demonstrating how a society does not need "oppressive masters."  I'm a bit confused my your post.

 Graham Hancock's work is a good source 

 

 

 

Graham Hancock?  Are you serious?  He's a mystic, not a historian or an archaeologist.

 

You've really lost all credibility man.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

  

 

 

You never answered Michael's question.

 

You basically said that statism interests you because you're interested in statism.

 

But why does it interest you so much?

 

Why in your very long response did you not even reply to Michael's point about peaceful parenting?

 

As a side question of my own, how many podcasts have you listened to? If you started at show #1, I think you'd find answers to many of your questions. Perhaps you'd even find the answer to Michael's question.

 

Peaceful parenting, to my mind, is irelevent of political ideology. There are two dogs in this world, some will not calm down until you tell them no and give them a firm tap (we evolved to have pain receptors to stop us doning something) and another dog will only calm down if you hug it shower it with love for the 10 minutes you can before it need to run around like a nutter fo a bit.

 

We are not going to all suddently become unemotiol humans able to bestow an unbringing the removes the desire for some form of revenge on others. More and more I see that at least 30% of people are self destructive, stubborn.  Some people need a firm hand when they are young, not necessarily for their own education, but to control all the damage and chaos they cause until they are ready for reason, 2-3 in most kids. After that I think reason and punichment works best, but you are suuming that the parents are perfect, have no medical reason to be unfair and are never accidently seek fair justice for a wrong that actually did not occur, Should anyt of those things happens.

 

Violence is a nature solution too, you don't need to teach people to give up on reason, get stubborn and and seek violent justice, there is no way you are going to teach in 1 generation (it would have to irradicate it all in one go if we were all to train non-violent humans and then move to anarchy, assuming violence would neet to be used to defend against violence and the peacefull kids are not to be immediately supressed violently.

 

I don't know about you but I've encounterd people who get agry and egetatied in a reasoned debate such as this. So even those who profess to be peacefull are often harboring rage monsters waiting to snap.

You do not respond to people's questions or arguments.

 

Now you are bringing forth the infamous statist "but what about roads?" 'argument'.

 

Since you said you are new, and you didn't answer my previous question, I'll assume you haven't listened to the early shows like I suggested. If you truly are interested in these topics then that's a great place to start.

 

Until you do that, or exhibit some humility, I'm done following this post.

 

Best of luck.

The posting system is a bit of a mess.

 

There are a lot of people posting all sorts. If you have any logical answers I'm all ears. I see this as all pretty obbious once you break it down.

 

I'm not seeking humility from you. You seem to have asumed saome form of heirachy and become insulted ober someone having a different opinion. This is why Anarchy does not last s a structure. You need structure to achieve reasoned progress even if it's wrong.

 

Even here, all I'm sugesting is that you don't vote for anyone that refused to provide you with a contract to propose and support certain bills. Now that you are aware of the idea, is it not silly to do so? Assuming you don't vote, but are trapped in a country running a governmnet structure that is more opressive than it could be, would it not be productive to stand or support someone who WILL commit to oposing somthing?

 

If you have answers I'm all ears. I have blogs too..I'm not going to ask you to do 15 hours of research to answer a very simple question.

[Koroviev]

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. At some point you will have to be the doer in something you are unable to trust you have fair access to. Then there is not enough to go round, 'Whose child gets the eye treatment today' and it decends into poplar anarchy. The moment the vioence starts..you need a system that can make it stop and the only force that can do that must be 1. Big enough and 2. If it is to have lastig legitamacy, provide fair justice afterwards. Without fair justice...the violence is simley put on hold until the parents stop watching.

 

Therein lies the beauty of Anarchy. As long as your system is moral you are free to propose whatever system you want and then it's up to the market to decide which works best. It is only because of the state that we believe we need the state.

 

If you are claiming "politicians" full accountability for their actions and a system that is not able to force people to pay for things then we are proposing the same thing.

 

How can you get big projects done in an anarchic society? Well, how does Apple sell millions of cell phones per year? No one is forcing anyone to pay for them. Apple makes a product that people want and people pay for it. If people want a road, if people want a dam, if people want protection, then they will pay for it. If taxes don't exist then they have more money to pay for the things they want and the things they need. 

 

The only thing the government does is steal money from some people and give it to other people. In a sense they are a middle man who removes all freedom of choice from the people they "work with." The people being stolen from have no choice in who that money goes to and the people who receive the money have no incentive to give the best value or even to meet the needs of the people. All I'm proposing is removing the immoral middle man.

 

 

Peaceful parenting, to my mind, is irelevent of political ideology. There are two dogs in this world, some will not calm down until you tell them no and give them a firm tap (we evolved to have pain receptors to stop us doning something) and another dog will only calm down if you hug it shower it with love for the 10 minutes you can before it need to run around like a nutter fo a bit.

 

are you saying some children are like dogs who need to be beaten to obey you?

[Kurtis]

Who's ideas is that?  Not mine.  It certainly wasn't suggested in the video.  The video was demonstrating how a society does not need "oppressive masters."  I'm a bit confused my your post.

 

Graham Hancock?  Are you serious?  He's a mystic, not a historian or an archaeologist.

 

You've really lost all credibility man.

I will look into more of the videos you suggested. The reference I made to the video you posted was his report that the society was surprisingly advanced and shocked archaeologists with its levels of technology which were thousands of years ahead of what they had expected.

 

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't claim that graham Hancock is some kind of mystic guru, he is a journalist who reports on archaeology, particularly those sites that contradict the view of main stream academia.

 

I must admit I'm a bit confused myself since the type of things he reports on are very much in agreement with the video you posted. Which is that the idea that advanced societies originated on earth only once (in the fertile crescent), is not held up by modern findings. New dig sites around the globe point to a much earlier time frame with multiple origins of advanced technology/maths/architecture etc.

 

I do not know as much about the societal structures of these societies, so I'll look into that more. Thank you for the info.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

You do not respond to people's questions or arguments.

 

Now you are bringing forth the infamous statist "but what about roads?" 'argument'.

 

Since you said you are new, and you didn't answer my previous question, I'll assume you haven't listened to the early shows like I suggested. If you truly are interested in these topics then that's a great place to start.

 

Until you do that, or exhibit some humility, I'm done following this post.

 

Best of luck.

You are the second person to complain that I've not anwered a question without specifying which or where I made the wrong assumption. I guessed on the other one, on yours I really have no idea. I don't think the road arguement is a silly one. I can see how under anarchy it could work...historically it simply did not. How wide would you build the car, would there be a tarrif, who checks if there should be a tarrif guy there or he's just an oportunist. the moment you form a concensus you have a governmnet. For them not to be coersive, you have to trust that the person you appoint will be accountable to a common law..to do that you need to aponing a legal team who is not coerced...to do that..you can see that there is noo end to the lack of trust. There is no perfect solution...but, no matter how you do it, at every step, if your official is not required to be transparent and accountable...and you for some reason feel compelled not to ask them to be...your not ready for an Anarchy either.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Doing things my own way does not mean on my own. I'd obviously still hire other people to help and since I do not have to get a majority vote to get the projects I want to get done I am not limited by the factors that limit government projects. 

 

Why is it that you think without some government/god/overlord telling people what to do everything will descend into violence and gang warfare? Even if it did would that not open up a HUGE market niche for protection services (obviously with these protection services I'd want reassurance that they would not try to gain power over me and would be extremely skeptical until I could know for sure)? Especially if we focus on good/peaceful parenting, why do you think people never raised around violence would resort to violence (and the popular conception of anarchy) simply because the threat of the state is gone? Not to mention in an anarchist society (true anarchist not popular anarchist) people would be held even more accountable for their actions because the few "evil" people would not have the guns of the state to go hide behind.

 

If you never voted for anyone who would not sign this..http://pic.twitter.com/J0uVyBQDlP  You would start to reduce the power of the overlord. I see Democracy as being between anarchy and oligarchy and think we have oligarchy dressed as Democracy.

 

It may well be that, if this law passed the oligarchy would be exposed and lead to a bloody revolution. Unfortunately I think we have reached the point where the masses would loose. WMD us from the safety of Rothschild island. But I hold my hopes. Whatever system there is, you hit the nail on the head, people have to be held accountable and that requires a system of some sort.

 

Therein lies the beauty of Anarchy. As long as your system is moral you are free to propose whatever system you want and then it's up to the market to decide which works best. It is only because of the state that we believe we need the state.

 

If you are claiming "politicians" full accountability for their actions and a system that is not able to force people to pay for things then we are proposing the same thing.

 

How can you get big projects done in an anarchic society? Well, how does Apple sell millions of cell phones per year? No one is forcing anyone to pay for them. Apple makes a product that people want and people pay for it. If people want a road, if people want a dam, if people want protection, then they will pay for it. If taxes don't exist then they have more money to pay for the things they want and the things they need. 

 

The only thing the government does is steal money from some people and give it to other people. In a sense they are a middle man who removes all freedom of choice from the people they "work with." The people being stolen from have no choice in who that money goes to and the people who receive the money have no incentive to give the best value or even to meet the needs of the people. All I'm proposing is removing the immoral middle man.

 

 

 

are you saying some children are like dogs who need to be beaten to obey you?

 

 

Apple could not run that business in the absence of international trading agreement, mining rights, consumer protection for you, both in regards to function and safety.

[Koroviev]

Apple could not run that business in the absence of international trading agreement, mining rights, consumer protection for you, both in regards to function and safety.

 

Are you saying Apple can only run their business because the government has an agreement with another government allowing companies to trade with each other, because governments give permission to gather resources, and governments (sometimes) protect them (and me) from other governments attacking us? What if we just removed the governments?

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

 

Therein lies the beauty of Anarchy. As long as your system is moral you are free to propose whatever system you want and then it's up to the market to decide which works best. It is only because of the state that we believe we need the state.

 

If you are claiming "politicians" full accountability for their actions and a system that is not able to force people to pay for things then we are proposing the same thing.

 

How can you get big projects done in an anarchic society? Well, how does Apple sell millions of cell phones per year? No one is forcing anyone to pay for them. Apple makes a product that people want and people pay for it. If people want a road, if people want a dam, if people want protection, then they will pay for it. If taxes don't exist then they have more money to pay for the things they want and the things they need. 

 

The only thing the government does is steal money from some people and give it to other people. In a sense they are a middle man who removes all freedom of choice from the people they "work with." The people being stolen from have no choice in who that money goes to and the people who receive the money have no incentive to give the best value or even to meet the needs of the people. All I'm proposing is removing the immoral middle man.

 

 

 

are you saying some children are like dogs who need to be beaten to obey you?

 

 

Some small childen, but not to obey and instruction. To stop freaking out and screaming. You can trap the in your arms for however long it takes. I have very close friends who peacefully negotiate with a young rage monster for hours, our holiday (group) were tied to his whims. My kids would never do that. I grab him firmly by one arm, drag him to a corner pin him down and give him an earful (bad cop mode) he can leave when it's over. This is NEVER about I want you to wear this or walk like that, it's about him being destructive etc. Tell everyone he's not going anywhere until he's stopped trying to get out of my grasp an apologized. 30 minutes later, his crying changes to one of anguish..he's given up. He goes to play with mum.

 

Now here is the amazing bit.

 

He makes something out of lego that afternoon, passes his parents and comes to ME so show me how clever his creation is. I tell him how clever he is too.

 

It helps that we have a good play relationship too. I think you have to earn the right to use force, it must always be measured powerful control, not a fight. If you are not able to control you emotions you should never consider corporate punishment which I have used on my children. Over knedd spanking to acts of sheer evil (dangerous, destructful acts that they know is evil) at a time where straight to bed is not an option.

 

We ARE animals and some people need to be shown that others have power..great power..and choose not to use it other than to enforce good, otherwise the kids don't know what their physical energy is for. There is also Pablos dog, to create a negative experience when they try to impose an injustice on someone else, a subconscious predisposition. Tough to my most peacefully parented Jahova whitness friend when for some reason at 18 he decided to try intimidating people for fun (when I was not there have a go at him) . It stopped when he got his teeth smashed in.

 

Were you to meet us both then would have been sure we had each others upbringing.

 

I remember as a child thinking the only person stronger than me was my dad.

 

I was a little sod back then.

 

Little sods need more discipline than most, but we can come out allright with parent who understand us.

Can you demonstrate a single necessary service the government provides that can't be provided without it? 

 

No. But I can think of plenty that would be very unlikely to exist in and would suffer worse corruption in the absence of regular elections of people who must appear to work for common law and human rights for the benefit of the majority. Would be better still if those people actually were (thus must constant plugging of voter consumer rights)

[shirgall]

I signed this before running for office, but it didn't seem to earn me many votes. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I'm so confused.

 

Do you, or do you not want to impose your leaders on me?

 

I did an answer to this with an analogy of a car accident with my child and how I'd then my police would. But I can't see it and was wondering if it got moderated? Did you see it. A few answers seem to be getting moderated, nothing abusive, but it's just as likely that I can't find them in the mess of this format.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I signed this before running for office, but it didn't seem to earn me many votes. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

 

Good for you. Standing by your ideals.

 

Too high to soon though.

 

Better to start with something everyone agrees on.

 

pic.twitter.com/J0uVyBQDlP

Are you saying Apple can only run their business because the government has an agreement with another government allowing companies to trade with each other, because governments give permission to gather resources, and governments (sometimes) protect them (and me) from other governments attacking us? What if we just removed the governments?

 

You would not be able to trust that your product was as described and get your money back, or even that your supplier was supplying a genuine apple product (assuming you have developed a reason to trust the brand) after 3 years they could force it to stop working and secretly re-brand the next product to force you to buy the next thing...or they could steal your personal photos and blackmail you. All these problems, while they can be governed in an anarchic way..would be so complicated, I simply do not think the would.

I signed this before running for office, but it didn't seem to earn me many votes. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

 

Getting a bit fed up of the moderation on this site, In a nutshell, good for you standing.

 

I think you have to start with common improvements for example a law that allowed a petition of 100,000 to convene a Jury. I made a branded meme photo a long time ago and linked to that on twitter.

 

Do you now what the deal is with links to twitter or brands of ideas. Obviously Peacefull Parenting is not a problem but the Voter consumer rights system I put together is getting deleted.

 

If you are the moderator reading this. A heads up please.

[Koroviev]

Some small childen, but not to obey and instruction. To stop freaking out and screaming. You can trap the in your arms for however long it takes. I have very close friends who peacefully negotiate with a young rage monster for hours, our holiday (group) were tied to his whims. My kids would never do that. I grab him firmly by one arm, drag him to a corner pin him down and give him an earful (bad cop mode) he can leave when it's over. This is NEVER about I want you to wear this or walk like that, it's about him being destructive etc. Tell everyone he's not going anywhere until he's stopped trying to get out of my grasp an apologized. 30 minutes later, his crying changes to one of anguish..he's given up. He goes to play with mum.

 

Now here is the amazing bit.

 

He makes something out of lego that afternoon, passes his parents and comes to ME so show me how clever his creation is. I tell him how clever he is too.

 

It helps that we have a good play relationship too. I think you have to earn the right to use force, it must always be measured powerful control, not a fight. If you are not able to control you emotions you should never consider corporate punishment which I have used on my children. Over knedd spanking to acts of sheer evil (dangerous, destructful acts that they know is evil) at a time where straight to bed is not an option.

 

We ARE animals and some people need to be shown that others have power..great power..and choose not to use it other than to enforce good, otherwise the kids don't know what their physical energy is for. There is also Pablos dog, to create a negative experience when they try to impose an injustice on someone else, a subconscious predisposition. Tough to my most peacefully parented Jahova whitness friend when for some reason at 18 he decided to try intimidating people for fun (when I was not there have a go at him) . It stopped when he got his teeth smashed in.

 

Were you to meet us both then would have been sure we had each others upbringing.

 

I remember as a child thinking the only person stronger than me was my dad.

 

I was a little sod back then.

 

Little sods need more discipline than most, but we can come out allright with parent who understand us.

 

Does it not worry you that your son might be as terrified of you as I'm sure you were of your father? I know personally growing up even though my parents were against spanking or anything like that there were lots of times where I was certain my dad was going to literally kill me. The only people in the entire world who are supposed to care for you and nurture you, you are deathly afraid of. It was awful. Isn't that simply ingraining into his psyche that might makes right, that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't wake the sleeping dragon who will pin you against the wall and scream into your face? Would it not be better to plan ahead and work in conjunction with your child to make sure both of your needs are met? As opposed to waiting until he does something that you don't like then imposing your will on him through force? Like you I "turned out all right," but I'm 1/4 and I can tell you for certain the other 3 did not. Even if that was a valid argument is "all right" really the kind of person you want to raise.

 

Now keep in mind that there is a huge difference between peaceful parenting and what i'd assume your friends are trying which absolutely leads to hellions because they have no concept of others' needs since their parents give them no boundaries whatsoever. Parenting is a lot of work and yes if you don't put the time and effort into it it does get to the point where you feel as though you've run out of options, but that is all the more reason to put the time and effort in before hand. Show me one parent who has put in the time and effort into peaceful parenting and ended up with a hell raiser and I'll change my opinion, but it's just not possible. People only speak Chinese if they are taught Chinese. People only act violently if they are taught violence.

 

I truly am sorry but isn't it time we did everything we possibly can to stop the cycle of violence?

Anyone who hasn't read it I cannot recommend "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" enough 

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Does it not worry you that your son might be as terrified of you as I'm sure you were of your father? I know personally growing up even though my parents were against spanking or anything like that there were lots of times where I was certain my dad was going to literally kill me. The only people in the entire world who are supposed to care for you and nurture you, you are deathly afraid of. It was awful. Isn't that simply ingraining into his psyche that might makes right, that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't wake the sleeping dragon who will pin you against the wall and scream into your face? Would it not be better to plan ahead and work in conjunction with your child to make sure both of your needs are met? As opposed to waiting until he does something that you don't like then imposing your will on him through force? Like you I "turned out all right," but I'm 1/4 and I can tell you for certain the other 3 did not. Even if that was a valid argument is "all right" really the kind of person you want to raise.

 

Now keep in mind that there is a huge difference between peaceful parenting and what i'd assume your friends are trying which absolutely leads to hellions because they have no concept of others' needs since their parents give them no boundaries whatsoever. Parenting is a lot of work and yes if you don't put the time and effort into it it does get to the point where you feel as though you've run out of options, but that is all the more reason to put the time and effort in before hand. Show me one parent who has put in the time and effort into peaceful parenting and ended up with a hell raiser and I'll change my opinion, but it's just not possible. People only speak Chinese if they are taught Chinese. People only act violently if they are taught violence.

 

I truly am sorry but isn't it time we did everything we possibly can to stop the cycle of violence?

 

No. Because I was not terrified of my father. At the same time..when those who did not know how to take control of my rage...and THEN reason with me (I hated the lecture..that was the worst bit) But..to get me to open my mind to the fact that I was going to have to stop and reason...someone had to take charge of a destructive force.

 

It seems to me that there is almost as much what I call negative negative development as negative positive. You have made it clear that you were presented with dominating corporal punishment delivered with rage and not followed up with reason. From that you appear to have taken a negative (I reject) to his negative (violent imposition of will). You saw it as an injustice.

 

I did not see it as an injustice (most of the time) I was trying to get what I wanted and smashing anything and everything if I could not get it.

 

We are also genetically different. You might not look back on your childhood and think..god I was a little sod , thank got my dad was there to manage me where sweet nurtured others could not.

 

Later in my development (I decided to be good at 11) my father drank too much and allowed me to join him. I though the drink caused all sort of problems (I was older by then) I was the only 16 year old who was T total by choice.  My old school mates with traditional parenting..plenty  of them chain smoking...lots of drinking..I'd day 2 in 8 to their significant detriment.

 

There are genetics to this, or learning. My Half brother 18 years younger hardly drinks too without the negative negative role response..I like to think it's more my positive positive but we could just have sensitive tummies (I do not suffer handovers when I have drunk)

 

Regarding cycle of violence...I really think your fighting a loosing battle with nature.

 

I have a friend into warhammer with 2 boys, constant play fighting, no problems and another friend ..vegan.boy girl.neither hit their children... . We had a old band get together at the Vegan peaceful house and the two boys were playfighting and the vegans boy joined in. It started ok...then the vegan boy started competing harder and harder and then smashed his foot as hard down on the other boy as he could. The playfight boys were shocks as were the parents.

 

Westling, competing, testing ourselves is part of our nature..in all things. This boy had not been taught how to control his violence urges in an unusual situation (I going to guess he was 10 at the time) but he fell to trying to hurt someone as soon as he began to loose a test of strength.

 

You can't train on instincts by pretending that they don't exist, for example the instinct to like the idea of having sex with hot women. You have to be open and lead by example. I am faithful because I'm proud to step up the the challenge. Meanwhile..take the old ugly kid from school who married his first girlfriend, give him two drinks and then, if a total hotty start snogging him...he responds in kind. No experience with controlling nature, better to do that before you have a wife and kids.

 

To show that you ONLY use your force to stop a violent destructive injustice...but not to use it to force you will on others teaches children when they should use their power. It also helps alleviate their fear when they are presented with a destructive force (and they will be). I shuld imagine the peaceful kids would be more likely to do something drastic for lack of a viable solution to there escalating fear, or an ability to diffuse the situation (which can be as much as wearing confidence on your face)

 

If you do not...the experiments they run for themselves (we are human, it's what we do) will likely be wider and no necessarily come out in the right place if...when they first discover the power of might...they ARE the biggest and the strongest.

 

Stephs migrant video being a good one for the futility of peaceful parenting as the solution to political corruption. Young men vying for diminishing supply of females being a force of nature no training can control.

[Will Torbald]

I guess you have never worked in a business where lots of people collectively work together to produce something of value. I see government as a business. Their product is stability, sustainable growth, happiness and (should be) equality.

 

You can quit a business, you can't quit a government (without getting shot). What I would like to let you know is that all the pragmatical arguments for your system will bounce off me, and mostly all of us who are discussing it with you. You will never get over the immorality of the state, and the real stability, sustainable growth, happiness and real equality of a voluntary society. And even if the voluntary society wasn't a utopia (it won't) had tons of issues with crime and corruption (we have that now too) and didn't guarantee anyone's safety (it isn't now either) I would still choose it over anything else. I would choose it even if it were worse and had more crime, more poverty, and more uncertainty (because I could make a buck trying to solve those problems).

[Guest Gee]

Before I try making love should I first attempt rape?

 

Do you?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. 

 

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

You can quit a business, you can't quit a government (without getting shot). What I would like to let you know is that all the pragmatical arguments for your system will bounce off me, and mostly all of us who are discussing it with you. You will never get over the immorality of the state, and the real stability, sustainable growth, happiness and real equality of a voluntary society. And even if the voluntary society wasn't a utopia (it won't) had tons of issues with crime and corruption (we have that now too) and didn't guarantee anyone's safety (it isn't now either) I would still choose it over anything else. I would choose it even if it were worse and had more crime, more poverty, and more uncertainty (because I could make a buck trying to solve those problems).

 

And with that ultimatum you would will take no effort to place accountability on corruption on those you authorize regardless to act on your behalf regardless of which form of society.

 

I'm more worried about living in a society of people where people stubbornly refuse to reason get to make decisions that impact negatively on everyone else with there being no humane organized form of recourse.

 

A good example would be that you set up a manufacturing plant up stream of a community and used it for your toilet waste. You might be insulted by the tone that the person down steam took when they came up and TOLD you that you had  to stop, right or wrong. Closed your mind to the obvious injustice...the other community may leave...but since they were there first and are bigger and stronger they will force the issue and you would be required to adjust your behavior by force.

 

The reason I say this is that,,right now,,most of the people reading this post are either not voting or voting from someone who you have not even asked if they are siting to be accountable to supporting ANYTHING they way, If they were accountable to what you agree with them, not thought government rules that have been corrupted, but Anarchic where you have insisted on upfront accountability outside government rules (Anarchic). You are effectivly up river from your kids (along with me) and I'm the oly one say,,dudes...lets big a hole and compost our waste...and your saying...those people down steam, whose water (liberty) we are poisoning by out lack of effort. how dare they tell me what to do.

 

If not making simple steps to clean your children's liberty supply now is justifiable in your mind because at some time in the future you want there to be another stream..then we have to agree.

 

And putting it into the two communities filled with love scenario. Your choice in this scenario was not the peaceful one.

 

My actions are that of being up river, seeing another community below, thinking about the result of our actions and telling our community that we should not dump our waste in the river and compost well away from there. You are there with me in that analogy community right now, and because I said it and my idea, your making a speech about how we must not let their need impact ours.

 

If the community follow me..we avert a war.

Before I try making love should I first attempt rape?

 

Do you?

 

If someone is raping do you calmly reason with them until they're finished?

 

This is silly I don't even get the analogy. It's like we never spoke and you keep reverting to some memory you have of unjust violence for nothing.

 

I'm going to build for you a viable spanking scenario. I can't remember but it's likely that I have decided to do this with my my kids at some point (when you have the spanking option the kids only challenge you to the edge of reasonable debate. Loosing it and ignoring you is not an option.)

 

The non family getting ready to go breakfast .

 

The child wonders off with their bowl to turn the telly on and you say

 

No you might spill it so please finish at the table.

 

I'll be careful.

 

Sorry, you normally spill your food. when you can usually can eat without making a mess at the table then we can think about it.

 

(you go back to making the tea and your child has moved to the couch)

 

What did I say.

 

But I want to, I'll be careful.

 

(You can or not decide to let them and if they spill that process with start again tomorrow or they are careful and they become TV breakfast kids. which I think over stimulates them before school learning pace and makes them unable to focus.)

 

No, get back to the chair.

 

No.

 

You carry them back to the chair, they throw the bowl and start kicking you.

 

If, at that moment you put them over your knee and spank them..you will never have that situation again and, so long as you are consistent with that level of scenario being spank worthy..you end up with a much less hostile life.

 

If your children are not leaders at school or in their gangs then you will not have this problem and never need to. Both of my children lead their gangs into ever increasing levels of risk or ever increasing amounts of cleaning up for me and my wife.

 

You seem to visualize a child rocking back and fourth in a ball in a corner waiting to the fear to end. The reality is that we will be playing football or lego having fun 10 minutes later and not have that repeat scenario play out every morning until the end of times.

 

I've suspect I've spanked them combined less than 15 times.

[Guest Gee]

If someone is raping do you calmly reason with them until they're finished?

 

Of course not, you kill them.

[GailG]

A functioning democracy IS anarachy.  Democracy by consensus is RATIONAL anarchy.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

There seem to be a lot of people on here who were brutalized as children rather than spanked to shock them out of an irrational destructive rage at the end of an unsuccessful reasoning.

 

It is sad that happened to you. I suspect that you can do as much damage by 'informing rationally' children constantly of reasons why they should not to something that might pose a risk...and that child grows to ignore everything in an effort to learn something independently for themselves.

 

If you have 2 Alpha kids as I do, you will soon discover that they NEED to try everything, and get very angry (when they are 3) when you need to say no or postpone of their experiments. For the sake of their protection or your need to redecorate at 8pm.

 

I don't count the spanking in a book but I would guess my 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son have been spanked at most 15 times for my daughter (Who is hyper creative and an authority challenger and my son perhaps 6 times he is the Alpha boy at school and while he did challenge authority at first, he tends to remember ideologies (and constantly asks me questions about morality, life death etc). over 70% of spanking would have been between the ages of 2 and 4.

 

They're trained now that reason is the only way now and know and that rage has swift unpleasant consequences.

 

Some homes will never benefit from spanking. Parents who get angry and are actually venting should never spank. Children who are scholarly do not have the biological deep rooted basic instinct to just taking what you want and hurting any who challenge you.

 

But if you do have kids with that basic instinct. In my experience, spanking is the most efficient solution.

 

Do my kids  in revenge? Sure. But all the Alpha kids do and I'd say these days 2 in 3 parents say they do not hit. Though I do think hitting is wrong, corporal punishment should take a non combative form and be reserved for destructive violent behavior. Force met with force. Evidencing in that moment that you, as the parent, at all other time have the capacity for force but CHOOSE not to use the power you possess when they stop fair reason.

 

You can do it the long way. I know unhealthy unkempt stressed people who are still doing it with their 10 year old Alpha kids.

 

I feel bad for the kids, who are literally looking for the firm line in the sand and no-one will give it to them. Once they find the line and know where it is...they can focus on something else.

 

How this entered the topic I guess is that my question was loaded.

 

My point is that no mater your authority structure, if those in power have no accountability (bureaucratic systems, withholding evidence, control of the big stick, its going to fail.

 

Since only 1 person replying appear to have considered that you should not empower a stranger without getting contractual obligations might be a bit stupid..and we should stop doing that.

 

Some people seem to be angry with this observation. If you are unable to be open minded and calm with such an obvious, non personal observation...Then your not ready for an anarchy that an be anything but barbaric.

 

The other vested interest is the Peaceful Parenting bit, from which people think a functioning Anarchy can succeed.

 

In Stephs own words. You can't eliminate 10,000 years of evolution instincts in 1 generation and, assuming you will not get escalating violence in an Anarchy filled with peacefully parented children, you would have to do it in 1, because the not so peaceful kids will do the evolving.

 

If you stop voting for them when they lie...perhaps they wont.

[Guest Gee]

Perhaps the points put forward are to nuanced for a forum. Have you considered calling into the show? It'll allow you to put your ideas out there in a more complete manner.

[Will Torbald]

And with that ultimatum you would will take no effort to place accountability on corruption on those you authorize regardless to act on your behalf regardless of which form of society.

 

I'm more worried about living in a society of people where people stubbornly refuse to reason get to make decisions that impact negatively on everyone else with there being no humane organized form of recourse.

 

A good example would be that you set up a manufacturing plant up stream of a community and used it for your toilet waste. You might be insulted by the tone that the person down steam took when they came up and TOLD you that you had  to stop, right or wrong. Closed your mind to the obvious injustice...the other community may leave...but since they were there first and are bigger and stronger they will force the issue and you would be required to adjust your behavior by force.

 

The reason I say this is that,,right now,,most of the people reading this post are either not voting or voting from someone who you have not even asked if they are siting to be accountable to supporting ANYTHING they way, If they were accountable to what you agree with them, not thought government rules that have been corrupted, but Anarchic where you have insisted on upfront accountability outside government rules (Anarchic). You are effectivly up river from your kids (along with me) and I'm the oly one say,,dudes...lets big a hole and compost our waste...and your saying...those people down steam, whose water (liberty) we are poisoning by out lack of effort. how dare they tell me what to do.

 

If not making simple steps to clean your children's liberty supply now is justifiable in your mind because at some time in the future you want there to be another stream..then we have to agree.

 

And putting it into the two communities filled with love scenario. Your choice in this scenario was not the peaceful one.

 

My actions are that of being up river, seeing another community below, thinking about the result of our actions and telling our community that we should not dump our waste in the river and compost well away from there. You are there with me in that analogy community right now, and because I said it and my idea, your making a speech about how we must not let their need impact ours.

 

If the community follow me..we avert a war.

 

That's the problem, you are worried about invisible menaces that you imagine will happen. You should be worried about what's real now, and is actually a product of the state. You're trying to tell the leviathan what to do properly instead of resolving to live without it. Because we don't need it.

[jpahmad]

 

 

I don't count the spanking in a book but I would guess my 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son have been spanked at most 15 times for my daughter 

 

 

 

If it works so well, then why did you have to do it 15 times?

[Koroviev]

There seem to be a lot of people on here who were brutalized as children rather than spanked to shock them out of an irrational destructive rage at the end of an unsuccessful reasoning.

 

It is sad that happened to you. I suspect that you can do as much damage by 'informing rationally' children constantly of reasons why they should not to something that might pose a risk...and that child grows to ignore everything in an effort to learn something independently for themselves.

 

If you have 2 Alpha kids as I do, you will soon discover that they NEED to try everything, and get very angry (when they are 3) when you need to say no or postpone of their experiments. For the sake of their protection or your need to redecorate at 8pm.

 

I don't count the spanking in a book but I would guess my 9 year old daughter and 6 year old son have been spanked at most 15 times for my daughter (Who is hyper creative and an authority challenger and my son perhaps 6 times he is the Alpha boy at school and while he did challenge authority at first, he tends to remember ideologies (and constantly asks me questions about morality, life death etc). over 70% of spanking would have been between the ages of 2 and 4.

 

They're trained now that reason is the only way now and know and that rage has swift unpleasant consequences.

 

Some homes will never benefit from spanking. Parents who get angry and are actually venting should never spank. Children who are scholarly do not have the biological deep rooted basic instinct to just taking what you want and hurting any who challenge you.

 

But if you do have kids with that basic instinct. In my experience, spanking is the most efficient solution.

 

Do my kids  in revenge? Sure. But all the Alpha kids do and I'd say these days 2 in 3 parents say they do not hit. Though I do think hitting is wrong, corporal punishment should take a non combative form and be reserved for destructive violent behavior. Force met with force. Evidencing in that moment that you, as the parent, at all other time have the capacity for force but CHOOSE not to use the power you possess when they stop fair reason.

 

You can do it the long way. I know unhealthy unkempt stressed people who are still doing it with their 10 year old Alpha kids.

 

I feel bad for the kids, who are literally looking for the firm line in the sand and no-one will give it to them. Once they find the line and know where it is...they can focus on something else.

 

How this entered the topic I guess is that my question was loaded.

 

My point is that no mater your authority structure, if those in power have no accountability (bureaucratic systems, withholding evidence, control of the big stick, its going to fail.

 

Since only 1 person replying appear to have considered that you should not empower a stranger without getting contractual obligations might be a bit stupid..and we should stop doing that.

 

Some people seem to be angry with this observation. If you are unable to be open minded and calm with such an obvious, non personal observation...Then your not ready for an anarchy that an be anything but barbaric.

 

The other vested interest is the Peaceful Parenting bit, from which people think a functioning Anarchy can succeed.

 

In Stephs own words. You can't eliminate 10,000 years of evolution instincts in 1 generation and, assuming you will not get escalating violence in an Anarchy filled with peacefully parented children, you would have to do it in 1, because the not so peaceful kids will do the evolving.

 

If you stop voting for them when they lie...perhaps they wont.

 

your stance is really confusing. You claim that reason is the only way to make the world a better place but are insistent that beating your kids is the only way to get them to listen to reason. How do you not see the obvious contradiction??? If you'd taught your kids NOT to escalate to violence, maybe put their needs before your own, maybe taught them to use reason as opposed to violence they would not resort to violence and you would not feel as if you had to hit people half your size just to get them to listen to you!!!!!!!!! Your voters don't listen to reason would you bend them over your knee to get them to listen to reason? NO because that's ridiculous, but I guess it makes sense the voters can vote your children are just kids. You don't have "alpha" kids you just have taught your kids that when something doesn't go their way (i.e. you don't want them to eat in front of the TV because they might get a little milk on the floor which would you take 5 seconds to clean up) instead of finding a win win situation you always revert to violence.

 

The research simply does not support your claims. Violence harms children and we cannot have rational thinkers until people stop teaching their children that violence solves controversy. You did not just end up with alpha children you created them, be accountable for you own children before you try to start preaching accountability for everyone else.

 

I'm sorry to get so angry but until people realize this is truly evil it will never change.

 

Don't take my word for it do some research. Fortunately it's not far away:

 

http://www.nospank.net/

http://stopspanking.org/

http://www.neverhitachild.org/

http://drgabormate.com/book/in-the-realm-of-hungry-ghosts/

http://psychohistory.com/

https://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=524

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

They're trained now that reason is the only way now and know and that rage has swift unpleasant consequences.

 

 "Training" doesn't necessarily involve reason but If reason is the only way then why did you hit them? It wasn't for self-defense. It was just expedient. They now psychological accept that the initiation of force can be morally permissible because to not accept it they need to see their parent as immoral. They are broken in and ready to accept the validity of the state. As your parent initiated force on you, so shall the state.