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

[Carl Green]

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.

 

So really the title of this thread should've been "Before You Guys...." instead of "Before We....". As it seems you've only used that word to make it seem like you're on the side of anarchists for some reason.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

So really the title of this thread should've been "Before You Guys...." instead of "Before We....". As it seems you've only used that word to make it seem like you're on the side of anarchists for some reason.

 

True..I had not really thought Anarchy as a viable form social system through that far. I've agreed with many of Stephs less popular conclusions and assued there were solutions I had not yet considered.

 

Three years ago I came to the conclusion that all systems result in Oligarchy or violent gangs without some form of non-violent accountability of those attributed authority...so the question served two purposes.

 

To find out what the peaceful solutions to management and sharing of resources would be.

 

To find out how the wrong people do not gradually take control though secret societies and deception anyway, for example by not educating on money planting a trusted expert then introducing a debt based currency.

 

I have not been presented with solutions to the basics AND have found that suggesting that it is idiotic to grant authority to someone who refuses to provide any assurances of attempted action, is met with objection without reason? Which would mean that, even were I to be provided with viable solutions to the basic problems, the parents of peasfully parented babies will continue to appoint coercive people into positions of authority.

 

 

 

 

I thought Anarchists might be more likely to be pen minded to the idea that is necessary to design in a water tight system of accountability and transparancy from those you appoint into responcibility.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

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 sense.

 

Yes.

 

The one I wanted to discuss was about changing taxation to one of 25% income and 1% wealth..across the board.

 

But replied with the 'Is contractual accountable obligations from appointed leaders required in any form of society'  Obviously that would result in a SMART-voter.org plug but if you looked at my campaign my first political commitment was to make SMART-voter.org mandatory..without the brad, killing my investment. (intentional loss)

 

The other one was the case for spanking.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

 "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.

Reason is the only way they will be allowed to get what they want. That is the essential lesson When they try to use force hurt us or destroy..they are quickly shown that we also have that power BUT..then stop and say..now...are you ready to use reason.

 

You need to understand the mindset of someone trying to steer their Alpha dominated child as efficiently as possible to be non destructive to other children, your homes etc.

 

They have far more rage and pride that other children...you have to make aggression an adjunct to getting what they want. That means punishment and you can not do that without showing that you have the capacity too..but control it.,  showing them that their might is NOT the mightiest..and then, knowing that they can see that you choice to use reason, even though you have evidenced that when you have the superior capability for violence. As with anyone with Alpha children, you then have to play hard. No point setting a positive message of using your might to defend the liberty of others, rather than force your unjust will..when you do not then present admiral, happy fun loving, involved qualities. You need them to want to replicate you..and they won't do that if they think you're boring or neglectful.

 

These lessons are short lived. Yes, the first time you spank..the first time you spank it may be twice on the first day. The next time you may..after lots of attempted reasoning say..that's enough..if you don't calm down / stop fighting me etc I'm going to spank your bottom..and they don't.

 

And then that's pretty much it. Three spanks in 2 days and your about 8 quality hours a week better off for about for two years and then..the sky's the limit. I know an alpha 11 year old who is still wasting 2 hours a day challenging her parents, arguing that black is white.

 

If your children get to admire any action heroes they will learn this anyway...but not your 2-4 year old. As I said, we're pretty much past all that now my kids are older, but I think we had a far more happy home with the occasional short lived paddy for 3 years compared to that of my peers who can not even get their kids to put their shoes on on request. There may also be well trained Alpha character at school who do not tolerate bullying of others and are themselves immune. Those characters will hopefully provide the role model to untrained Alpha characters who start school being a menace.

 

I would accept that there is an element of broken in, but where we disagree is that while you define that as for state rule, I see it as to not be own worst enemy, unhappy and menace to others.

[shirgall]

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Reason is the only way they will be allowed to get what they want. That is the essential lesson When they try to use force hurt us or destroy..they are quickly shown that we also have that power BUT..then stop and say..now...are you ready to use reason.

 

You need to understand the mindset of someone trying to steer their Alpha dominated child as efficiently as possible to be non destructive to other children, your homes etc.

 

They have far more rage and pride that other children...you have to remove aggression and you can not do that without showing that you have the capacity too..but control it., y showing them that their might is NOT the mightyest..and then, knowing that they can see that your choice to use reason...was a choice. Not for a lack of might.

 

If your children get to admire any action heroes they will learn this anyway...but not your 2-4 year old. As I said, we're pretty much past all that now my kids are older, but I think we had a far more happy home with the occasional short lived paddy for 3 years compared to that of my peers who can not even get their kids to put their shoes on on request.

 

I would accept that there is an element of broken in, but where we disagree is that while you define that as for state rule, I see it as to not be a threat to society.

Now you're re-framing it as only spanking when the child is attacking another person. But you were not arguing that spanking is justified only in defense (boggles my mind what threat a 2-4 year old could possibly present but okay) but for non-defensive purposes too. 

You cannot remove aggression by using aggression. You are justifying a degree of aggression that would be considered assault if  used towards an adult. It's like saying you're going to molest the child to remove their possible tendency to molest people. Also most evidence shows that spanked children are more aggressive. 

I'm not sure how the hell your 2 to 4 year old child developed "rage and pride" but I'm pretty sure hitting them won't solve it. Would you spank your wife is she showed rage and pride? Why not? 

 

The reason the breaking primes people to accept state rule is because spanking and the state are both violations of non-aggression. They are both the initiation of force. Children are evolved to accept behavior their parents model. So if the parent violates the non-aggression principle the child learns that violations of it are necessary and moral. That makes the governments violations appear normal. 

If you think spanking children breaks them in so as not to be a threat to society then you need to explain why a disproportionately high number of violent criminals were spanked. 

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Now you're re-framing it as only spanking when the child is attacking another person. But you were not arguing that spanking is justified only in defense (boggles my mind what threat a 2-4 year old could possibly present but okay) but for non-defensive purposes too. 

You cannot remove aggression by using aggression. You are justifying a degree of aggression that would be considered assault if  used towards an adult. It's like saying you're going to molest the child to remove their possible tendency to molest people. Also most evidence shows that spanked children are more aggressive. 

I'm not sure how the hell your 2 to 4 year old child developed "rage and pride" but I'm pretty sure hitting them won't solve it. Would you spank your wife is she showed rage and pride? Why not? 

 

The reason the breaking primes people to accept state rule is because spanking and the state are both violations of non-aggression. They are both the initiation of force. Children are evolved to accept behavior their parents model. So if the parent violates the non-aggression principle the child learns that violations of it are necessary and moral. That makes the governments violations appear normal. 

If you think spanking children breaks them in so as not to be a threat to society then you need to explain why a disproportionately high number of violent criminals were spanked. 

 

Your missing the point. You are reacting to the intent of the child, they may be challenging you, they may also be damaging anyone's property or attacking another child who is not defending themselves in kind.

 

Regarding the danger and the Alpha child is that they have not learned to take pride in having power and only using it for good by the time they are 13+. You meet might with might and take pride in using your might to ensure that might is never used to force will on others.

 

You meet their might..with might. Just the same as you might were you to find a vandal in your home or attacking your females for challenging them. The risks are much lower, but the learning is the same.

 

If you have never heard a 1st hand story of a kid who has been victimized by a bully and then one day wacks them one and it all stops then I think you are unusual. The bully is just someone who seeks to dominate another and the bullied..to the bully..is simply someone who came off worse in the exchange.

 

2-4 year old Alpha kids are bullies and all your lives are so much more fulfilling when they learn that they can't bully you. I've seen many 2-4 your olds bully their parents in such a way that I conclude that the child will have taken that as a win, negotiating with someone who is not even capable of that level of thought yet.

 

3 years of mutually respectful play wasted..because of an ideology formed from a extreme negative response to a negative experience.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Now you're re-framing it as only spanking when the child is attacking another person. But you were not arguing that spanking is justified only in defense (boggles my mind what threat a 2-4 year old could possibly present but okay) but for non-defensive purposes too. 

You cannot remove aggression by using aggression. You are justifying a degree of aggression that would be considered assault if  used towards an adult. It's like saying you're going to molest the child to remove their possible tendency to molest people. Also most evidence shows that spanked children are more aggressive. 

I'm not sure how the hell your 2 to 4 year old child developed "rage and pride" but I'm pretty sure hitting them won't solve it. Would you spank your wife is she showed rage and pride? Why not? 

 

The reason the breaking primes people to accept state rule is because spanking and the state are both violations of non-aggression. They are both the initiation of force. Children are evolved to accept behavior their parents model. So if the parent violates the non-aggression principle the child learns that violations of it are necessary and moral. That makes the governments violations appear normal. 

If you think spanking children breaks them in so as not to be a threat to society then you need to explain why a disproportionately high number of violent criminals were spanked. 

 

? I think you are living in a bit of a bubble regarding not removing aggression with aggression. Yes, thanks to our democracy creating common law and police to enforce it, so long as you are not in mortal danger, the initiator of violence will be worse off if you just press charges. The initiator will be more worried about Jail and a fine.

 

If you are in mortal danger, you will  either meet aggression with aggression..or die. In an anarchy perhaps simply have to leave you homestead and make a new one assuming you survive the winter..or perhaps form a band to take it back.

 

Your 2-4 year old is not worried about Jail or a fine.

 

I think one problem is people don't do TV showed with Alpha kids behavior being resolved much more quickly and that there is no loss of trust or creation of the idea that you kick ass to get what you want.

 

I've seen both 1st hand.

[Will Torbald]

I thought Anarchists might be more likely to be pen minded to the idea that is necessary to design in a water tight system of accountability and transparancy from those you appoint into responcibility.

 

We are open minded to voluntary solutions of real problems arising from a free society. When you put forward imaginary scenarios with no nuance, and frankly quite cartoonish and unrealistic problems, of course you are going to find we don't agree with you. Read "Practical Anarchy" on the free books section if you want an idea of where to start solving the problems of freedom. After that, you can keep reading more. After that you can ask yourself why want to appoint people in the first place to control you.

[shirgall]

Anarchists believe in "no rulers" not "no rules". It's not about building watertight systems, it's about never giving anyone power over you that you do not personally give them voluntarily.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

We are open minded to voluntary solutions of real problems arising from a free society. When you put forward imaginary scenarios with no nuance, and frankly quite cartoonish and unrealistic problems, of course you are going to find we don't agree with you. Read "Practical Anarchy" on the free books section if you want an idea of where to start solving the problems of freedom. After that, you can keep reading more. After that you can ask yourself why want to appoint people in the first place to control you.

 

Nothing cartoonish about access to water from a river and upstream contamination. Water is life.

Anarchists believe in "no rulers" not "no rules". It's not about building watertight systems, it's about never giving anyone power over you that you do not personally give them voluntarily.

 

I know. But as I play out an anarchic development that can suppress the expansion of roving bands stealing raping and raiding, I find the situation stuck with delegating management and a reliable militia that will simply expand into a government. And a massive corrupt one at that if you elect any old liar who somehow has laid claim to most of the land and funds the militia from it.

 

Any rules that are not enforced...cease to be rules. Enforcement requires fair evidence and justice or you you decent into chaos. These need rules and a consensus. Once that consensus is reached..someone needs document it and administer it ...boom, you have the start of a government. Now, across the river a new community moves in..it can only go two ways, you adopts fair justice under a consensus or...at some point an accident will lead to a war (it always has)

[shirgall]

Nothing cartoonish about access to water from a river and upstream contamination. Water is life.

 

I know. But as I play out an anarchic development that can suppress the expansion of roving bands stealing raping and raiding, I find the situation stuck with delegating management and a reliable militia that will simply expand into a government. And a massive corrupt one at that if you elect any old liar who somehow has laid claim to most of the land and funds the militia from it.

 

Any rules that are not enforced...cease to be rules. Enforcement requires fair evidence and justice or you you decent into chaos. These need rules and a consensus. Once that consensus is reached..someone needs document it and administer it ...boom, you have the start of a government. Now, across the river a new community moves in..it can only go two ways, you adopts fair justice under a consensus or...at some point an accident will lead to a war (it always has)

 

Rules can be enforced by self-defense, social ostracism, and more. It doesn't require you sacrifice your safety to some untrustworthy "representative" that all of your neighbors like but hates you.

[Romulox]

Nothing cartoonish about access to water from a river and upstream contamination. Water is life.

 

You are absolutely correct, water is life; now let's all be thankful for the protection the EPA has bestowed upon our precious waterways.  Especially those of you in Colorado. 

 

 

Dems seek compensation for victims of mine spill

 

 

The legislation, introduced by Democratic Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., would require the EPA to work with and compensate the communities who have been hurt by the toxic spill.

 

The proposal would also make the EPA work with states and Native American tribes to pay for long-term water quality monitoring from the mine, and identify risks at other abandoned mines for possible future spills...

 

Compensating the downstream communities with money that was stolen at gunpoint from taxpayers?  Ensuring that the agency responsible for the contamination is given more money to identify risks in other areas? 

 

Now that's ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

You are absolutely correct, water is life; now let's all be thankful for the protection the EPA has bestowed upon our precious waterways.  Especially those of you in Colorado. 

 

 

Dems seek compensation for victims of mine spill

 

 

Compensating the downstream communities with money that was stolen at gunpoint from taxpayers?  Ensuring that the agency responsible for the contamination is given more money to identify risks in other areas? 

 

Now that's ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

 

 

Oh I agree. Unaccountable Oligarchy is not working. If the individuals responsible had their assets reduced to zero paying reparations..this would not happen. The problem is when the business person promotes the person looking over them and neither have traceable wealth or an administrator willing to deliver justice. Shareholder (pension funds) bear the brunt of the cost, and the criminals pocket the money they made while skimping on safety. Our crazy system

 

I suspect this would be even worse under an Anarchy in which people appoint lying crooks though.

 

Again I revert to the bit where I currently have only one person who seems to agree that getting accountable contracts from applicants for positions of responsibility, is a necessity...and how we appoint right now is evidence of how irresponsible we are.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Rules can be enforced by self-defense, social ostracism, and more. It doesn't require you sacrifice your safety to some untrustworthy "representative" that all of your neighbors like but hates you.

 

It does if someone else has organized into a bigger pack and want what you have,

[Will Torbald]

It does if someone else has organized into a bigger pack and want what you have,

 

Then you sell what you have. You don't go "mine mine" in a free market. You add value to the community. The only reason a majority would gang up on a minority is if the minority is hogging something necessary (not liked or pretty, but truly necessary) and inaccesible from any other source, and you are keeping it from others. This is why I say your examples are imaginary and cartoony - because when applied to a real free market they fall apart like the strawmen they are. If a minority is so corrupt that is keeping necessities from others which they can't get from anywhere else, they deserve their conflict. I would join that mob because it would be really, incredibly stupid, monumentally insane to do that in a free market when you could just make commerce with it. However, I can't think of any resource that is so indispensable that a minority would be willing to hog it for themselves. Some resources are scarce, but not exclusive to one place. Some resources are, but they are so valuable that hogging them is a bad idea. You'd need to be an evil villain from Scooby Doo to have your scenario.

[MagnumPI]

So, someone who proposes attacking smaller people as a means of control is afraid of larger people attacking them as a means of control. Yeah, I can see why that makes sense.

[Romulox]

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.

 

This is incredibly cartoonish.  It completely rejects the existance of society outside of the the factory owner and the community. 

 

- Would you purchase products from a company that was dumping raw sewage into a river?  How many people do you know that would?

 

- If you were a stockholder in this company, would you continue to invest in this company or would you consider selling your shares?  If you didn't sell your shares, would you vote to keep the board and CEO in their positions?  What will happen to the stock price once it is known that this company is wrecking the environment and poisoning a town?

 

- Would you work for a company that would poison a nearby town.  It is a reasonable assumption that some of the workers for this factory may actually live in this community and would have a problem with this? 

 

- Would you, as the CEO of a company that supplies raw materials for this company, continue to do so once this environmental corruption came to light?

 

- Is your only option in the community to raise and angry mob, gather your pitchforks and torches, and storm the factory?  Is there some mechanism in society where the misdeeds of this company can be shared with the enitre world in a matter of hours?  Does the media exist in your scenario? Do you this company might have competitors that are looking for any reason to smear their competition in this way?

 

- What percentage of non-anarchists do you think make the argument from environmental protection at some point?  In my experience, its pretty much 100%.  Is it then reasonable to assume that there is a market need for environmental protection, and that there is money to be made in exposing environmentally corrupt companies? 

 

Is there any violence involved in any of the options listed above? 

[Guest Gee]

Does not the example put forth of the two communities and the river simply reduce to a tragedy of the commons to wit the solution is that there are no commons?

[Mister Mister]

Oh I agree. Unaccountable Oligarchy is not working. If the individuals responsible had their assets reduced to zero paying reparations..

But you think you can create an accountable oligarchy through more magic words on paper?  Do you know some secret that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't?  Because their attempt to create an accountable oligarchy through words on paper has been one of the great failures of modern history.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Then you sell what you have. You don't go "mine mine" in a free market. You add value to the community. The only reason a majority would gang up on a minority is if the minority is hogging something necessary (not liked or pretty, but truly necessary) and inaccesible from any other source, and you are keeping it from others. This is why I say your examples are imaginary and cartoony - because when applied to a real free market they fall apart like the strawmen they are. If a minority is so corrupt that is keeping necessities from others which they can't get from anywhere else, they deserve their conflict. I would join that mob because it would be really, incredibly stupid, monumentally insane to do that in a free market when you could just make commerce with it. However, I can't think of any resource that is so indispensable that a minority would be willing to hog it for themselves. Some resources are scarce, but not exclusive to one place. Some resources are, but they are so valuable that hogging them is a bad idea. You'd need to be an evil villain from Scooby Doo to have your scenario.

 

Indeed. So long as you have access to food, shelter, water..you can be manipulated into working to the limit of your diminishing expectations for less. That's why secret societies exist and people who do not demand consumer rights in the countries that the establishment are presently invested will continue to tow the line for an ever diminishing piece of the pie.

But you think you can create an accountable oligarchy through more magic words on paper?  Do you know some secret that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't?  Because their attempt to create an accountable oligarchy through words on paper has been one of the great failures of modern history.

 

There piece of paper would have worked had the put in a clause that criminalized even trying to break it and by an automatically created public militia (money was supposed to be state issued backed by gold).

 

One of my contractual obligations was 'No one above the law' which allows the public to call a Trial on both the assumed criminal and those who should have called a trial in the first place. Had I not proposed that bill I would have forfeit my position.

 

The whole idea of consumer rights is pretty simple and to keep it simple I steered clear of what the contractual obligations should be..only that their should be some and they can only be personal conduct ones or proposing and supporting bills, not actually passing any bills. Every time a candidate says 'I will make this change (that required a bill to pass) that 600 strangers with vested interests must agree with me on' then they are a liar who thinks you're a fool.

 

We have contracts and money back guarantees in every trade. Business can not function without it. Putting the initial (non emergency..unforeseeable) political services into a contract is a pretty obvious starting point.

This is incredibly cartoonish.  It completely rejects the existance of society outside of the the factory owner and the community. 

 

- Would you purchase products from a company that was dumping raw sewage into a river?  How many people do you know that would?

 

- If you were a stockholder in this company, would you continue to invest in this company or would you consider selling your shares?  If you didn't sell your shares, would you vote to keep the board and CEO in their positions?  What will happen to the stock price once it is known that this company is wrecking the environment and poisoning a town?

 

- Would you work for a company that would poison a nearby town.  It is a reasonable assumption that some of the workers for this factory may actually live in this community and would have a problem with this? 

 

- Would you, as the CEO of a company that supplies raw materials for this company, continue to do so once this environmental corruption came to light?

 

- Is your only option in the community to raise and angry mob, gather your pitchforks and torches, and storm the factory?  Is there some mechanism in society where the misdeeds of this company can be shared with the enitre world in a matter of hours?  Does the media exist in your scenario? Do you this company might have competitors that are looking for any reason to smear their competition in this way?

 

- What percentage of non-anarchists do you think make the argument from environmental protection at some point?  In my experience, its pretty much 100%.  Is it then reasonable to assume that there is a market need for environmental protection, and that there is money to be made in exposing environmentally corrupt companies? 

 

Is there any violence involved in any of the options listed above? 

 

You are assuming that the anarchists have any information or any right to access it? The kids just start getting ill and the plant sells them medicine. Double whammy.

This is incredibly cartoonish.  It completely rejects the existance of society outside of the the factory owner and the community. 

 

- Would you purchase products from a company that was dumping raw sewage into a river?  How many people do you know that would?

 

- If you were a stockholder in this company, would you continue to invest in this company or would you consider selling your shares?  If you didn't sell your shares, would you vote to keep the board and CEO in their positions?  What will happen to the stock price once it is known that this company is wrecking the environment and poisoning a town?

 

- Would you work for a company that would poison a nearby town.  It is a reasonable assumption that some of the workers for this factory may actually live in this community and would have a problem with this? 

 

- Would you, as the CEO of a company that supplies raw materials for this company, continue to do so once this environmental corruption came to light?

 

- Is your only option in the community to raise and angry mob, gather your pitchforks and torches, and storm the factory?  Is there some mechanism in society where the misdeeds of this company can be shared with the enitre world in a matter of hours?  Does the media exist in your scenario? Do you this company might have competitors that are looking for any reason to smear their competition in this way?

 

- What percentage of non-anarchists do you think make the argument from environmental protection at some point?  In my experience, its pretty much 100%.  Is it then reasonable to assume that there is a market need for environmental protection, and that there is money to be made in exposing environmentally corrupt companies? 

 

Is there any violence involved in any of the options listed above? 

 

You are assuming that the anarchists have any information or any right to access it? The kids just start getting ill and the plant sells them medicine. Double whammy.

 

So, someone who proposes attacking smaller people as a means of control is afraid of larger people attacking them as a means of control. Yeah, I can see why that makes sense.

 

Covered already dude. Going circular. You have to differentiate the initiation of violence, meeting it with violence and teaching in that instance that there are better ways. To open someones mind to an alternative method you have to sometimes open their mind to how it feels to be on the other side of their chosen method. You see this a lot with charity video's of starving children. You need them to identify. They show the parents anguish for their starving children.

 

In the spanking model it's very important that spanking is used to show that violence only biggets violence.

 

The evidence is in for me. To my mind the unspanked Alpha boys boys get experimental at 18 and the Beta ones get trodden on at school. (UK school...my wife said Bullying was not a thing in Morocco (spanking bad kids very much was).

 

You are suggesting that a thug who takes what they want from pacifists is more likely to change tactic from repeated lectures than they get hit back?

[Carl Green]

...Three years ago I came to the conclusion that all systems result in Oligarchy or violent gangs without some form of non-violent accountability of those attributed authority...

 

How did you come to this conclusion? What evidence did you use? What is your reasoning based on this evidence? How are you certain you're not the one in the bubble?

 

Please provide proof of your conclusions before expecting to convince anyone of anything regarding this. Just saying "I've played out the anarcho-capitalism scenario in my head and it doesn't work out." doesn't mean shit anywhere else except in your head, and we're not in there. We're out here, where what you do (like voting) actually affects us.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

How did you come to this conclusion? What evidence did you use? What is your reasoning based on this evidence? How are you certain you're not the one in the bubble?

 

Please provide proof of your conclusions before expecting to convince anyone of anything regarding this. Just saying "I've played out the anarcho-capitalism scenario in my head and it doesn't work out." doesn't mean shit anywhere else except in your head, and we're not in there. We're out here, where what you do (like voting) actually affects us.

 

We've just been though this. Stephs history show is almost continuously covering these cycles and unavoidable scenarios. Evendence wise ALL systems end up corrupting and always will until relative Oligarchs send their disillusioned followers or oppressing mercenaries to challenge another Oligarch, just smaller ones at war with each other until they combine. I'm not going to write the history of mankind out for you.

 

Regarding the idea of voters requiring competing contractual obligations of authority candidates to offset the tendency for corruption and make the competition one of maximum transparency and implementation of popular policy for the least money, instead of one of maximum PR popularity and ideology quotes that can not be attributed to an inaction later ...not been tried yet, but seems pretty stupid to insist on voting for an unaccountable liar in a faux democracy, or in an Anarchic group, just because you didn't like the tone of the chap to pointed out the folly in a chat site.

[Crallask]

Dat huge deleted post I tried to quote where he said it was important to beat your kids to teach them that initiating violence only begets retaliation.

 

Looking forward to hearing how the counter beating goes for you in 12+ years mate!

 

 

Also,

 

So, someone who proposes attacking smaller people as a means of control is afraid of larger people attacking them as a means of control. Yeah, I can see why that makes sense.

BTFO!!!

[Carl Green]

....Regarding the voters using competing contractual obligations of authority candidates to fight the tendency for corruption to lead to the above...not been tried yet,...

 

Neither has what we've been trying to put forth. So why are you so sure it won't work, or so sure that it'd fail the way you've imagined in your head?

 

Just to be clear, I would very much rather be in the system you're advocating for than what we have now, but it's still not true freedom.

[Koroviev]

We've just been though this. Stephs history show is almost continuously covering these cycles and unavoidable scenarios. Evendence wise ALL systems end up corrupting and always will until relative Oligarchs send their disillusioned followers or oppressing mercenaries to challenge another Oligarch. I'm not going to write the history of mankind out for you.

 

Regarding the voters using competing contractual obligations of authority candidates to fight the tendency for corruption to lead to the above...not been tried yet, but seems pretty stupid to insist on voting for an unaccountable liar in a faux democracy or in an Anarchic group, just because you didn't like the tone of some chap on a forum.

 

Should we be forced to vote for someone whose morals don't line up with our own (i.e. someone who believes the initiation of force is moral)? If someone we don't agree with should we be forced to participate (pay for) in the things that person proposes? if the answer is yes to either than that is what we live in now (democracy). If the answer is no to either than that is where we are hoping to get through peaceful parenting, among other things (anarchy). The fundamental issue is whether or not there is the initiation of the use of force. Once people understand the immorality of that then you can propose/try whatever system you'd like.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

You should stand. If your policies are clear..No invasions without referendum, I forgo my write to call such a deed. Should and enough of you stand then that's what will happen.

 

If you don't someone will stand saying they respect the bountries of others then invent a reason to invade for war money. You might not vote for them but the stupid 90% will and they will overpower your 10% at a later date anyway.

[Koroviev]

You should stand. If your policies are clear..No invasions without referendum, I forgo my write to call such a deed. Should and enough of you stand then that's what will happen.

 

If you don't someone will stand saying they respect the bountries of others then invent a reason to invade for war money. You might not vote for them but the stupid 90% will and they will overpower your 10% at a later date anyway.

 

Are you saying we should promote anarchy by running for office? Promote immorality of the initiation of the use force through a system entirely based on the initiation of the use of force? Might be a little contradiction there.....

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Are you saying we should promote anarchy by running for office? Promote immorality of the initiation of the use force through a system entirely based on the initiation of the use of force? Might be a little contradiction there.....

 

No..because your policies (contractually obligated ones) would be reductive...to expand decentralisation of law and military accountability...you're going to have to be quite clever here because you are going to have to sell the idea of greater decentralization to people. You may like to be strategic and start moderate. You can be honest and say..look, I'm an anarchist...but I think we can all agree that xyz are leading us into WW3. It's not using force because you are seeking a consensus on the removal of existing layers of force.

 

Not that I'm an anarchist and would therefore agree with any of it...but if I were, and intending to implement it...I see it as the only way.

 

This thread on 'Don't vote stupid if you don't want to be ruled by the corrupt' has gone to parenting experiences and how to move toward anarchy from within an oligarchy posing as a democracy.

[Will Torbald]

This thread on 'Don't vote stupid if you don't want to be ruled by the corrupt' has gone to parenting experiences and how to move toward anarchy from within an oligarchy posing as a democracy.

 

It ends at "don't vote, stupid, if you don't want to be ruled" actually. We don't want to be ruled. Democracy is just mob rule. No democracy either. It has been written in plain English. If you want to convince us to vote, first you have to convince us that being ruled is good at all. We define ruling as the initiation of force against a populace in order to control it. You cannot overlook that.

[Koroviev]

No..because your policies (contractually obligated ones) would be reductive...to expand decentralisation of law and military accountability...you're going to have to be quite clever here because you are going to have to sell the idea of greater decentralization to people. You may like to be strategic and start moderate. You can be honest and say..look, I'm an anarchist...but I think we can all agree that xyz are leading us into WW3. It's not using force because you are seeking a consensus on the removal of existing layers of force.

 

Not that I'm an anarchist and would therefore agree with any of it...but if I were, and intending to implement it...I see it as the only way.

 

This thread on 'Don't vote stupid if you don't want to be ruled by the corrupt' has gone to parenting experiences and how to move toward anarchy from within an oligarchy posing as a democracy.

 

You should have no rulers so vote for me to be your ruler. The initiation of the use of force is immoral and I'll enforce it by initiating the use of force. If you have rulers I'll put you in jail. I'm going to enforce property rights by stealing your money (oh wait that one already happens..   )

 

Lack of peaceful parenting is where all of the "stupid" voters come from. If children were not raised with the belief that might makes right, knowing that the initiation of force is immoral, and knowing how to be rational and critical thinkers we wouldn't have these issues to begin with. I, along with many others on this board, also believe that there would also be no state at all as a natural progression. It all begins with peaceful parenting (i.e. the initiation of the use of force is immoral) and ends with anarchy.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

It ends at "don't vote, stupid, if you don't want to be ruled" actually. We don't want to be ruled. Democracy is just mob rule. No democracy either. It has been written in plain English. If you want to convince us to vote, first you have to convince us that being ruled is good at all. We define ruling as the initiation of force against a populace in order to control it. You cannot overlook that.

 

Your ruled dude. And, if there is someone who stand who wishes for you to self rules by consensus rather than coercion..at the moment you're not even bothering to check so..nose spite face.

You should have no rulers so vote for me to be your ruler. The initiation of the use of force is immoral and I'll enforce it by initiating the use of force. If you have rulers I'll put you in jail. I'm going to enforce property rights by stealing your money (oh wait that one already happens..   )

 

Lack of peaceful parenting is where all of the "stupid" voters come from. If children were not raised with the belief that might makes right, knowing that the initiation of force is immoral, and knowing how to be rational and critical thinkers we wouldn't have these issues to begin with. I, along with many others on this board, also believe that there would also be no state at all as a natural progression. It all begins with peaceful parenting (i.e. the initiation of the use of force is immoral) and ends with anarchy.

 

We've gone full circle now.

[Koroviev]

Your ruled dude. And, if there is someone who stand who wishes for you to self rules by consensus rather than coercion..at the moment you're not even bothering to check so..nose spite face.

 

We've gone full circle now.

 

Only because you don't see, or are refusing to see, that it's all the same argument. If you want to argue that the initiation of the use of force is not immoral go for it, if not then everything else we're talking about is pretty simple.

[pretzelogik]

Is there a blood test or something that determines alpha?

 

How do the functionaries of the perfect democracy get their funding?

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Is there a blood test or something that determines alpha?

 

How do the functionaries of the perfect democracy get their funding?

 

No.

 

New discussion.

 

I like the way you described 'perfect' which hits the nail on the head. I do not believe that there is a 'perfect' but ensuring that the collective has the right to comparable transparent obligations offered by those seeking the roles will always make the system more perfect.