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

[dsayers]

For a democratic decision to be made, voters must be able to make an informed choice.

 

Assuming by "democratic," you were referring to the context of politics, this is a self-detonating claim. Simply put (again, in the context of politics) "informed voter" is a contradiction in terms. An informed person accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and therefore rejects the proposition that they can forcibly choose how others should live their lives. So an informed person would not vote and a voter is not an informed person.

 

Outside the context of politics, the question "who cares?" comes to mind. If I choose to vote Taco Bell today instead of McDonald's, you are free to agree, disagree, or vote a 3rd party. These choices are not binding upon others, so how we vote or why is irrelevant as long as we're not using our property to vote that others not be able to use their property as they see fit, since we would then be contradicting ourselves.

 

If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a functioning anarchy. Two people walking in opposite directions down a grocery store aisle silently negotiate simultaneous passage without force. Everybody you know and everybody they know achieve their goals every day without initiating the use of force. Anarchy is here even if there's people initiating the use of force in the name of the State, trying to cast a shadow that blocks it from our vision.

 

IF your claim that "we" are far from ready for a functioning anarchy were accurate, it would be because people aren't taught to think rationally. To look at their bodies as property and respect others own themselves also, and therefore it's not up to them how others achieve X, Y, and Z.

 

To say we are not ready for anarchy is to say that we are not ready for life without violence. I'm afraid you are mistaken. For there is only one thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. Here, my definition of violence is the initiation of the use of force. That is, to engage in behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Assuming by "democratic," you were referring to the context of politics, this is a self-detonating claim. Simply put (again, in the context of politics) "informed voter" is a contradiction in terms. An informed person accepts that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories and therefore rejects the proposition that they can forcibly choose how others should live their lives. So an informed person would not vote and a voter is not an informed person.

 

Outside the context of politics, the question "who cares?" comes to mind. If I choose to vote Taco Bell today instead of McDonald's, you are free to agree, disagree, or vote a 3rd party. These choices are not binding upon others, so how we vote or why is irrelevant as long as we're not using our property to vote that others not be able to use their property as they see fit, since we would then be contradicting ourselves.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by a functioning anarchy. Two people walking in opposite directions down a grocery store aisle silently negotiate simultaneous passage without force. Everybody you know and everybody they know achieve their goals every day without initiating the use of force. Anarchy is here even if there's people initiating the use of force in the name of the State, trying to cast a shadow that blocks it from our vision.

 

IF your claim that "we" are far from ready for a functioning anarchy were accurate, it would be because people aren't taught to think rationally. To look at their bodies as property and respect others own themselves also, and therefore it's not up to them how others achieve X, Y, and Z.

 

To say we are not ready for anarchy is to say that we are not ready for life without violence. I'm afraid you are mistaken. For there is only one thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence. Here, my definition of violence is the initiation of the use of force. That is, to engage in behaviors that are binding upon others without their consent.

 

I don not believe we can be taught to reason and be rational all the time and the moment it does not, if one persons livelihood is at stake, for example stop polluting the river upstream from me, that the result would be war eventually unless a 'force' consensus is reached.

 

Hell. I can't even get apparently enlightened people to accept the idea that appointing reps to manage communal assets should require a competitive system of transparency and accountability rather than fame and marketing.

 

From my experience, those who have traumatic upbringing often end up with the resolve to challenge their base instincts of dumb pride and hold high moral ideals. Those who had 'The perfect' upbringing turning out less so.

 

That may be counter intuitive to some. But to me, it takes resolve to challenge your animal instincts and you're not going to be able to nurture them away,

[Koroviev]

I don not believe we can be taught to reason and be rational all the time and the moment it does not, if one persons livelihood is at stake, for example stop polluting the river upstream from me, that the result would be war eventually unless a 'force' consensus is reached.

 

Hell. I can't even get apparently enlightened people to accept the idea that appointing reps to manage communal assets should require a competitive system of transparency and accountability rather than fame and marketing.

 

From my experience, those who have traumatic upbringing often end up with the resolve to challenge their base instincts of dumb pride and hold high moral ideals. Those who had 'The perfect' upbringing turning out less so.

 

That may be counter intuitive to some. But to me, it takes resolve to challenge your animal instincts and you're not going to be able to nurture them away,

 

Dude, I can't tell you your life but from what you've said YOU'VE had a traumatic childhood, underage drinking encouraged by your dad, yelled at, hit terrified, who knows what else. We agree that corrupt politicians should not be in power it's been said over and over and over again. We're saying the system is based on the use of force and therefore immoral, while you're saying well let's just get different people to stand behind those guns. There's just no such thing as a politician who is not corrupt because the system itself is corrupt there's no way to get around that and I'm sorry you don't see it.

[NotDarkYet]

If 9/10 people vote for something I find morally wrong, am I forced to pay for it?

 

If you say yes, I don't want you in my life.  And please quit pretending this is a 'debate', when you're ok with using force.

[Carl Green]

Brick Wall makes statement of opinion.

 

Brick Wall receives new information.

 

Brick Wall dismisses new information and continues to repeat statement of opinion.

 

Repeat as necessary until everyone figures out they're talking to a brick wall.

 

-

 

It's pretty clear Kaz ain't changing his mind on this. He's certain that his opinion is accurate regardless of the lack of evidence. And what are the chances that even one person with the same opinions as Kaz is going to read this entire thread in the future and change their mind.

 

....what a waste.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

Dude, I can't tell you your life but from what you've said YOU'VE had a traumatic childhood, underage drinking encouraged by your dad, yelled at, hit terrified, who knows what else. We agree that corrupt politicians should not be in power it's been said over and over and over again. We're saying the system is based on the use of force and therefore immoral, while you're saying well let's just get different people to stand behind those guns. There's just no such thing as a politician who is not corrupt because the system itself is corrupt there's no way to get around that and I'm sorry you don't see it.

 

I'm saying there's not way round corruption in ANY system and some magical parenting won't do it either. In the mean time..may as well steer things the the right direction..you not supporting an accountable transparent candidate less forceful candidate right now is a vote for scum who will force you further.

 

I admire your ideals....and it's nice that you believe that loving parents can train their children to have no aggression or desire to cheat to get ahead...and that hose cheated will not feel compelled to resort to violence to claim back the fruits of their labour and instead peasfully find  new piece of land to live on free from the dangers of roving bands.

 

It may be that you're right and that is possible..there are plenty of people who have gone off to live in the wilde and pay no taxes, trade goods. If that is the life you'd truly prefer then the option is there.

 

In the mean time..in this system. Why help make it worse?

 

I'm not saying don't vote. I'm saying ask for your consumer rights and perhaps a few force reductions. If you don't get any (95% likely)...then don't vote with your conscience intact.

 

What your're going now is not topping up the oil in the car you use every day because one day you hope to have an aeroplane that you have no way of getting and don't even know how to fly. non-sensicle.

Brick Wall makes statement of opinion.

 

Brick Wall receives new information.

 

Brick Wall dismisses new information and continues to repeat statement of opinion.

 

Repeat as necessary until everyone figures out they're talking to a brick wall.

 

-

 

It's pretty clear Kaz ain't changing his mind on this. He's certain that his opinion is accurate regardless of the lack of evidence. And what are the chances that even one person with the same opinions as Kaz is going to read this entire thread in the future and change their mind.

 

....what a waste.

 

Nice projection there dude.

 

Anyone can read back though your and my observations.

 

Regardless of view...all I've done is use analogies and experiences to describe what I consider likely outcomes.

 

You keep repeating that a perfect race will exist when people don't spank their kids.

[Koroviev]

I'm saying there's not way round corruption in ANY system and some magical parenting won't do it either. In the mean time..may as well steer things the the right direction..you not supporting an accountable transparent candidate less forceful candidate right now is a vote for scum who will force you further.

 

I admire your ideals....and it's nice that you believe that loving parents can train their children to have no aggression or desire to cheat to get ahead...and that hose cheated will not feel compelled to resort to violence to claim back the fruits of their labour and instead peasfully find  new piece of land to live on free from the dangers of roving bands.

 

It may be that you're right and that is possible..there are plenty of people who have gone off to live in the wilde and pay no taxes, trade goods. If that is the life you'd truly prefer then the option is there.

 

In the mean time..in this system. Why help make it worse?

 

I'm not saying don't vote. I'm saying ask for your consumer rights and perhaps a few force reductions. If you don't get any (95% likely)...then don't vote with your conscience intact.

 

What your're going now is not topping up the oil in the car you use every day because one day you hope to have an aeroplane that you have no way of getting and don't even know how to fly. non-sensicle.

 

Nice projection there dude.

 

Anyone can read back though your and my observations.

 

Regardless of view...all I've done is use analogies and experiences to describe what I consider likely outcomes.

 

You keep repeating that a perfect race will exist when people don't spank their kids.

 

Good Luck Kaz. I hope some day you read back on this and see the nonsense you are putting out. As I've said I think you have some good ideas they're just based on some really terrible ones. I'm sorry you've invested so much money, time, and effort into something so immoral but I really do hope you can see the reality at least before it's to late for your children. They will not speak Chinese unless you teach them Chinese. The research is there, and been there for over 60 years now, all you have to do is listen. 

[Carl Green]

You keep repeating that a perfect race will exist when people don't spank their kids.

 

You've only strengthened my previous point with this terrible interpretation of my content.

[dsayers]

I don not believe we can be taught to reason and be rational all the time

 

How do you know?

 

Hell. I can't even get apparently enlightened people to accept the idea that appointing reps to manage communal assets

 

There is no such thing as a communal asset. As I tried to explain before, you're contemplating HOW people should use their imaginary status of existing in a separate moral category rather than contemplating IF people can exist in a different, opposing moral category.

 

it takes resolve to challenge your animal instincts and you're not going to be able to nurture them away,

 

Define "animal instincts" in the context of humans. It seems to me that our animal instincts are to adapt to survive and reproduce. Because we as a species have the capacity for rational thought, we have the capability of understanding that achieving our goals without initiating the use of force against others is actually more efficient.

 

Allow me to elaborate. Say I want a car. A large expense. On the surface, it might seem easier to just take one than it does to work hard for a prolonged period of time to earn one. However, if you take one, does it have a tracking device? Did somebody see you? When the phone rings or there's a knock at the door, is it somebody come for justice? You wouldn't be able to get a decent's night rest out of the need to constantly look over your shoulder. And this will never go away until justice is served.

[Romulox]

I don not believe we can be taught to reason and be rational all the time and the moment it does not, if one persons livelihood is at stake, for example stop polluting the river upstream from me, that the result would be war eventually unless a 'force' consensus is reached.

 

In my previous post, you were presented with SIX reasons why violence and war are not necessary in your water polluting scenario.  You have refuted precisely ZERO of them. 

 

If you would like to discuss why it might be against the interest of private company with limited resources to go to war with a small community, any number of people on this board would be happy to elaborate.  Hint: Start by replacing "company that pollutes a town" to "company that murders a town" in the reasons I already gave. 

 

To see how effective a piece of paper full of empty promises is at preventing violence and war, just read the US Constitution and then open a history book.   

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

This is mostly circular now with people making the same point and stating that they have not been responded to while my own responses seem to be getting moderated so I decided not to let this topic mull over in peoples own minds. However..I just saw this great young Turks video.

 

I wonder what system Native America used?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBUEfdPDOQ

[NotDarkYet]

Can we correct the title of this thread?

 

Before we promote non-violence, should we not try a different form of violence?

[dsayers]

This is mostly circular now with people making the same point and stating that they have not been responded to while my own responses seem to be getting moderated so I decided not to let this topic mull over in peoples own minds. However..I just saw this great young Turks video.

 

I wonder what system Native America used?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBUEfdPDOQ

 

I view this as a confession that you weren't interested in seeking the truth, but rather on making your belief fit. Otherwise known as bigotry. Which is your prerogative. However, you did the community a disservice by pretending this was a conversation for the purpose on finding the truth. It's irresponsible to reject reality and then promote violence as a way of dealing with issues in that reality.

[Torero]

Kaz,

 

I see you got enough arguments from the others already, but let me go back to a post you made on page 1:

 

 

Are we talking about democracy or freedom.

Freedom. I suspect we are more free than we would be in an Anarchic scenario with different warring fractions developing limited ideals of what is acceptable enforced by the most brutal. 3rd world.

 

You seem to define “Freedom” as a kind of commodity. That you can give to people. Freedom is not a commodity which you can give. You can only stop taking it away from people. Freedom is the natural base situation.

 

Saying you can give freedom to someone is like saying you give life to somebody by not killing him.

 

Democracy is irrelevant to individual freedom since it is supposed to be about what the average person would like the limits of the law to be.

 

It is supposed to be?  According to whom? To your definition of democracy? Average person? How the heck do you define an “average person” knowing that we differ from each other on almost everything we have? How do you calculate the “average” between a left-wing racist homosexual diabetic dwarf and a conservative freethinking vanilla ice loving basketball player measuring 7’2” ??

 

Since the vote is / person, that is the check / balance that stops the wealthy from rigging the laws.

 

Whut? No; a vote is a sign of support someone can give to a system. You will find a lot of non-voters here. Voting in my opinion is immoral, as it credits the system and gives an OK to it. OK’ing immorality (statism) is immoral itself.

 

If there’s anything NOT happening at the moment, it’s that the “wealthy” (Elites I’d call them, it’s more about power than money) are stopped from rigging the laws constantly. Laws which you and me need to obey, but apparently others are less equal and in this crony capitalist hell are negotiating to be lifted from laws. You consider that fair?? Watched Stefans latest show on The Stock Market Collapse?

 

Since most voters want banksters in Jail rather than the banks (pension funds) fined, and lying politicians made to step down and definitely not take pay rise with a company they helped while 'serving', then I would say we are walking democratically.

 

Most voters do not care at all, they just take the ballot as a disguise for the bullet; forcing others to pay for their wishes. You call that “social”? If your wife says “I really want to take care of stray dogs and then says that you need to pay for it, you would laugh at her, right? Why is it perfectly ok to do just the same but then with more distant people?

 

"quote": The masses are resolved to the Democratic freedom limits that should be set

 

“Democratic freedom limits” (what’s this?) that “should be set”? What? Why? And by whom?

 

And by which authority? With your magical Willy these Wonka's politicians finally listen tool?

 

"quote": on the representatives to profit from financial trickery and the revolving door, yet these clear democratically supported ideas are not being proposed and supported by elected officials.

 

No, and that will never change. It’s the system that is set up to prevent this from happening. With a vote you give an ok to a representative (and if enough people give the same ok, then he/she gets elected), but there’s no way to enforce that person to stick to the narrative played out in the campaigns. Nice try you want to create a contract with a politician, but that’s like starting a trust fund with the mafia. You will always lose.

 

"quote": We are running on Freedom (slavery to the rich is what happens when you have complete freedom),

 

So by taking freedoms away you avoid become a slave to “the rich” (to whom are given freedoms that we don't get)? How do you see that happening? And who exactly is authorized to decide which freedoms should be taken away (see the analogue; how many lives should be taken)??

 

"quote": and democracy, which is supposed to ensure that Freedom is limited to one that is in the best interest of the common man..

 

“The best interest” of the “common” man? What are you talking about? Who is this “common man”? And what are “uncommon men” then? And “best interests”? Who do you think is best to judge his/her interests, that same “common man” or you as the enforcer? And what if that best interest of that "common man" changes, are you the one enforcing new things to be in line with the new “best interests” of others (which may well be worst interests of again others...?)? All planned with your "I am shaping the world because I know what's best" computer sims? Do they come with the voting tool?

 

"quote": is not counteracting the dangers of anarchic Freedom...because the voting public have been duped into thinking that their vote is a process where they select one of several uncountable stranger for whome there is no central point of comparable reliable information, not that there can be any information! There are no facts because there is requirement to provide an accountable mandate. Much like a camera is required to list it's specifications and warranty terms etc  They still do their marketing, but clever consumers ignore that and look at the specs.

 

Which are completely rigged too. That you worked as a self-righteous liberal in your Green Party (your spelling doesn’t show that to be honest; it is “lose”, not “loose”…), makes that you are not objective. The whole system is corrupt but you seem to think or spread that “as long as you read enough texts by politicians, you understand them and they suddenly become moral honest thinkers”?

 

"quote": Presently we are unable to be 'clever consumers' in any situation of appointing a leader.

 

Why all this generalized unfounded by arguments group talk? “We are”, “unable”, “not clever”, “in any situation”?

 

A leader is someone who can take the lead. That is not the same as enforcer or violator. Stefan is a leader in online philosophy. Yet there’s no force involved. He is not “appointed” (the narrative of statists), but grew. And that is exactly what you are afraid of. Other people shouldn’t grow, societies that are free shouldn’t develop, because… it will fall into chaos and mayhem… Just how do you see the current statist system then? Stealing 50% upfront of your income and spending it on bombing innocent people in countries far away? That you call “freedom” or “democracy”? Don’t you have any moral standards??
 

"quote": If we won't stand and offer facts..we can't complain.

 

Offer facts? Facts are there, they are not offered. And which “we”? Why do you think you and me have something in common, other than participating in the same forum?

 

"quote": If we won't do that...we are most certainly not going to find anarchy and prettier.

 

That’s the whole problem with you statists. You want to shape the world, mold people into things they don’t choose voluntarily. You want to “create change” (as you said in one of your earlier posts). Change cannot be “created”. Change can only grow. Out of self-aware people, inspiring individuals, free thinkers, moral actors.

 

If you don’t understand that, you will keep throwing your straw men at anarchism (which you call anarchy, not coincidentally) and never proceed in moral thinking and just maintaining and enforcing the global state slavery, paying for your "hey guys, this voting tool really works, suddenly all those darn psychos wonderful people will listen to you, we can save the pyramid game by primitive poker addicts, listen to me, this voting tool will work! You anarchists cause chaos, we cause prosperity. By starting to believe even more of these fuck-ups drinking free champagne for an average months wage in their own country, we will set the world free! More state slavery, more crony cocain, more demonic debt, more foolish falling for trickery! Yes, Kaz! Yes!" web site.

[Kaz Lokuciewski]

I view this as a confession that you weren't interested in seeking the truth, but rather on making your belief fit. Otherwise known as bigotry. Which is your prerogative. However, you did the community a disservice by pretending this was a conversation for the purpose on finding the truth. It's irresponsible to reject reality and then promote violence as a way of dealing with issues in that reality.

 

Dude. The video suggests that they had a functioning peaceful Anarchy made up of 100,000 people. It worked.

 

How they hell did you get the above from that video and the focus on the natives before Columbus?

[dsayers]

Dude. The video suggests that they had a functioning peaceful Anarchy made up of 100,000 people. It worked.

 

How they hell did you get the above from that video and the focus on the natives before Columbus?

 

I wasn't responding to the video. I was talking to YOU about things YOU said. You were offered challenges, didn't respond to those challenges, and have excused yourself from the conversation YOU started.

[Des]

Reverting to the title of my question, ignoring the opening statement for the analgy.

Would "voting your share of communal assets" in a community in which each member/citizen has actually signed a contract which specifies the powers and limitations of the voting for communal decision - would that satisfy your preference for democracy?

[vforvoluntary]

I don't think that we should try to reach a functioning democracy because democracy is not functional. It is subjected to the arbitrary whims of the majority. I do however think that it might be necessary to descale the size and scope of government down to a minarchist level before anarcho-capitalism will be accepted.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I'd like to add a perspetive.

We have tried economic anarchy. Satisfied so far.