Conquer Club

Because I'm not interested in hijacking a thread (much less hijacking a thread with thousands of posts and pages), I figured I would start a thread to respond to a question posed by a. sub. So no context is removed, I'm going to quote my post and his response:

a.sub wrote:

AnarchoJesse wrote:

if you hate america why not leave?

Well, a. sub, the "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question of who is more entitled to their view on things, their property, and the legitimacy of the State in and of itself. Moreover, where would I go? There simply isn't anywhere in the world that is actually organized in a manner reflective of a voluntary and just society.

If you want to know the reason that I burnt the flag, it is simple enough-- the flag has flown over a geography where an institution calling itself the State has stood by as men have grabbed power, human beings were compelled in chattel slavery and wage slavery, and millions --if not billions-- of lives have been utterly destroyed through the expansion of the Welfare-Warfare State. I do not abide symbols that stand for tyranny, no matter how starry-eyed the people who fly that symbol may be.

If you want to know why I reject government, that is a wholly separate issue, and I'll leave it to you to take the initiative to divulge those reasons from me.

Do you reject all government or the United States government?

For purposes of completion, I have no problem with anyone burning a flag.

thegreekdog wrote:Do you reject all government or the United States government?

For purposes of completion, I have no problem with anyone burning a flag.

I reject all government; government in the most basic sense is predicated on the elitist mentality that people aren't fit to rule themselves, so we must (paradoxically) place people into positions of special and unquestionable power to take care of people.

I can get on board with that. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I benefit from the government currently, so maybe I'll have to decline to participate in anarchy.

But, anarchojesse, (and, yes, I am very familiar with your argument) aren't people stupid? Aren't shepherds necessary? Is government INHERENTLY elitist? Or can leadership occur without despotism/greed? It is in my strongest of opinions that that the purpose of a government isn't to tell its citizens that they are too weak to organize themselves, but rather to act as a centralized agency of change and collective voice. Real change will never occur in an anarchy. Your ideals are wonderful, but, alas, far from realistic.

AnarchoJesse wrote: I reject all government; government in the most basic sense is predicated on the elitist mentality that people aren't fit to rule themselves, so we must (paradoxically) place people into positions of special and unquestionable power to take care of people.

Government in the most basic sense is people banning together to improve their lives.
I would further elaborate that it is because they are attempting to keep from being enslaved, or to ultimately just make their lives a whole lot better. Civilization has lead to the discovery and creation of everything. Without it you would be in a hollow log somewhere yodeling to attract a mate before you died of some random disease at the age of 13. And forget the interwebs that you are enjoying now. Remember, they were invented by Al Gore, a POLITICIAN.
I believe that what you are actually describing is China?

thegreekdog wrote: For purposes of completion, I have no problem with anyone burning a flag.

Especially if they buy a new one first! Take that Uncle Sam! I just paid taxes!

I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

thegreekdog wrote:I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

Im pretty sure there are three people on this planet who are completely coherent in their believes and values and suffer from no forms of hypocrisy, great or small. I shall rest easily knowing that he, you or I remain not amongst them.

Beckytheblondie wrote:But, anarchojesse, (and, yes, I am very familiar with your argument) aren't people stupid?

Any pessimistic assessment of humanity must equally apply to people under the State as well. So I suppose the person who should be asking whether or not people are stupid are the same people who advocate putting stupid people into positions of extreme power. If people are stupid, why on earth would you give them access to an institution that is routinely engaged in violence and plunder? Wouldn't this only exacerbate what problems we already have?

Aren't shepherds necessary?

"Shepherd" betrays a certain sheep-like mentality on YOUR part. That said, you're again having falling back on the problem of how these shepherds are any better than the sheep.

Is government INHERENTLY elitist? Or can leadership occur without despotism/greed?

Yes, government is inherently elitist. It presumes that a special group of people once placed into a special position of power will at once be enabled to do things ordinary individuals could not. This is, by definition no less, an elitist mentality. Frederic Bastiat put it the most succinctly:

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

Now, asking if "leadership" can occur without despotism and greed means we need to actually evaluate "leadership", and see if there are any conclusive merits to the concept behind it. By the seat of my pants and without any context added on to fine tune, I would say that leadership (at least, unquestioned and arbitrary leadership) is not an intrinsically good thing, and can often (and I've seen little evidence to the contrary) create incentives for people to abuse their positions of authority.

It is in my strongest of opinions that that the purpose of a government isn't to tell its citizens that they are too weak to organize themselves, but rather to act as a centralized agency of change and collective voice.

And yet here you are telling me that people could never organize without some master lording over them. Moreover, the inherent problems with centralized agencies (change is totally irrelevant here) and collectivization is that it assumes the legitimacy of these institutions and ideas without explaining why this is more efficient or even desirable.

Real change will never occur in an anarchy. Your ideals are wonderful, but, alas, far from realistic.

Yet putting stupid people into extreme positions of authority and power without any real oversight is a realistic and desirable scenario, right? You talk of change and how such a thing is impossible in anarchy, but you completely remove "change" from the standard you hold the State too-- but of course, why wouldn't you? The only change that comes from the State is a changing of slave masters and a changing of the artillery we use to bomb the f*ck out of a constantly changing "enemy".

thegreekdog wrote:I can get on board with that. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I benefit from the government currently, so maybe I'll have to decline to participate in anarchy.

What services do you take, if you're not minding my asking? There is no reason to believe that particular institutions that provide services that the government monopolizes could not possibly arise in a free society.

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

Im pretty sure there are three people on this planet who are completely coherent in their believes and values and suffer from no forms of hypocrisy, great or small. I shall rest easily knowing that he, you or I remain not amongst them.

I was recently accused of being too reasonable. I thought the above might provide some response to those accusations. I just don't have it in me.

thegreekdog wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

Im pretty sure there are three people on this planet who are completely coherent in their believes and values and suffer from no forms of hypocrisy, great or small. I shall rest easily knowing that he, you or I remain not amongst them.

I was recently accused of being too reasonable. I thought the above might provide some response to those accusations. I just don't have it in me.

nor does anyone anymore it seems, including myself. Kinda brings down the level of discussion.

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

Im pretty sure there are three people on this planet who are completely coherent in their believes and values and suffer from no forms of hypocrisy, great or small. I shall rest easily knowing that he, you or I remain not amongst them.

I was recently accused of being too reasonable. I thought the above might provide some response to those accusations. I just don't have it in me.

nor does anyone anymore it seems, including myself. Kinda brings down the level of discussion.

I thought the level of discussion in this particular thread would be of such a low level, that my braying nonsense would go unnoticed.

AnarchoJesse wrote:There is no reason to believe that particular institutions that provide services that the government monopolizes could not possibly arise in a free society.

Nor is there any reason to believe that a free society could ever exist. Except in films like the Road Warrior...

thegreekdog wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I sincerely hope Anarchojesse is not too much of a braying jackass to realize he's being an utter mental-fucking-midget because he, you know, BENEFITS FROM THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT!

Im pretty sure there are three people on this planet who are completely coherent in their believes and values and suffer from no forms of hypocrisy, great or small. I shall rest easily knowing that he, you or I remain not amongst them.

I was recently accused of being too reasonable. I thought the above might provide some response to those accusations. I just don't have it in me.

nor does anyone anymore it seems, including myself. Kinda brings down the level of discussion.

I thought the level of discussion in this particular thread would be of such a low level, that my braying nonsense would go unnoticed.

I too have often thought that, only to be ninjaed out of the blue by someone. Its a pretty sneaky tactic by the ninjas amongst us.

AnarchoJesse wrote:What services do you take, if you're not minding my asking? There is no reason to believe that particular institutions that provide services that the government monopolizes could not possibly arise in a free society.

Meh... I'll play.

(1) I have a job as a tax attorney because governments tax businesses and inviduals. Thus, taxes administered by the government allow me to have a job.

(2) I work in a large city with a lot of violent crime (apparently). The police officers of the great city of Philadelphia ostensibly protect me from these criminal elements.

(3) I live in a suburb of said large city. To get to that suburb I have to cross a bridge. The bridge was built using taxes.

(4) I don't have people trying to take my property because of police officers (see #2). I also don't have people from other nation-states trying to take my property because of the United States military.

And, let me put it to you like this, of all the people on this website, I'm the least (LEAST) likely to love the government. I'm a registered Libertarian, pretty much the closest one gets to anarchy. So, good luck with the rest of the mob my friend.

assuming he is an anarcho-capitalist, which there was one really good example once -he was pretty awesome, i dont think he would be sold yet, as he is supposing any one of the 4 can still occur without the state appartus as he would likely put it.

got tonkaed wrote:assuming he is an anarcho-capitalist, which there was one really good example once -he was pretty awesome, i dont think he would be sold yet, as he is supposing any one of the 4 can still occur without the state appartus as he would likely put it.

I could definitely not be a tax attorney without the state apparatus. Which is why it's #1.

Oh, I know what the counter is ("you can be something else"), but I like my job.

thegreekdog wrote: And, let me put it to you like this, of all the people on this website, I'm the least (LEAST) likely to love the government. I'm a registered Libertarian, pretty much the closest one gets to anarchy. So, good luck with the rest of the mob my friend.

The first emboldened part isn't entirely true..... but still the funniest thing that has been posted today!
*high five!*

thegreekdog wrote:but I like my job

you're full of crap...

I really do like my job. Would I rather be a wargame tester or comic book writer? Sure, but if there was no government, there'd be no wars (thus no wargames) and there would be no copyrights (thus, no comic books).

I'm not a Ron Paul fan though. I'm a free immigration kind of person. Come one, come all. Etc.

AnarchoJesse wrote:Because I'm not interested in hijacking a thread (much less hijacking a thread with thousands of posts and pages), I figured I would start a thread to respond to a question posed by a. sub. So no context is removed, I'm going to quote my post and his response:

a.sub wrote:

AnarchoJesse wrote:

if you hate america why not leave?

Well, a. sub, the "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question of who is more entitled to their view on things, their property, and the legitimacy of the State in and of itself. Moreover, where would I go? There simply isn't anywhere in the world that is actually organized in a manner reflective of a voluntary and just society.

If you want to know the reason that I burnt the flag, it is simple enough-- the flag has flown over a geography where an institution calling itself the State has stood by as men have grabbed power, human beings were compelled in chattel slavery and wage slavery, and millions --if not billions-- of lives have been utterly destroyed through the expansion of the Welfare-Warfare State. I do not abide symbols that stand for tyranny, no matter how starry-eyed the people who fly that symbol may be.

If you want to know why I reject government, that is a wholly separate issue, and I'll leave it to you to take the initiative to divulge those reasons from me.

As a veteran, I very much respect your right to burn the flag (though I'd probably try to talk you out of it if I were present). However, if you recognize that "there simply isn't anywhere in the world" that would satisfy you, why don't you spend your efforts on fixing the problems here rather than simply making a grandstanding gesture that accomplishes nothing of real value?

As to your statements regarding true anarchy, you do realize that true anarchy is literally impossible to achieve, right? It simply cannot happen because people will naturally band together for purposes of protection, food production, etc...thus you once again have government. You're on a lose-lose ride, and that makes you a loser.

But you're great with the useless grandstanding, so you should stick with that.

thegreekdog wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:assuming he is an anarcho-capitalist, which there was one really good example once -he was pretty awesome, i dont think he would be sold yet, as he is supposing any one of the 4 can still occur without the state appartus as he would likely put it.

I could definitely not be a tax attorney without the state apparatus. Which is why it's #1.

Oh, I know what the counter is ("you can be something else"), but I like my job.

Number 1 is the tricky one to be certain, as its kinda hard to figure out what tax equates into in a stateless system.

AnarchoJesse wrote:Because I'm not interested in hijacking a thread (much less hijacking a thread with thousands of posts and pages), I figured I would start a thread to respond to a question posed by a. sub. So no context is removed, I'm going to quote my post and his response:

a.sub wrote:

AnarchoJesse wrote:

if you hate america why not leave?

Well, a. sub, the "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question of who is more entitled to their view on things, their property, and the legitimacy of the State in and of itself. Moreover, where would I go? There simply isn't anywhere in the world that is actually organized in a manner reflective of a voluntary and just society.

If you want to know the reason that I burnt the flag, it is simple enough-- the flag has flown over a geography where an institution calling itself the State has stood by as men have grabbed power, human beings were compelled in chattel slavery and wage slavery, and millions --if not billions-- of lives have been utterly destroyed through the expansion of the Welfare-Warfare State. I do not abide symbols that stand for tyranny, no matter how starry-eyed the people who fly that symbol may be.

If you want to know why I reject government, that is a wholly separate issue, and I'll leave it to you to take the initiative to divulge those reasons from me.

You're incredible, Mustard

Not Mustard.

Captaincrazy.

thegreekdog wrote:Not Mustard.

Captaincrazy.

No, that's Sultan.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Not Mustard.

Captaincrazy.

No, that's Sultan.

Sultan and Mustard are socialists. Don't think it's them.