IRS gave extra scrutiny to liberal groups as well

SlaveNoMore said:
The point about natural resources is that no one has the authority to lay claim to a resource that is here for everyone. Why pay for water, why pay for a fishing liscense, hunting liscense, and so on. These are "god" given things that everyone should have equal access to. Some anarchists believe that owning land is a violation against humanity. How can a person "own" a piece of the earth? This is how I understand it.
Click to expand...

Ok I understand what you meant now.

Ive always kind of looked at it as paying for infrastructure, be it a water main going to your home or a oil pipeline. I think we do need those things, because it benefits us. A hunting and fishing license pays for management of the resource, which is a good thing. But it's when those systems are abused is when we run into problems. I watched the crab fisheries here get destroyed in the name of "safety" while putting a many common man in the poor house.

All these different ways to manage society sound great on paper, but they don't factor in the human element. It's all just a big experiment in the end, no one really knows the answers I've always felt. But it sure would be fun to watch a bunch of angry citizens burn down DC.
 
Dr Kynes said:
if you cannot own the land you work, then why till the land, erect fences to protect livestock, construct a home and a barn, dig a well, and lay irrigation? since you dont own it anyone else can just come over and take it from you.

anarchy is the utopian dream of the dilettante who doesnt want to plow the feild, plant crops, harvest the grain, mill it into flour, or bake the bread but he's always the first to the table for his "fair share" of your bread, butter honey, beef and beer.

if you cannot own a thing you will not work to improve it. if the product of the land is not yours, why would you work to create a surplus to feed others who do NOT work the land but perform other specialist work, like mining or manufacturing or creating musical insturments or making music, etc etc etc.

all of society is based on one simple idea: Surplus Food. every person who does not have to farm hunt fish or ranch to keep his belly full is free to become a specialist in another field, or to just think about shit and advance science. without the surplus food to feed the non-food producing population, society reverts to the pre-industrial age, and with no impetus to create that surplus, it vanishes. thats why we have an economy.

honestly, could you keep yourself fed even if you were given 5 acres of land and told to farm it? could you really be self-sufficient, building your own home, constructing your own tools, taming your own horses, catching your own sheep and planting crops?

and if you couldnt even own any of that shit, why would you bother, since any other lazy asshole can just walk up and take the horse you spent so much time catching, taming, training and fitting with a plow collar you made with your own hands?

owning shit is the only thing that makes society possible, without it, we lose everything.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and I have seen it debated so many times. Yes, the anarchist philosophy is a utopian one but so is capitalism.

"owning shit is the only thing that makes society possible, without it, we lose everything."

THIS society. We have an attachment to our material shit. Like you pointed out, if you can't own it why bother?

The subject of people coming and taking your shit really isn't an argument. Because laws exsist you feel protected? What keeps someone from taking your shit now? Do you have no faith in humanity? Do you think you could work together with your neighbors to farm, create a surplus and trust they would do their share?

I understand how you view anarchy. Perhaps a bunch of savages wandering the hillside raping and pillaging the countryside. Should everything crumble tomorrow there would be a period of chaos and disorder. Over time once people learned to not fear themselves order would be established and people would realize they needed eachother. An anarchist society is born.
 
ginwilly said:
"I'm an anarchist that believes austerity is harmful and I do believe that stimulus is helpful, but that doesn't mean I believe in central planning". Is this right? I really am trying to understand.
Click to expand...

So you just want to attack stimulus on Bucky's thread?

Sorry I got in your way, carry on homie.
 
desert dude said:
It's OK, Buck, your bullshit was only gathering flies anyway.
Click to expand...

Dude, it was an anarchy crack, not an ass crack. :) And I agree. It is like anarchy oozes from a crack and instantly is annihilated by hierarchy of the next post.

And as bullshit owned by humans does indeed attract flies, yet, they are different flies altogether from flies drawn to the excreta shat from humans, he makes a very good point.

Attracting the forum flies to the ordure, this virtual, is the high art, indeed.

See, the flies are not real flies, except in the cases....never mind. :)
 
abandonconflict said:
So you just want to attack stimulus on Bucky's thread?

Sorry I got in your way, carry on homie.
Click to expand...

Nope, just trying to nail down your position. While I admit, changing the meaning of the words and claiming outside the box thinking for doing so is very creative, it leaves me lacking answers.

You say you are against central planning, you claim being against austerity is not the same as saying you want funding. You say you are an anarchist but consider stimulus as medicinal. You are a meat eating vegetarian.
 
ginwilly said:
Nope, just trying to nail down your position. While I admit, changing the meaning of the words and claiming outside the box thinking for doing so is very creative, it leaves me lacking answers.

You say you are against central planning, you claim being against austerity is not the same as saying you want funding. You say you are an anarchist but consider stimulus as medicinal. You are a meat eating vegetarian.
Click to expand...

Chemo and radio are not medicine.
 
I really am trying to get a handle on it AC. I think I remember you saying who you closely prescribe to and it wasn't Bukinin. Your views sound more collectivist than individualist is why I ask. I don't remember who you said though. There are so many different flavors of anarchisms I can't keep them straight. Who do you consider your influences? I'll try reading them a bit. No offense, I can't seem to make sense of it from this thread.
 
SlaveNoMore said:
I understand what you are saying and I have seen it debated so many times. Yes, the anarchist philosophy is a utopian one but so is capitalism.

"owning shit is the only thing that makes society possible, without it, we lose everything."

THIS society. We have an attachment to our material shit. Like you pointed out, if you can't own it why bother?

The subject of people coming and taking your shit really isn't an argument. Because laws exsist you feel protected? What keeps someone from taking your shit now? Do you have no faith in humanity? Do you think you could work together with your neighbors to farm, create a surplus and trust they would do their share?

I understand how you view anarchy. Perhaps a bunch of savages wandering the hillside raping and pillaging the countryside. Should everything crumble tomorrow there would be a period of chaos and disorder. Over time once people learned to not fear themselves order would be established and people would realize they needed eachother. An anarchist society is born.
Click to expand...

see what youre describing is a community, and i live in one. when my older neighbors need help getting things out of their trucks or cars, or need help in their gardens i help them and it costs then nothing, likewise i have a fair certainty that if shit went tits up in my homestead they would help me in whatever manner they could, but the fact is, thats still not anarchy. my community has a ruler, and that ruler is our social form. capitalism is the basis, and thus there is an expectation of reciprocity, even without The Man standing over our shoulders ensuring everything is exactly even and fair.

thats where the anarcho-theologians fail. they imagine capitalism as a creation of authority, and simultaneously assert that authority is a product of capitalism.

authority exists in places were capitalism is an endangered species
capitalism exists in places where authority hasnt been seen in decades.

the two are unrelated.

cpitalism and the ownership of property means i can defend my property with force, but if i do not own it i cannot defend it, since i have no more right to the farm i built in the heart of the wilderness than any other asshole, so my hard won farm can become a shantytown of hobos, or my meticulously cared for crops will be harvested by any dick who can get to my fields before i do, and thats assuming that everybody uses non-violent schoolyard Dibs Rules, where the first one to grab an apple gets to eat it.

utopian dreams dont work, and thus capitalism is NOT utopian. it is entirely functional, it's just not flawless, not even in theory.
some dont get what they want and some get far more than they need. it's not perfect and fair, and thats why it's not utopian.
 
SlaveNoMore said:
Guys help me out here.

I thought that anarchists believed in self-governance? To me it seems more of a "tribal" type mindset where people organize their own communities. That doesn't mean there is no leadership it just means that everyone does what they are good at and exchange goods and services.

What stands out the most about the anarchist mindset is the objection to the ownership of natural resources. Yes I understand the ,"well someone has to maintain the water and sewer lines" arguement. However, it is one of the ideas put forth by the anarchist philosophy that I agree with. Feel free to disagree...

Do my thoughts ring true with the anarchists here?
Click to expand...

Here's my question.

What is to keep a confederation of tribal-sized communities from being consumed from without (by an authoritarian aggressor) or subsummed from within (by that most natural of human devices, an ambitious empire builder)? Imo the concept is not stable unless we change our very natures. The Leninists wanted to do it by fiat, and the rest of the utopians focus sheer power of wishfulness onto the concept that left to themselves, people will play nice.

Ten thousand years of human civilization haven't borne that out, and I don't think the new communication technologies are the Answer either. Jmo. cn
 
Rak on Tur' said:
Ok I understand what you meant now.

Ive always kind of looked at it as paying for infrastructure, be it a water main going to your home or a oil pipeline. I think we do need those things, because it benefits us. A hunting and fishing license pays for management of the resource, which is a good thing. But it's when those systems are abused is when we run into problems. I watched the crab fisheries here get destroyed in the name of "safety" while putting a many common man in the poor house.

All these different ways to manage society sound great on paper, but they don't factor in the human element. It's all just a big experiment in the end, no one really knows the answers I've always felt. But it sure would be fun to watch a bunch of angry citizens burn down DC.
Click to expand...

You make great points.

One thing to consider regarding an anarchist society is that there would be no infrastructure, at least at first. This is where a lot of anarchists fall short in their thinking. It is all well and good to dream of world free from monster governments without looking at the reality of the situation. It would entail rebuilding society from the ground up. There would be conflict because when you remove one form of government a new one would try to establish itself. It would be all out war for a very long time.

Resource management to me is only to protect the resource from commercial exploitation. I can still walk outside to the storm drain and dump 4 quarts of motor oil down the drain but I don't and I believe most people don't either. 100 people fishing off the beach can't do the damage a commercial fishing vessel can do. These environmental agencies are a waste of time and money. I hate when I am fishing and some enviro-cop wants to see my liscense. Yet out in the bay boats are dragging the bottom killing everything its nets touch.

Time is crucial to the anarchists ideology. How a person's time is spent dictates how society functions. Do you work a bullshit job or career, spending all of your time and energy for currency or do you spend your time living and working a more harmonious live. This model of society is failing and one day people will visit the ruins of the white house just like visiting a colloseum in greece.

No, anarchy is not the answer BUT it does have some merit and it is a good starting point to visualize changes that could make for a better world.

Just my opinion.
 
ginwilly said:
I really am trying to get a handle on it AC. I think I remember you saying who you closely prescribe to and it wasn't Bukinin. Your views sound more collectivist than individualist is why I ask. I don't remember who you said though. There are so many different flavors of anarchisms I can't keep them straight. Who do you consider your influences? I'll try reading them a bit. No offense, I can't seem to make sense of it from this thread.
Click to expand...

Alright, but your entire initial rant is fallacious and now that you have abandoned it, you're asking me a question.

It was Proudhon. That was who I was talking about then but that was a different debate than today.

Syndicalism is what you are asking about today.
 
cannabineer said:
Here's my question.

What is to keep a confederation of tribal-sized communities from being consumed from without (by an authoritarian aggressor) or subsummed from within (by that most natural of human devices, an ambitious empire builder)? Imo the concept is not stable unless we change our very natures. The Leninists wanted to do it by fiat, and the rest of the utopians focus sheer power of wishfulness onto the concept that left to themselves, people will play nice.

Ten thousand years of human civilization haven't borne that out, and I don't think the new communication technologies are the Answer either. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents this..unless we change our very natures. You are correct. Question is then, is it possible to change our natures?
 
SlaveNoMore said:
You make great points.

One thing to consider regarding an anarchist society is that there would be no infrastructure, at least at first. This is where a lot of anarchists fall short in their thinking. It is all well and good to dream of world free from monster governments without looking at the reality of the situation. It would entail rebuilding society from the ground up. There would be conflict because when you remove one form of government a new one would try to establish itself. It would be all out war for a very long time.

Resource management to me is only to protect the resource from commercial exploitation. I can still walk outside to the storm drain and dump 4 quarts of motor oil down the drain but I don't and I believe most people don't either. 100 people fishing off the beach can't do the damage a commercial fishing vessel can do. These environmental agencies are a waste of time and money. I hate when I am fishing and some enviro-cop wants to see my liscense. Yet out in the bay boats are dragging the bottom killing everything its nets touch.

Time is crucial to the anarchists ideology. How a person's time is spent dictates how society functions. Do you work a bullshit job or career, spending all of your time and energy for currency or do you spend your time living and working a more harmonious live. This model of society is failing and one day people will visit the ruins of the white house just like visiting a colloseum in greece.

No, anarchy is not the answer BUT it does have some merit and it is a good starting point to visualize changes that could make for a better world.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

It comes down to corruption really, our current system has been drifted so far off course by special interests and a total lack of accountability. Throw in a ever expanding federal government and you can see problems in the making. What a mess today's youth is getting stuck with.

The commercial guys do rig the system in their favor. Here they have the funds that are collected from the commercial crowd to fund fish hatcheries. It is pretty beneficial to all user groups. There are quota sqwables still, but it's just chest thumping for the most part.

We had a mild version of anarchy here before we became a state. I miss those days, I no longer think the anti statehood crowd are crazy. They had it right from the beginning.
 
SlaveNoMore said:
Nothing prevents this..unless we change our very natures. You are correct. Question is then, is it possible to change our natures?
Click to expand...

I think it will be. The engineering of our organisms will soon encounter the singularity*: direct feedback of our awareness on our deeper nature.

Until then, efforts to build utopia by external control of our behaviors will be as hard and as productive as building sand castles in the tidal zone. cn

*I think that so many of the futurists who invoke the idea of Technological Singularity are focused (to the point of wearing blinders) on the explosive growth of digital information technology. Unless/until equivalency has been demonstrated bu directly downloading a whole person onto digital substrates (and forgive me if i am diffident of this), the biological, molecular-chemical part of the equation is at least (imo!) as relevant.
 
Dr Kynes said:
see what youre describing is a community, and i live in one. when my older neighbors need help getting things out of their trucks or cars, or need help in their gardens i help them and it costs then nothing, likewise i have a fair certainty that if shit went tits up in my homestead they would help me in whatever manner they could, but the fact is, thats still not anarchy. my community has a ruler, and that ruler is our social form. capitalism is the basis, and thus there is an expectation of reciprocity, even without The Man standing over our shoulders ensuring everything is exactly even and fair.

thats where the anarcho-theologians fail. they imagine capitalism as a creation of authority, and simultaneously assert that authority is a product of capitalism.

authority exists in places were capitalism is an endangered species
capitalism exists in places where authority hasnt been seen in decades.

the two are unrelated.

cpitalism and the ownership of property means i can defend my property with force, but if i do not own it i cannot defend it, since i have no more right to the farm i built in the heart of the wilderness than any other asshole, so my hard won farm can become a shantytown of hobos, or my meticulously cared for crops will be harvested by any dick who can get to my fields before i do, and thats assuming that everybody uses non-violent schoolyard Dibs Rules, where the first one to grab an apple gets to eat it.

utopian dreams dont work, and thus capitalism is NOT utopian. it is entirely functional, it's just not flawless, not even in theory.
some dont get what they want and some get far more than they need. it's not perfect and fair, and thats why it's not utopian.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with your points but I need clarification on one thing. Does the expectation of reciprocity only exsist within capitalism? From your statement I come to the conclusion that capitalism is the cause of the expectation of reciprocity.

I don't think apple snatcher and carrot poachers would be the biggest threat in an anarchist society. I would agree with another poster that the threat would be from other outside groups that don't buy the same philosophy.. LOL kinda like what's going on in the world now! Yes this is another flaw on the anarchist movement.

I can't elaborate as well as the rest of you so thank you for being patient with me.
 
SlaveNoMore said:
Yes I agree with your points but I need clarification on one thing. Does the expectation of reciprocity only exsist within capitalism? From your statement I come to the conclusion that capitalism is the cause of the expectation of reciprocity.

I don't think apple snatcher and carrot poachers would be the biggest threat in an anarchist society. I would agree with another poster that the threat would be from other outside groups that don't buy the same philosophy.. LOL kinda like what's going on in the world now! Yes this is another flaw on the anarchist movement.

I can't elaborate as well as the rest of you so thank you for being patient with me.
Click to expand...

I would have to opine that the expectation of reciprocity is part of our animal natures.
I am unaware of a reasonable (!) sociopolitical system that doesn't espouse that concept and isn't relentlessly collectivist. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I think it will be. The engineering of our organisms will soon encounter the singularity*: direct feedback of our awareness on our deeper nature.

Until then, efforts to build utopia by external control of our behaviors will be as hard and as productive as building sand castles in the tidal zone. cn

*I think that so many of the futurists who invoke the idea of Technological Singularity are focused (to the point of wearing blinders) on the explosive growth of digital information technology. Unless/until equivalency has been demonstrated bu directly downloading a whole person onto digital substrates (and forgive me if i am diffident of this), the biological, molecular-chemical part of the equation is at least (imo!) as relevant.
Click to expand...
^^^Awesome post^^^^ This is actually where my mind is these days. "Efforts to build utopia by external control of our behaviors will be as hard and as productive as building sand castles in the tidal zone." That is beautiful! You are correct. I think there will one day be an integration of the biological and the technological. I would have to say that I hope I am alive to see that day. In some ways it rubs me against the grain but I am running out of hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Screw Toyota and the insurrectionist GQP that they support.
Replies
7
Views
444
schuylaar
S
G
he Liberals are blowing smoke with claim they 'wiped out' half of illegal cannabis market
Replies
11
Views
638
odam2k
odam2k
G
14 years for selling pot to youth? Lawyers say punishments under Liberal pot bill ludicrous
Replies
0
Views
297
gb123
G
G
Ian Mulgrew: Liberal pot legalization plan like a Cheech and Chong skit IAN MULGREW
Replies
6
Views
693
jafro daweedhound
jafro daweedhound
Rob Roy
Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with ter
Replies
3
Views
205
ThickStemz
T
Back
Top