Any questions?

Yes. So, what you're saying is that a brain on statism is more delicious than a brain not on statism?
And how will this affect the Zombie Apocalypse?

I can't believe it's not butter.

Any questions?

On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?


It's negotiable.

>> ^TheGenk:
Any questions?
Yes. So, what you're saying is that a brain on statism is more delicious than a brain not on statism?
And how will this affect the Zombie Apocalypse?


Ah man! I was just about to say that exact same thing!

I'm never going to eat fried brains again.

>> ^TheGenk:

Any questions?
Yes. So, what you're saying is that a brain on statism is more delicious than a brain not on statism?
And how will this affect the Zombie Apocalypse?


Zombie Apocalypses are not affected by anything. They are doomed to fail, whatever happens.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.


Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.

If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?

I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

>> ^Fade:

Anarchy does not automatically imply lawlessness or chaos. In much the same way that being an atheist does not imply that you are immoral. >> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.



I think you meant to say Anarchy doesn't imply lawlessness, but your statement is correct as it is. Anarchy means there is no law, by definition. The moment you introduce a law like declaring murder illegal you have instituted a form of a state, and enforcement of said law is once again the act of a state. Any other use of the word Anarchy is a hijacking of it describe something that is NOT in fact Anarchy. Call it minimal government, call it some variation of Libertarianism, but Anarchy it is not.

Anarchy, from Websters:
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3
: anarchism

You'll note the only 'positive' definition for Anarchy presupposes that human beings will collectively get along and play nice with each other be default. If that were true we'd have a utopia with or without any form of government period.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.


No, Somalia has other problems. Mainly that you cannot jump from government to no government overnight.

I do see a graduation from statism to anarchy, so there's certainly a middle area. Go read the Thoreau quote on my profile page. That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

No, Somalia has other problems. Mainly that you cannot jump from government to no government overnight.
I do see a graduation from statism to anarchy, so there's certainly a middle area. Go read the Thoreau quote on my profile page. That pretty much sums it up for me as well.


It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.

The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.

Communism is great!

Except in Russia, China, Finland, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, and North Korea. It was a disaster there, but not because there's anything wrong with communism. They all just did it wrong. However I remain convinced that if we do it correctly, following the precise wishes of a political philosopher who died a century ago, it will work out this time.

Who's with me?>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Any questions?
On Garbage Day, which anarchist is going to pick up the trash and for what wage?

It's negotiable.

Ah, so kind of like what they have in Somalia.
If I can ask an honest question of you Blankfist, do you see the existence of a middle ground between Statism and Anarchy?
I don't mean it to be offensive, but it seems your constant advocacy is to simply burn all institutions to the ground and the public will be better for it.

No, Somalia has other problems. Mainly that you cannot jump from government to no government overnight.
I do see a graduation from statism to anarchy, so there's certainly a middle area. Go read the Thoreau quote on my profile page. That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

>> ^bcglorf:

It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.
The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.


I don't accept your premise. Humans are "greedy" and "selfish" because of survival mechanisms, but I don't believe in "evil" as a defining factor of humanity. If you do, then why have hope for humanity at all? We might as well give up now.

It's a myopic and fear-driven position to think humans cannot achieve better, and certainly to think they cannot achieve better through their own self-reliance, intelligence, and the empathy for their common man.

His quote is pretty clear. No government is the best government, but we cannot have no government all at once. It would be chaos. But we should building a better government along the way with the end goal being the best government (i.e., no government). One day humans will be ready for that - It's not today and not in our lifetimes.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
It's not even that you can't jump to no government overnight. It's as your quote observes:
I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
You can't jump until men are prepared for it. I don't believe there has or will ever be a point in time where men are prepared for it. Furthermore, if the day did come dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies and democracies would ALL flourish and be wonderful utopias as well.
The trick to asking for 'better' government is that it must be better in light of the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish and frequently evil creatures willing to destroy one another for gain. For some even personal amusement counts as enough gain to inflict massive suffering on others. Improvements to government MUST take into account the existential flaws and failings of our species.

I don't accept your premise. Humans are "greedy" and "selfish" because of survival mechanisms, but I don't believe in "evil" as a defining factor of humanity. If you do, then why have hope for humanity at all? We might as well give up now.
It's a myopic and fear-driven position to think humans cannot achieve better, and certainly to think they cannot achieve better through their own self-reliance, intelligence, and the empathy for their common man.
His quote is pretty clear. No government is the best government, but we cannot have no government all at once. It would be chaos. But we should building a better government along the way with the end goal being the best government (i.e., no government). One day humans will be ready for that - It's not today and not in our lifetimes.


I don't really think evil is a defining human attribute either. What I do believe is that evil behaviour is inescapable in a large enough group of humans. It is THE defining theme of the entirety of our written history, and NEVER have we been able to collectively escape it. The real trick is when the minority of evil humans culls the population of those that aren't where things are really ugly.

Am I fair in proposing that our frequent differences on the level of state control still required are degrees in a more similar philosophy, rather than a fundamental state or no state binary choice? Presumably you accept that a police force of some form on some level is still required by our society to stop the thieves, rapists and murders from simply taking what they want through force?

>> ^bcglorf:

I don't really think evil is a defining human attribute either. What I do believe is that evil behaviour is inescapable in a large enough group of humans. It is THE defining theme of the entirety of our written history, and NEVER have we been able to collectively escape it. The real trick is when the minority of evil humans culls the population of those that aren't where things are really ugly.
Am I fair in proposing that our frequent differences on the level of state control still required are degrees in a more similar philosophy, rather than a fundamental state or no state binary choice? Presumably you accept that a police force of some form on some level is still required by our society to stop the thieves, rapists and murders from simply taking what they want through force?


I do think we need security. I think that should be the responsibility of the individuals to voluntarily discover the best ways to do that. It could a police force or guns in the cabinet. But I don't think police should always be state run. I don't think the state should exist unless voluntary.

I understand we can't have a voluntary society tomorrow, and that some form of statism is required during a transitional period.

Going back to your evil comment, I see the evils of humans being created by the state. Sure, you have people who think god talks to them and they do some really disturbing shit individually, but generally mass genocide and wars are created by collectives, not individuals.

I understand we can't have a voluntary society tomorrow, and that some form of statism is required during a transitional period.

And I can agree with that with the slight caveat that the transitional period is likely to be ridiculously long, effectively permanent.

...generally mass genocide and wars are created by collectives, not individuals.

This is exactly why I consider the 'transition' permanent. Without forming your own collective, the mass genocide and war collectives will come and kill or recruit you individually. You ALWAYS need to have some means of stopping other humans from ganging up and pillaging everyone.

I see the evils of humans being created by the state.
I see the evils of the state being created by the humans. The state being after all nothing more and nothing less than a collective of humans.

Do you truly believe there can be a time where humans will no longer want to form collectives? As long as they are willing to do so, it doesn't even matter which of us is right about state/human that causes the evil, the collectives will form and need to be stopped. Regrettably the best solution to stopping ten guys with guns from raping your women is to have 10 or more of your own men with guns waiting to stop them.

“A total ideology,” Bell explained in his most famous book,

is an all-inclusive system of comprehensive reality, it is a set of beliefs, infused with passion, and seeks to transform the whole of a way of life. This commitment to ideology—the yearning for a ‘cause,’ or the satisfaction of deep moral feelings—is not necessarily the reflection of interests in the shape of ideas. Ideology, in this sense, and in the sense that we use it here, is a secular religion.