analogy is too simple.

you, DFT, are complex. You're trying to worship the idea of freedom, but you are most likely anti-libertarian in every respect.

Anarchism. like this video: http://videosift.com/video/noam-chomsky-on-capitalism-and-anarchism

I really don't understand Anarchism, but I do know that an Anarchist wouldn't be caught dead in bed with a libertarian.

from wikipedia

Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote


thanks man!

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.

For a better understanding of the various differing and contradictory concepts of liberty, check out this Wikipedia article on liberty. Some concepts of liberty are actuated through government (through laws, constitutions, civil rights, regulations, etc). Some concepts of liberty can only exist in the absence of government. There are both conservative and liberal concepts of liberty; both economic and social concepts of liberty; both anarchic and state based concepts of liberty.

Some believe that holding property is a liberty. Some believe that holding property limits liberty. Who is right? Both. If you own the property that surrounds my favorite tree, you have complete liberty to read a book underneath it and I do not.

It's all subjective. It's all based on individual perspective.

It's interesting that the self appointed conservative-libertarian champions of 'individuality' do not tolerate individuals that disagree with their group think on this matter, not to mention highly hypocritical.

You don't have to agree with all of these differing concepts of liberty, but it would be healthy for you to understand that your concept of liberty is subjective, far from absolute and far from universal.


(btw, my VS notification emails are routed to an email address I rarely check, so if I don't respond, hit me up on my homepage)

>> ^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.

@NetRunner

Thank you for the comments.

1. Walmart wages: It seems like most reasonable libertarian positions are different from anarchic positions in that they support a basic platform for prosperity, including basic protections for workers. Altruism, however, is defined as an uneven (irrational) trade, so this wouldn't qualify as altruism. Also, the libertarian definition of basic protections certainly wouldn't include extras like, for example, subsidized housing intended to allow low-contribution workers to live in the center of San Francisco, instead of having to commute into the city like everybody else.

2a. If someone wants a Ferrari (I don't, but some people do), the basic economic system allows anyone who's smart to become a millionaire within around 5 years (ask me more), so there is a path toward that. I might be misunderstanding your point, though.

2b. I just like science, intelligence, and prosperity, so the commonplace objection among libertarians (and liberals) to the state's monopoly on violence just seems to me like people expressing their simplistic instincts.

3. I think developing our personal human capital in extraordinary ways is already altruistic... our permanently less reasonable friends and community benefit more from us than we benefit from them.

4. Reverse intellectual darwinism is already a huge drain on reasonable people, so it seems good to oppose it where we can. Small costs in shipping add up to large costs nationwide over time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Not a bad cover - but Kurt is spinning in his grave. I've always wondered about the title - what does "Smells Like Teen Spirit" mean? I suspect that Miley Cyrus smells like teen spirit.

Edit: via Wikipedia:

Cobain came up with the song's title when his friend Kathleen Hanna, at the time the lead singer of the Riot Grrrl punk band Bikini Kill, spray painted "Kurt Smells Like Teen Spirit" on his wall. Since they had been discussing anarchism, punk rock, and similar topics, Cobain interpreted the slogan as having a revolutionary meaning. What Hanna actually meant, however, was that Cobain smelled like the deodorant Teen Spirit, which his then-girlfriend Tobi Vail wore.

Love the rebellious image of anarchism but not interested in giving up property rights, class privilege and your sense of entitlement? Well don’t let these gross contradictions hold you back one day longer.

Koch Industries, the makers of Brawny™ Towels and Third World Misery™, is proud to announce NEW and IMPROVED: CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™.

CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™requires no protesting, no book learning and no understanding of politics or economics beyond the information we provide through our media subsidiaries, like The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation and ReasonTV (Hosted by everyone’s favorite TV funnyman, Drew Carey) .

Be sure to try our other sponsored product lines, such as THE TEA PARTY™ and THE AMERICAN LIBERTARIAN PARTY™ .

It's so cute that you think you are a real anarchist. Your David Koch inspired 'anarchism' is pretty far from the real deal. You are less Emma Goldman, more Goldman-Sachs. You should become a legit anarchist and leave all the free market corporatism behind.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
^Thank you, Adrian Veidt.

I'm touched that you think I'm comparable to a superhero/supervillain, even if he was a left-wing straw man to be torn down by a right-wing cartoonist.
Seriously though, you seem to have bought into this idea that actually learning about stuff is for suckers, because everything in life is intuitive, and never requires more than a couple simple aphorisms to explain.
For example, right wing economics: Debt bad, strong currency good, unions bad, low taxes good, non-defense spending bad, free trade good, regulation bad.
All of those things are wrong at least some of the time, based on any actual objective look at economic history.


I'm not interested in your narrative. But I'm glad you think Moore is a right wing cartoonist. He's a regular George W. Bush to you, I'm sure.

"Learning about stuff" is great; never said I had a problem with it. I just don't want people like you, who think they're smarter than the rest of the population, getting a big head and trying to plan our lives. That's exactly what you want though. That's why I call you Veidt. Because you're the worst kind of central planner. You're the kind that thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

I think it's nonsensical that you believe in a one-size-fits-all majority rule governance for all people. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?