I am saying a system where change is swift and bloodless is anarcho-capitalism, and to consider democracy that system is to ignore its tragic failings.

10/12/2008 12:45:35 AM

10/12/2008 12:47:17 AM

i posted in chit-chat to get simple answers that even a layman like me would understand! please stop talking in jibberish

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ..]

10/12/2008 12:47:46 AM

Quote :

"I will more than likely vote Democratic just to watch capitalism burn to Hell and see the true nature of humans under duress. "

I can't wait to watch people starve under the sweet hand of communism either.

10/12/2008 12:50:34 AM

simple answer: maintain an absolute morality, vote with fire and bricks, do whatever the fuck you want, and if you're on the wrong page your peers will put you in an early grave without the need for structured government.

10/12/2008 12:51:21 AM

^^^^ I lol at privatized law enforcement and judicial systems. Why not just join a gang?

On a related note, on another discussion board, I found this comment interesting and relevant:

Quote :

"Poster A: The ease and comfort of being in the elite is a narcotic."

Poster B:
But not near as cheap and convenient as the narcotic of self righteousness, and nowhere near as poisonous.

Man, you are just noticing the nihilism of this age? Its been ingrained in the fabric of our culture for over a hundred years. Its been there since the revolution. Its been there before the revolution. Its been there before every revolution, every uprising, every battle, every mob, every riot, every war, every campaign. And I think everyone except maybe Jesus, Tolstoy, Ghandi, and a sizable handful of history's forgotten were wrong. Because every time you toe a line in the sand and would rather point the finger at someone else, lay the blame on someone else's shoulder, pick up a gun instead of being ready to embrace whoever you think the problem is, its THAT which keeps the world ticking the way it is.

Old man, you must be living rather comfortably to talk revolution and still believe that this country was set up in the name of freedom and not financial gain. You want to refresh this land with blood, patriot? Join a gang, theres not a whole lot of difference when you start to look at people as obstacles to your personal vision of the future.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2008 12:51:26 AM

moron, go back to posting in soap-box

10/12/2008 12:53:40 AM

The basic difference is that Republicans follow a conservative philosophy and Democrats follow a liberal philosophy.

A liberal would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee the economy. Liberals say it's proper for government to ensure that companies do the right thing (such as pay minimum wages), and to ensure that people act responsibly in their finances (such as requiring contributions to retirement savings).

A conservative would say that a proper role for government is to regulate and oversee morality. Conservatives say it's proper for government to ensure that people are punished for immoral acts (such as taking drugs), and that people act appropriately in their marriages (such as banning homosexual marriage).

A libertarian would say that neither of those is a proper role for government. Libertarians say that the only proper role is to maintain an army for defense against invasion, to maintain a court system for ensuring justice, and other constitutionally defined roles.

A populist would say that both economic and moral intervention are proper roles for government.

Some people classify libertarians as conservatives and some classify populists as liberals. Those definitions fall apart when libertarians talk about moral issues like abortion (pro-choice) or drugs (pro-legalization).



[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2008 12:55:18 AM

Have you read our fucking laws? Seriously. Governments are bleeding hundreds of billions of dollars a year enforcing legislated morality that is obviously not the desire of their peoples, hence black market trades being among the largest trades in civilized nations, and *definitive of the economies* of smaller nations. You can ignore reality all you want, in fact it doesn't fucking matter, because people will do whatever the fuck they want whether or not you accept that reality.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 12:57 AM. Reason : generalization]

10/12/2008 12:55:35 AM

^I'm not saying things are perfect, by any means.

But it's ludicrous to think that a system where people can essentially do whatever they want will ever reach stability. It won't.

It'll either be what we have now, or we'll end up like Africa. I personally would take our gov. over africa's despotism any day.

10/12/2008 1:00:20 AM

Africa is not a fucking anarchy. Africa is the epitome of centalization of power going bad. The number of people a single person can affect negatively is extremely limited in a true anarchy.

Economic systems by definition seek optimal solutions. Social optimal is minimal, if it's not in your cornhole against your will, you have no right to fucking judge anything. When it imposes upon your personal freedoms, then you personally, if you have the balls, should fucking rip their throat out. I wouldn't judge you. If you piss off enough people, you're a bad character, someone is going to solve the problem for everyone. We don't fucking need laws for that, do you see any other animals having written law? They pick the best and let them lead. We communicate on too broad a scale to pick a best, there are many people better suited for many roles. Distribute. divide and conquer. Centralization is failure. Centralized government is epic failure.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM. Reason : *]

10/12/2008 1:03:49 AM

Quote :

"Economic systems by definition seek optimal solutions."

In reality, they seek to maximize profits, either by making kids work for cheap, or having employees fingers get grounded up in to sausage from poor working conditions.

Quote :

"Africa is not a fucking anarchy."

Africa is what would evolve out of an anarchy. Many numerous tribal groups constantly warring with each other, in an effort to gain more power and control and $$$.

Quote :

"If you piss off enough people, you're a bad character, someone is going to solve the problem for everyone."

So you are NOT against bloodshed, like you initially claimed.

And what happens in the VERY likely case this "bad character" develops enough power where the others CAN'T stop him? He runs rampant in his killing, eventually starting his Africa-like despotism. The only solution is if the other people organize (GASP) to stop him. This is what happened in human history. This is how the nations we know today were formed. Humanity started out in a state of anarchy, but were forced to group in to gov. to fight increasingly bigger threats.

The trick though, since we're intelligent human beings that can guide our destiny, is finding a gov. that minimized risk and maximizes survivability/freedom/safety/whatever your flavor is (i prefer long term survivability).

10/12/2008 1:16:43 AM

Bloodshed is inevitable. I am for minimal bloodshed. If everyone enjoys an adequate quality of life, then nobody will be motivated to align themselves with the cause of a "bad character". Quality of life is not necessarily materialistic, or social, and in fact it's a different balance for everyone. Allow the materialistic individuals to enjoy their greed and allow the social individuals to enjoy their alternative lifestyles. Neither of them should need to affect anyone else if they know where they're sleeping and eating in the immediate future. It's when you let different people try to tell each other how they should run their lives that we run into problems.

You don't need a persistent centralization of power for a populace to respond defensively to tyranny. See also: every revolution in the history of humanity.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 1:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/12/2008 1:32:04 AM

I love Vix more and more every time I read her posts

Quote :

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

-The Great President Ronald Reagan

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 1:39 AM. Reason : hay guise]

10/12/2008 1:39:32 AM

Libertarians are anarchists lacking in testicular fortitude.

10/12/2008 1:41:04 AM

Quote :

"-The Great President Ronald Reagan"

roflmao

10/12/2008 1:46:13 AM

yo dawg what's your stance on anarchism

I want to hear the practical applications of that philosophy of yours

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 1:47 AM. Reason : clarification]

10/12/2008 1:47:03 AM

Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest men who has ever walked this earth

plz 2 embed!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx7VEH9YUM

10/12/2008 1:48:00 AM

Quote :

"EPIC CAT 08"

10/12/2008 1:49:30 AM

epic suspend this braindead nigger

10/12/2008 1:49:55 AM

Quote :

"yo dawg what's your stance on anarchism I want to hear the practical applications of that philosophy of yours"

Are you talking to me?

10/12/2008 1:53:02 AM

INCIDENTALLY

Quote :

"But it's ludicrous to think that a system where people can essentially do whatever they want will ever reach stability. It won't."

just made me fall on the floor laughing

Government came from somewhere, dawg. Someone decided to do it. If you consider that stability, then you have already contradicted yourself.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ^yes]

10/12/2008 1:54:38 AM

There is a lot of stupid in this thread.

10/12/2008 1:56:01 AM

I just want everyone to see that I am not God

10/12/2008 1:59:33 AM

I don't think anarchism is remotely plausible.

10/12/2008 2:01:12 AM

Isn't anarchism the reality we live in? Couldn't you, objectively speaking, an educated computer scientist, wreak havoc if you so desired? Do laws prevent you from doing that, or does something else? I know I do whatever the fuck I want regardless of what the law says and rarely get called out on it. If their job is to enforce that shit, they're failing. If the presumption is that our society will collapse if it's not enforced, I have reason to believe otherwise as well. I'd like to hear enlightened perspectives.

10/12/2008 2:04:09 AM

Quote :

"Isn't anarchism the reality we live in? Couldn't you, objectively speaking, an educated computer scientist, wreak havoc if you so desired? Do laws prevent you from doing that, or does something else? I know I do whatever the fuck I want regardless of what the law says and rarely get called out on it. If their job is to enforce that shit, they're failing. If the presumption is that our society will collapse if it's not enforced, I have reason to believe otherwise as well. I'd like to hear enlightened perspectives."

Most of my desires lay within the realm of the legal (a few things don't). I have no particular desire to "wreak havoc" at all... I pretty much just do my research and want to be left alone.

10/12/2008 2:06:13 AM

I'm not saying you should wreack havoc, or want to, I'm just saying if you were so motivated and so educated, you could, and something other than the law stops you from doing so. Morality, yes? I'm pretty confident that is in no way related to the structure of, or in fact the existence of any structured government. Law and government are something of an illusion, in that respect.

I am also pretty confident that the economic system would be more efficient without any kind of legal oversight, in fact that oversight only seems to dampen the self-regulatory behaviors of the system, slowing the divergence from local maximums that all genetic algorithms become bounded by without adequate entropy. I would hope that you agree the economic system can ultimately be characterized as a genetic system.

10/12/2008 2:24:36 AM

Quote :

"epic suspend this braindead nigger"

If BigEgo can be suspended for the use of NIGGERES, a completely made up term, then this fool should be suspended for that

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 2:32 AM. Reason : k]

10/12/2008 2:32:22 AM

go find some Kleenexes bitch

10/12/2008 2:33:02 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjG47gtMCo

10/12/2008 2:35:00 AM

Quote :

"Username : SexyJesus Status : Starting Lineup Posts : 66 (47.5 per day)"

10/12/2008 2:42:59 AM

when I was a sophomore I had an account that peaked at 330 posts per day

and every single one of them more insightful than this EUPHALO shit that seems to float the boat nowadays

10/12/2008 2:44:01 AM

only tryin to feed teh egO!.

10/12/2008 2:44:41 AM

Anarchy is stupid, and is completely impossible.

Someone will always be in charge, this is how humanity works.

10/12/2008 2:50:05 AM

I don't think it's that hard to see that we all live by our own morals regardless of legalities, that we're essentially pissing our resources away to maintain this structure of government that is an illusion. Avoidance of interpersonal conflict is functionality that is clearly present in less evolved animals without the need for bureaucracy or formalization. Whatever, though, I am a raving fucking moonbat I guess

10/12/2008 3:03:03 AM

we need a military

10/12/2008 3:04:35 AM

Quote :

"I don't think it's that hard to see that we all live by our own morals regardless of legalities"

it's possible, but to not have a system which would punish the people whose morals are detrimental to society would be stupid.

10/12/2008 3:07:46 AM

^^Every man being for himself, sharing a common cause, is an army.

^ people punish people. systems don't punish people. let people decide on an individual basis what punishment is warranted, let them respond individually to transgressions against their person to the extent that they deem necessary.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 3:09 AM. Reason : ^]

10/12/2008 3:07:47 AM

^ Yeah, that will work out really well when China/Russia comes in with tanks and aircraft.

Quote :

"people punish people. systems don't punish people. let people decide on an individual basis what punishment is warranted, let them respond individually to transgressions against their person to the extent that they deem necessary."

That's also ridiculous.

how often do people have the means to individually respond to transgressions? If they could do anything about it, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2008 3:08:59 AM

They would give two shits if we weren't a similar threat to them.

10/12/2008 3:10:04 AM

you would need a structured, powerful, advanced military to stand a chance, which is why we don't spend enough money on military

10/12/2008 3:10:54 AM

We spend plenty on the military. We can already defeat any nation on earth, all more military spending would do is increase our already substantial force projection capabilities.

We project too much force already.

10/12/2008 3:12:45 AM

Quote :

"I'm not saying you should wreack havoc, or want to, I'm just saying if you were so motivated and so educated, you could, and something other than the law stops you from doing so. Morality, yes? I'm pretty confident that is in no way related to the structure of, or in fact the existence of any structured government. Law and government are something of an illusion, in that respect. I am also pretty confident that the economic system would be more efficient without any kind of legal oversight, in fact that oversight only seems to dampen the self-regulatory behaviors of the system, slowing the divergence from local maximums that all genetic algorithms become bounded by without adequate entropy. I would hope that you agree the economic system can ultimately be characterized as a genetic system."

I wish I could give a better response to this because it deserves one, but I'm in the middle of a huge ass problem set so I won't be able to devote much attention to it.

People aren't rational nor moral actors. That's why I don't think anarchy would ever work, in principle.

10/12/2008 3:13:53 AM

^^The gap between us and the next guy isn't as big as it should be. There should be no question as to whether we could quickly take out any country we needed to without nukes.

10/12/2008 3:20:29 AM

Democrats tell us lies so they can get power, which they can use to get fame, recognition, and sex. Republicans on the other hand tell us lies so they can get power, which they can use to get money.

^are you kidding? enough military power that there would be no doubt that we could take down china with no nukes?

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 3:22 AM. Reason : reply]

10/12/2008 3:20:39 AM

I weep for humanity.

10/12/2008 3:24:57 AM

Democrats choose the name with a D next to it when in the polling booth.
Republicans choose the name with a R next to it when in the polling booth.

10/12/2008 3:24:59 AM

^^^^ Why should we have to "take out" any country?

There's no country on earth that could even hope to approach our borders, much less attempt any kind of major attack.

[Edited on October 12, 2008 at 3:27 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2008 3:26:31 AM

^the next response is going to be about 9/11

10/12/2008 3:27:43 AM