Anarchy!!!

[Rassah]

Set up a new thread to not derail the Scalia thread

 

@Zaraphayx wrote:

Quote

When you claim to be an anarchist people are going to reasonably arrive at the conclusion that you believe in a dichotomization of "the state" and "everything else" and that you believe an ideal situation for all or most humans is one in which there is no state.

That is correct. Anarcho means without rulers. So yeah, I believe in a system where people govern themselves, including deciding what kind of deal they get into with whom, as opposed to having a group of elite making that decision for them.

 

Quote

Believing that anarchy is the transitional state between one type of government and the next is a trivial observation of historical fact.

Not necessarily. Technology changes, and people along with their views of society and what's acceptable changes. The printing press allowed everyone to read what is actually written in the Bible, where beforehand that was only exclusively available to the church that had the only copy, and the priest could make any claim he wanted. That technology contributed to eliminating the church as the central governing body.

And it used to be that not having monarchy, where you get rid of the king by whatever means, was just a traditional state to another monarchy. But that's obviously not the case now. Getting rid of monarchy now usually leads to democracy.

Quote

You may be fine with enduring a complete societal breakdown...

That is only a possibility if you believe that the only thing keeping society together is rule of law and threats of guns and prisons. I don't believe that. In fact, this is the identical argument posed by religious to atheists, "Without god, where do morals come from? Wouldn't an atheist society just pilage and murder everyone? After all, what is to stop people from doing bad things without a threat of hell?"

I don't know about you, but I believe we are intrinsically moral. I don't rob or kill my neighbors because I'm afraid of police, I don't do it because I'm a decent human being. But even if that isn't enough, and you think people in general are scum, everyone generally wants the same things: safety, security, respect for themselves, and respect for their property. If everyone wants that, then everyone will understand that they have to provide the same to others as well. We survived for hundreds if thousands of years without government, and that intrinsic value being part of our instincts and biology is why.

Quote

I and those like me who understand this will continue to settle for being "enslaved" in a world where we are free to pursue higher interests and give minimal consideration to providing for our basic needs, rather than be free in a world that includes assured famine, pestilence, and death...

I and those like me look at the world, look at personal incomes, government tax revenues, budged deficits, and levels of debt, then crunch the numbers, and realize that a world where people get minimal consideration for their basic needs is quickly coming to an end. The world of assured famine, pestilence, and death is the one we have now (Flint's water, Colorado's spill, California's drought, and Venezuela's food shortages are just some current examples)

It worries us a lot, and thus we are working on non-governmental replacements which we hope will be ready enough in time to save people when that catastrophe of "running out of other people's money" finally happens.

Note, we are not pushing for anarchy. Anarchists aren't intending to force people into it with an iron fist. That goes completely against what we believe. We simply develop alternatives, and hope people will like them and start using them voluntarily.

Quote

I know that you consider this "collapse" inevitable and fantasize about it's actualization, but you're naive if you don't think that there are groups of minds that far eclipse yours who are devoting countless hours of work into preventing it from happening.

We don't fantasize about its actualization, we merely plan for it. If it doesn't happen, no harm done. We'll just have awesome tech tools to make our government lives even better.

And we consider this collapse inevitable simply because of math. If you generate X amount of wealth in an area, but owe and spend greater than X, no amount of time or generating X will help you. No groups of minds, no matter how intelligent, can make 2 + 2 equal 5. So the only possible options are to cut spending and hurt a lot of people, default on the debt and hurt even more people (not the rich, that debt is owed to Social Security, pensioners, and the like), or inflate the money and hurt everyone. I personally don't believe the first option will happen, and governments will just hold down the gas to drive themselves into the ground.

Incidentally, the group of minds we have working is very impressive. Hell, I already know I'm smarter than famous braniacs like Paul Grugman. But, myself aside, you've heard of Mensa, the high IQ society? There's a group above that that's even more restrictive. When polled, turned out they were mostly anarchist/libertarian too. Anarchists also contain a hugely disproportionate amount of INTJ/ENTJ too, which make up 2% of society, but 80% of our group. Basically, it goes:

Lowest IQ: Conservatives, Republicans, authoritarians, and people who believe in things like religious dogma an other people's claims as to how people should properly live

Middle to high IQ: Liberals, Democrats, atheists, and people who believe morals are intrinsic, that if people aren't hurting anyone they should be free to do what they want (drugs, gay sex, prostitution), but still submit themselves to authoritative rule.

Highest IQ: Minarchists, Anarchists, Libertarians (though there are some dumb ones in that one), Voluntaryist, and people who believe that everyone is smart enough to figure their own lives, but most importantly can understand all of society as a structure of competing incentives, and can understand and predict where certain incentives will lead (such as absolute authority inevitably leading to corruption).

As for Scalia, I didn't kill him, and I can objectively say that the world is better off without him. Sorry if that makes me sound like I am celebrating his death, or that it offends you or makes you think it's petty. I don't give people brownie points simply for dying.

[Rassah]

@PastryOfApathy and @DrGravitas didn't forget about you. That's Gravitas for pointing out (quoting) her question

Quote

Please give us your revolutionary new plan to tear down the entire US Government, and Make America Great Again™. Also explain how you will replace the US Dollar with bitcoin?

There are four pillars of government:

1. Money
2. Law
3. Commerce
4. Communication

If you look throughout history, or examine any of the current governments, you'll see that.

Money:

Governments need money to exist. Even if laws are passed communally through non-government pure democracy, someone still has to be paid to enforce those laws with guns. Police and soldiers don't work for free, even if politicians are willing to. Unfortunately, money also leads to government overreach and corruption. If governments can make all the money they want, they will use it for things their citizens don't want. This ranges from speeding tickets and drug wars, to actual full scale wars. Over the years, governments have figured out many ways to make more money for themselves. Ancient Rome would dilute gold in the coins to make more coins (inflation). USSR, and later Zimbabwe, Argentina, and now Venezuela simply print more money to pay for their stuff (hyperinflation). And, of course, taxation. Usually governments work hand in hand with major banks to do this, where both greatly benefit (the politicians, not the whole government) at the expense of the people.

Bitcoin addresses a lot of issues. It is impossible to inflate, so that problem is solved right off the bat. It does not require central banks to transfer, so can not be controlled through border regulations, currency controls, or more recent shenanigans like asset seisures (Cyprus, Italy) and negative interest rates. And it provides financial privacy, and soon complete anonymity, so it can be much more difficult to track people's wealth, expenditures, and incomes, and tax them for it. It gives the power over money directly to the people who use that money, instead of big banks and governments, and let's the people choose themselves what they want to do with their money and what they want to support.

As for how USD will be replaced with Bitcoin? Honestly, I think it will just come down to attrition. Bitcoin, being impossible to inflate and an actual asset, is much stronger than the dollar, which is actually an IOU being entirely based on debt and a debt-based economy, already suffers from inflation, and with the huge government debt will have to collapse some day. Basically, I think Bitcoin will simply outlive the dollar. But I think people will accept and prefer it more too, as it's cheaper to use than the current banking system, is muchb more convenient to use once you're within the system (easier, cheaper, and quicker to send bitcoin than any other currency), and it actually grows in value over time.

[Astus]

#voteforAstus2016

 

I'll save you from all of those who wish to get rid of the government; I'll keep the yiff out of our schools and lower taxes to allow you to buy more commissions!!!

 

 

But in all seriousness, having such a large country without some form of direction is a recipe for disaster. It may work for a large group of individuals who are altruistic, but not those who are willing to hurt the weaker individual for their own benefit; the government has the chance to help that individual in some instances and protect what "rights" you have

Edited February 20, 2016 by Astus

[Rassah]

Law:

Governments depend on being able to create law, and are really a monopoly on that, because that's what gives them power. Which they later enforce through guns they pay for with money. Used to be that totalitarians (monarchs, dictators) would pass laws by decree, always to make themselves better off (give me money, I own this land, pay this fine), with some "make the peons happy" stuff thrown in (I will decide and disperse justice, and protect you from invaders). When democratic republics happened, that power simply got divided among a few totalitarians, and their ruling terms got reduced.

We're developing a system of identities and digital contracts, where legal disputes won't really happen, because all agreements will simply be written as algorithms that execute automatically upon completion or failure of a contract, property ownership will be registered on a global immutable and decentralized database (like bitcoin) that no one controls and only the owners of the property can change, and people's reputation will be based on their history of interaction with others, as opposed to owned by private secretive credit score companies, or hidden away in private police databases. Basically, you will know whom you're dealing with, and when you agree to a deal, you are guaranteed that it will happen. That's really what most of the laws deal with: guaranteeing that someone will hold up their end of the bargain, and making sure they follow through. This solves both problems automatically.

Why would people use this? Because it puts lawyers out of business, which is already great. It will be much cheaper, it will give all the legal powers to everyone instead of just the few with money for lawyers (like bitcoin gives access to all aspects of banking to anyone with a computer, instead of just wealthy bankers), and it gives the decision on legal issues back to the people, letting them change things to fit their lives, instead of keeping laws among the few elite whom people get to vote on every few years, without even a guarantee that the legal changes they want will happen (how long has the majority supported gay marriage and marijuana legalization before it actually happened through legislation?)

 

[Spot]

I support it.

[willow]

unless you condition an entire population of people to live completely independent or equally, I don't consider anarchy to be that feasible.

30 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

Incidentally, the group of minds we have working is very impressive. Hell, I already know I'm smarter than famous braniacs like Paul Grugman. But, myself aside, you've heard of Mensa, the high IQ society? There's a group above that that's even more restrictive. When polled, turned out they were mostly anarchist/libertarian too. Anarchists also contain a hugely disproportionate amount of INTJ/ENTJ too, which make up 2% of society, but 80% of our group. Basically, it goes:

Lowest IQ: Conservatives, Republicans, authoritarians, and people who believe in things like religious dogma an other people's claims as to how people should properly live

Middle to high IQ: Liberals, Democrats, atheists, and people who believe morals are intrinsic, that if people aren't hurting anyone they should be free to do what they want (drugs, gay sex, prostitution), but still submit themselves to authoritative rule.

Highest IQ: Minarchists, Anarchists, Libertarians (though there are some dumb ones in that one), Voluntaryist, and people who believe that everyone is smart enough to figure their own lives, but most importantly can understand all of society as a structure of competing incentives, and can understand and predict where certain incentives will lead (such as absolute authority inevitably leading to corruption).

who did they poll though and on what criteria?

[Clove Darkwave]

41 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

 

Note, we are not pushing for anarchy. Anarchists...

You appear to be confused.

[Rassah]

Commerce:

Government needs to monitor and control commerce, because that's how it makes a lot of its money, as well as enforces some of its control. Commerce is taxed, and some things are allowed or restricted in a carrot and stick kind of way, to steer people in a specific direction.

I'm sure you've heard of Silk Road already. We're developing decentralized, unregulatable, and eventually anonymous commerce platrofms (such as OpenBazaar), which would allow anyone to sell anything to anyone else, without governments being able to stop it, regulate it, or tax it. This extends to even things like transportation (check out Arcade City, taking on Uber), delivery, and manufacturing with 3D printing to bypass bans on ownership of certain items.

Why would people adopt this? Being able to buy what they want is a big one. Not just drugs, but imagine how many people in Flint would want to buy water, or people in Venezuela would want to buy toilet paper and food. It being much cheaper is another. EBay charges 10%. Amazon isn't cheap either. With this, it would be almost free. And you wouldn't be subject to company restrictions either (eBay, Amazon, and payment systems like PayPal all restrict sales of certain items, even as mundane as porn).

[Rassah]

And finally Communication:

Governments always controlled communication to influence and brainwash people, and to monitor what people said in order to control them directly (arrest them for political speech, tax evasion, or other crimes it didn't like).

We're working on private encrypted communication systems. This one is the oldest and most known about, especially after Edward Snowden's expose, and the fights over encryption with Apple, Android, and FBI/NSA. Combined with finance and commerce, this would make it impossible for government to know who is doing what, and thus impossible to enforce their policies.

Unfortunately this one is going to be the hardest to get people to adopt. People share everything on Facebook, and the idea that "If you have nothing to hide..." is very prevalent. So this one may have to be forced by default, such as Apple selling phones with default encryption, Gmail and other communications providers encrypting everything in the backend by default without user's knowledge, etc.

 

Anyway, hope this answers everything, long posts, going to go hang out, and won't be back to answer for a while.

[Rassah]

Quick break to reply to some

58 minutes ago, Astus said:

But in all seriousness, having such a large country without some form of direction is a recipe for disaster.

Anarchy isn't a lack of direction. It's just people choosing their own direction instead of having politicians forcing it on them, or waiting for politicians to answer their demands. Anarchy also isn't a large country. It's not a country of any size. People would form groups of any size they want, like smaller groups such as in Europe and Pacific, or larger ones like in North America. Whatever they're comfortable with. Internet has allowed us to create massive organizations too. And, there's really nothing very large that you need a lot of people to organize in some direction that only government can provide.

1 hour ago, Astus said:

It may work for a large group of individuals who are altruistic, but not those who are willing to hurt the weaker individual for their own benefit; the government has the chance to help that individual in some instances and protect what "rights" you have

That was the intent, but unfortunately historically governments always lagged the people when it comes to social change. People being frustrated to the point of protesting for change comes first. There would be no need to protest. Things just change as people do.

As for protecting weaker people from those who would hurt them for their own benefit, that's where figuring out the incentives structure (game theory?) comes in, where we want to make it so that hurting someone or doing bad things in general is always more costly than behaving and getting along. There are some some ideas for this already.

59 minutes ago, willow said:

unless you condition an entire population of people to live completely independent or equally, I don't consider anarchy to be that feasible.

We're hoping to do it by making alternatives simply more expensive and inconvenient. Basically, get people to adopt anarchy by providing them with alternative services that are cheaper, better, and availabile to all, which at the same time prevent people from acting badly. It's actually similar to conditioning and entire population of people to think that downloading music and movies isn't stealing, by providing them with BitTorrent. And the "entire population" doesn't have to be everyone in the world, or even everyone in a country. What we're doing let's anyone join from wherever they live. Just download an app, and you have your own bank separate from your government. Download another app, and you have access to an unregulated global market 

1 hour ago, willow said:

who did they poll though and on what criteria?

Triple Nine Society, questionnaire for its members about how they self identify. Unfortunately it looks like they took down that press release, but there's more in this post http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Differences-in-political-views?page=5

1 hour ago, Clove Darkwave said:

You appear to be confused.

I don't know how or what you mean by that. Anarchists are not pushing for anarchy, they are simply building it as an alternative option. At least anarcho-capitalists. We don't intend to pass a law mandating anarchy (that's absurd), not intend to attack government institutions (the rioting Molotov Cocktail types are usually communists). We just want to present a competing alternative we hope is better, and literally outcompete the government in the market (which is fairly easy, considering how awful many of its services are).

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

I don't know how you can possibly be aware of the reality of IQ but be a firm proponent of an anarchist society.

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Zaraphayx]

What about human nature did you ever think about that? lmao.

[Yarra]

My concern now is outright armed rebellion!

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

I don't know how you can possibly be aware of the reality of IQ but be a firm proponent of an anarchist society.

Isn't that the same as being aware of the reality of IQ, but letting people vote on whom they let control EVERYONE? At least in my case, the crazy ones will only be screwing themselves.

56 minutes ago, Zaraphayx said:

What about human nature did you ever think about that? lmao.

Yes, of course! That's why I'm an anarchist. I don't trust human nature with the power to control everyone, since even if that power is checked and severely restricted (as in the early days of USA), it always inevitably becomes unchecked and corrupt. You might be thinking "I'm going to vote for president X and senator Y!" but when was the last time you voted for the guy in charge of NSA? Department of Agriculture? EPA? FCC? Or hell, even your local school district, police, and fire department? Those organizations are the ones who actually have direct control and power over us.

37 minutes ago, Yarra said:

My concern now is outright armed rebellion!

It might happen if things get bad enough, but we're not anywhere near that. And if that does happen, I'm GTFO out of here, cause I know how revolutions usually end.

 

On a lighter note:

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[#00Buck]

Holy walls of text.

Jeez man. Could there be more typing?

[Yarra]

Be careful not to get too off topic!

 

 

[Rassah]

3 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Holy walls of text.

Jeez man. Could there be more typing?

It's a complicated topic, and I was asked detailed questions. Sorry I can't narrow it down to simple catch phrases. Not without pissing people off anyway

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

Isn't that the same as being aware of the reality of IQ, but letting people vote on whom they let control EVERYONE? At least in my case, the crazy ones will only be screwing themselves.

I just think that most anarchist really fail to account for human nature when discussing their aspirations for the engenderment and cultivation of some sort of society peopled by a teaming horde of aggressive, domineering, hyper-competitive, and comparatively mentally-unstable primates.

Like communism, the notion of anarchy sounds like a profoundly stellar concept on paper, but it gets unabashedly and hilariously slaughtered when put into practice on a grand scale. Anarchist communities typically can't expand beyond a few neighborhoods, a coffee shop or bookstore, or some sort of war-torn nation packed to the brim with discombobulated and disillusioned citizens who are trying to restore some resemblance of order in their gutted society.

They're not viable. So long as people are principally driven by their own competitive self-interest and so long as disparities in cognitive or physical capability exists between individuals, you're going to have social hierarchies.

You're going to have an elite class telling all of the proles what to do, think, and say.

 

 

[#00Buck]

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

It's a complicated topic, and I was asked detailed questions. Sorry I can't narrow it down to simple catch phrases. Not without pissing people off anyway

Anarchy is pretty simple.

It's a free for all. 

[Endless/Nameless]

As much as I support the idea of as little government involvement in our affairs as possible, I feel that this is sadly only a utopian ideal that could never hold. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people; we'd find a way to fuck it up. Also, even if such a society were successfully put in place, I believe it would be hard to maintain true freedom of the individual; there's always that group of people, the bolder/stronger ones, who float to the top of the pile somehow and end up pushing their personal ideology on everyone for better or worse. 

But this really isn't my area of intelligence, so..... Thanks for the fascinating read.

[PastryOfApathy]

Oh my god. You're literally using IQ test scores to "prove" that anyone who doesn't believe in overthrowing the government is "objectively" stupider than you. That is one of the most hilarious fucking things I've ever heard.

Do you rely on lie detector tests too?

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Highest IQ: Minarchists, Anarchists, Libertarians (though there are some dumb ones in that one), Voluntaryist, and people who believe that everyone is smart enough to figure their own lives, but most importantly can understand all of society as a structure of competing incentives, and can understand and predict where certain incentives will lead (such as absolute authority inevitably leading to corruption).

This is why I love you Rassy-senpai~

You always know how to lift my spirits whenever I'm feeling down.

[AlexInsane]

I'm sorry, the idea that you can appeal to people's better natures in an anarchist environment is just...wrong.

Appealing to people's better natures in general is just wrong. 

People don't have better natures. Didn't you know that? I mean, we are ANIMALS, and nowhere are we more like animals than when we have nothing to stop us from behaving like animals, i.e., the hypothetical anarchist state we're discussing. We're all horrible people, deep down. There's not one of us who wouldn't gladly smash someone's face in just for the novelty of it if there were no consequences for doing so. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by AlexInsane

[Rassah]

41 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Anarchy is pretty simple.

It's a free for all. 

Nah, it's actually way more complicated than that. Anarchy can actually have a set of complex laws and regulations, like Lex Mercatoria, and shipbuilding regulations, both of which exist without and outside of government. The people just have to agree on the general rules and hold each other accountable.

43 minutes ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

I just think that most anarchist really fail to account for human nature when discussing their aspirations for the engenderment and cultivation of some sort of society peopled by a teaming horde of aggressive, domineering, hyper-competitive, and comparatively mentally-unstable primates.

We do actually account for it. Whereas government simply seeks to restrict that, but eventually succumbing to those same problems, being comprised of the same horde of aggressive, domineering, hyper-competitive, and comparatively mentally-unstable primates, we focus on building a system that works within that human nature, but steers it in a way that benefits everyone. For instance, are you a greedy bastard who loves money? If we limit your power to where your only way to satisfy your greed is to sell goods, then yay? The greedy bastard can be greedy, trying to sell us the most amount of the best stuff he can come up with.

43 minutes ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Like communism, the notion of anarchy sounds like a profoundly stellar concept on paper, but it gets unabashedly and hilariously slaughtered when put into practice on a grand scale. Anarchist communities typically can't expand beyond a few neighborhoods, a coffee shop or bookstore, or some sort of war-torn nation packed to the brim with discombobulated and disillusioned citizens who are trying to restore some resemblance of order in their gutted society.

They're not viable. 

Ah, yes, there's a bit of confusion here, in that there are actually a lot of different anarchists: AnarchoCapitalist (that's me), Agorist, AnarchoMutualist, AmarchoNihilist, AnarchoPrimitivist, and AnarchoComunist. The last one is the group you're describing who keeps making failed communes, and is more recognized as guys in black hoodies throwing Molotov cocktails. We usually make fun of those guys. AnarchoCapitalists are tightly linked with crypto-anarchists, who existed since the 70's at least, and were responsible for things like PGP then, and Bitcoin now, but AnCaps have been around even longer, and include people like Murray Rothbard, whom you may not have heard of, and ones you have heard of, such as the creator of PayPal, creator of Tesla and SpaceX, creator of Amazon, creator of Craigslist, possibly creator of Wikipedia (he's an anarchist, but may not be the "capitalist" type), and possibly even the Koch brothers, who were Rothbard's pupils. We don't really believe in communes, or equal sharing, and are fine with running large, successful businesses.

43 minutes ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

So long as people are principally driven by their own competitive self-interest and so long as disparities in cognitive or physical capability exists between individuals, you're going to have social hierarchies.

Yes, and we're fine with that. With regards to "equality," whereas AnarchoCommunists support the idea of equal outcome (which usually results in everyone being equally poor), we support the idea of equal opportunity, and believe it's fine for those who are more skilled or diligent to have more reward. The only thing we oppose is abuse of that power, or restrictions on those equal opportunities.

35 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

As much as I support the idea of as little government involvement in our affairs as possible, I feel that this is sadly only a utopian ideal that could never hold.

Fortunately it already can. Hold. It's still not easy and very inconvenient, but it's already possible to "exit" the government and join an anarchist "society." Switch to using bitcoin for finance, get a job that pays in bitcoin as a contractor, where your earnings aren't reported, pay for everything including lodging in Bitcoin, get private global medical coverage (such as libertyhealthshare), and buy private legal insurance/protection just in case you need it. You can even renounce your passport and buy one from one of the Caribbean island nations, though that's not really necessary. But basically you'll end up living outside of the government financial, tax, and legal system, and can live pretty much anywhere without anyone even knowing. And yes, people are already doing this.

35 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

There's always that group of people, the bolder/stronger ones, who float to the top of the pile somehow and end up pushing their personal ideology on everyone for better or worse. 

Yes, and until recently we had no way of dealing with them. Now we have anonymous currencies, anonymous crowdfunding, and anonymous prediction markets, all on a decentralized platform that can't be taken down. If enough people bet even small amounts that those abusive pushers will go away, eventually they will.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

22 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Oh my god. You're literally using IQ test scores to "prove" that anyone who doesn't believe in overthrowing the government is "objectively" stupider than you.

Really the general idea is that smart people know that religion is just lies and made up bullshit, and smarter people know that statism is just another religion. But, A therefore B doesn't mean B therefore A. There are a lot of really smart statists, obviously (like Stephen Hawking for example, who as it turns out is a bit dumb when it comes to economics, but that's not surprising succeed that's not his field). Being smart doesn't mean you're an anarchist, and conversely not being an anarchist doesn't mean you're dumb. It's just that being an anarchist usually also means being smart. AnarchoCapitalist, anyway. AnComs are fucking retards.

27 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Do you rely on lie detector tests too?

No, I do not. They're very easy to cheat.

[AlexInsane]

AnarchoCapitalist: HANDS OFF OUR MONEY, BIG GOV, IT'S OURS, IT'S OURS, IT'S ALL OURS, AND YOU PEASANTS CAN STARVE BUT MY BUDDY STEVE HERE IS TOTALLY GOING TO GET PAID $50/HR POURING COFFEE AND GIVING BLOWJOBS. 

And I thought that I was crazy. This shit is fucking Looney Tunes, man.

Edited February 20, 2016 by AlexInsane

[Rassah]

20 minutes ago, AlexInsane said:

I'm sorry, the idea that you can appeal to people's better natures in an anarchist environment is just...wrong.

Appealing to people's better natures in general is just wrong. 

Why do you need to appeal to people's better nature in an anarchist environment?

I'm not even going to address your second bit of craziness. Though I will say that YOU are perfectly free to give your money to whoever. Even government. We won't protest or try to stop you.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[PastryOfApathy]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Really the general idea is that smart people know that religion is just lies and made up bullshit, and smarter people know that statism is just another religion.

If not wanting to live in a terrible anarchist society is a religion, then bitcoin is too. I mean if you pick a random post and replace the word bitcoin with Jesus, you would look like some kind of fanatical zealot.

8 minutes ago, Rassah said:

No, I do not. They're very easy to cheat.

Yep they're bullshit, just like IQ tests.

[AlexInsane]

11 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Why do you need to appeal to people's better nature in an anarchist environment?

I'm not even going to address your second bit of craziness.

That is exactly what you said, is it not? That in order to prevent anarchists from actually, y'know, behaving like anarchists, you have to have something in the way of total moral and mental disintegration? A hand steering the chaos? You have to say "Whoa there, friend, blowing up that bridge just for laughs might be fun, but y'know what would be even MORE fun? Charging people to walk across it!".

You're trying to convert people, but the way I see it you're not onto much of a certainty. 

Edited February 20, 2016 by AlexInsane

[ZorroValdez]

I've got some anarchy for ya.

Once up-on a time there was ten pounds of a bag of pork. This was something that had no real fiscal value or fear of groundwater. If it really watched the the Red Sea rise to the depths of Yosemite that the boob-meat found it's own father. The realism arrived at half past thirty frowns purchased by a box of girl scout cookies. Followed by Kato and Nash reaching the mines of Moria known to thrive on phallic strange brought on by the idea of a filter. Did the clown have to ask why his eggs were boiled to point of singularity that Deitrich comprehended the underscore? Of course, the baby's diaper was full, growing above and beyond senile rabbits freed by the Nazis. Do we really want cable? Lagos. Nebuchadnezzar eats it. When asked, rule 34 becomes prominent under the plutocracy. We want our waffles greened with chia pets on the verge of suicidal rags bent on the destruction of goats. Furthermore we have no proof that Sasquatch has balls, only falaffels. Eaten by the rancor, Katniss frowned her mice into oblivion speeding up its navel growth. We want a wall made of the Oakland Raiders! Not Calgary! Never had the prince wished for a sense of decency relevant to its own hedonism. Persauaded by the Chupacabra dogs dealing heroin jointly under the Reich. Male menopause dried them, killing the hounds regally with a lack of prejudice. Marbles. They're gone.

[AlexInsane]

3 minutes ago, ZorroValdez said:

Nebuchadnezzar eats it.

Okay, if this is anarchy, I might just be able to get behind it.

Pretty sure it's just word salad though.

4 minutes ago, ZorroValdez said:

Furthermore we have no proof that Sasquatch has balls, only falaffels.

FUCK ME, I'M GOING TO DIE. 

[Pignog]

there are no anarchists allowed in our great canadian federation, we dont allow em

also if no state then who will regulate the price of timbits??

[Yarra]

Just now, Pignog said:

there are no anarchists allowed in our great canadian federation, we dont allow em

also if no state then who will regulate the price of timbits??

pbpbpbp Anarchy in Canada?  What would it take?

[Pignog]

Just now, Yarra said:

pbpbpbp Anarchy in Canada?  What would it take?

its impossible. weve become slaves to the socialist state

"people learn too love theyre chains..." -- Murray Rothbard

[Yarra]

Are you in Alberta?

[Rassah]

24 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

If not wanting to live in a terrible anarchist society is a religion...

No, believing in sacred texts that create morality, give you freedoms, and grant special powers, and worshipping some people as some sort of holy men who are above us, who sometimes wear fancy hats and costumes and work in cathedrals (have you seen state capitol buildings?) is religion. Your rights don't magically appear because some person wrote them on paper, and politicians aren't special people. They're normal obnoxious greedy assholes just  like the rest of us.

26 minutes ago, AlexInsane said:

That is exactly what you said, is it not? That in order to prevent anarchists from actually, y'know, behaving like anarchists, you have to have something in the way of total moral and mental disintegration? A hand steering the chaos?

Oh! Nonono, there's no hand steering the chaos. No one is in charge, controlling things. People just want to live in safety and peace, and dislike anyone who threatens their safety and peace. We just provide the tools they can use to protect themselves from those who would threaten their safety and peace.

I mean, I'm assuming that's at least one thing we can all agree on here, right? You all want safety and peace, and a way to protect yourselves from anyone who might threaten that?

Or, for some more concrete real world examples, you guys want to get rid of the banker and Wall Street cartels that caused the 2008 collapse, for those in UK the bankers who screwed with the LIBOR rate to steal money, and for those in some parts of Europe the bankers who charge negative interest rates, stealing your money just for you keeping it in the bank? And those bank's buddies the credit card companies that take 3% of everything we buy, making all things we buy 3% more expensive?

Or tell eBay to go f themselves and their 10% fees?

Or Uber the same for their 25% fees and gouging practices?

Or lawyers for basically being lawyers?

@ZorroValdez The irony is that language is actually anarchy. There are no laws governing its structure, and its form and structure stems from chaos, simply from social consensus. It's one proof that anarchy can actually develop rules and structure, even complex ones, all on its own.

So thanks for that reminder

[Rassah]

33 minutes ago, Pignog said:

there are no anarchists allowed in our great canadian federation, we dont allow em.

Uh, your security sucks then. I just hired a developer in Toronto who is an anarchist

[Vallium]

I never read Rassah's lectures because Im too lazy and there's too much drama so I kind of just lurk and nod

Kind of like what I do in real life

[ZorroValdez]

ANARCHY

[Rassah]

31 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

I never read Rassah's lectures because Im too lazy...

And I write way too much. I'm really sorry about that.

Maybe some anarchy in pictures? 

I've got more, but I'll save them for later.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[AlexInsane]

24 minutes ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

I never read Rassah's lectures because Im too lazy and there's too much drama so I kind of just lurk and nod

Kind of like what I do in real life

That's how they get you. You just nod and look vaguely aware and sometimes grunt and the next thing you know you're arm deep in some guys innards with no idea of how you got there. 

[AlexInsane]

32 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Oh! Nonono, there's no hand steering the chaos. No one is in charge, controlling things. People just want to live in safety and peace, and dislike anyone who threatens their safety and peace. We just provide the tools they can use to protect themselves from those who would threaten their safety and peace.

I mean, I'm assuming that's at least one thing we can all agree on here, right? You all want safety and peace, and a way to protect yourselves from anyone who might threaten that?

It's amusing to me that you claim to be different from something you're exactly like. 

Safety and peace are delusions. There never has been nor ever will be any such things as these. I'll admit there are people who are good at selling the dream that these things are real, but they aren't. Life is change, and change is death and pain and fear and insanity.

Think you're safe? You're not. Even if you were in the safest room surrounded by the best bodyguards and personal protection tech money could buy, you still wouldn't be safe. Not safe ENOUGH. You could still die. You still WILL die. So no, you're not safe. Let's put that to bed right now. 

What is peace? Quiet? A break in the madness of life? People getting along? Ever notice how, y'know, when you're on break at work, you're not REALLY on break? Your mind and body are still at work - it overhangs your opportunities to relax and let your guard down. And even when you're at home, preparing to wind down for the day, what peace is there? There are a million billion things to be done in every second we're given and we can only do so much and THERE'S STILL ALL THIS OTHER SHIT LEFT TO DO THAT WE'LL NEVER GET AROUND TO. What is peace to that knowledge?

[Rassah]

7 minutes ago, AlexInsane said:

It's amusing to me that you claim to be different from something you're exactly like. 

Safety and peace are delusions. There never has been nor ever will be any such things as these. I'll admit there are people who are good at selling the dream that these things are real, but they aren't. Life is change, and change is death and pain and fear and insanity.

Think you're safe? You're not. ...

I think you're taking that a bit to extreme. I just mean no one is stabbing you, beating you, threatening you, robbing you, or breaking and destroying your stuff. Yes, you have other things to worry about of course (my mind seems to never stop working unless I'm asleep), but at least we want those basics.

Unless you're one of those who wants destruction and chaos, just to take your mind off your inner demons?

 

Unrelated:

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[FlynnCoyote]

So how does healthcare and such work in an environment like this? Who regulates and commissions research for medical and other technological advances? How do these then be made available to those that need them? Are we just supposed to let the physically infirm die because they're physically infirm? What kind of education is available in an anarchist state? How is it regulated? What incentive is there for people to work as a society if the lucky few can hoard resources and leave everyone else out to dry?

Honestly, Anarchy sounds like an ideal opportunity for some ambitious bastard to sleaze and doublecross his way into forming his own little North Korea in his own backyard. It sounds about as practical as Bitcoin. :v

[Pignog]

6 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

So how does healthcare and such work in an environment like this? Who regulates and commissions research for medical and other technological advances? How do these then be made available to those that need them? Are we just supposed to let the physically infirm die because they're physically infirm? What kind of education is available in an anarchist state? How is it regulated? What incentive is there for people to work as a society if the lucky few can hoard resources and leave everyone else out to dry?

Honestly, Anarchy sounds like an ideal opportunity for some ambitious bastard to sleaze and doublecross his way into forming his own little North Korea in his own backyard. It sounds about as practical as Bitcoin. :v

In Canada, officially a socialist state under weedlord trudeau sitting atop his throne of bongs, we have universal healthcare because of social democrats led by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

in anrchy healthcare is more DIY. if you want a blood transfusion you go murder a person (which is fine because there are no rights, they're a social construct) and drink their blood from your skull goblet while you feast on the spoils of war (timbits)

 

[Khaki]

9 hours ago, AlexInsane said:

People don't have better natures. Didn't you know that? I mean, we are ANIMALS, and nowhere are we more like animals than when we have nothing to stop us from behaving like animals, i.e., the hypothetical anarchist state we're discussing. We're all horrible people, deep down. There's not one of us who wouldn't gladly smash someone's face in just for the novelty of it if there were no consequences for doing so. 

No thank you, I'd be more concerned that you would consider doing such things.

I'd imagine this scenario would result in a quick purge of unwanted trouble makers from the gene pool.

Blood feuds and Lynch mobs anyone?

 

[PastryOfApathy]

>People seriously debating Rassah

guys pls

[jcstinks]

14 hours ago, Rassah said:

But, myself aside, you've heard of Mensa, the high IQ society? There's a group above that that's even more restrictive. When polled, turned out they were mostly anarchist/libertarian too.

IQ is a spurious way of measuring someone's overall intellectual ability. It is mostly used in a clinical context to differentiate between persons with mental retardation and persons without. Marginal gains in IQ over 100 (mean) has not been proven to have a causal link with life outcomes.

[#00Buck]

Someone does not understand how anarchy works. 

[Pignog]

my iq is 420 bitches smoek weed erryday ha ha no but really fuck iq tests

[#00Buck]

4 minutes ago, Pignog said:

my iq is 420 bitches smoek weed erryday ha ha no but really fuck iq tests

My IQ is super high. 

Weed is for people who can't cope with reality.