Anarchy!!!

[Rassah]

@Machine Why not include the whole definition and etymology?

an·ar·chy

noun

• a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

• absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Origin

Greek

an-  (without)

-arkhos (chief, ruler)

 

Basically anarchy just means no authority, no rulers. The "disorder" and "chaos" were probably added later, probably by the same people who would personally lose out if the idea of anarchy started to seem too acceptable to the people they ruled over, hint-hint nudge-nudge. Instead, anarchy is a dynamic state of self-directed order. People choose leaders they want to follow, like bosses, community organizers, etc, forming groups to accomplish complex tasks, and stop following them just as easily when the task is done, the group breaking up and forming into other groups to do other tasks. It's basically the way nature has worked for millions of years, until some douchbags decided they would force those in his group to keep following him and obeying his bidding "or else." And since then we've considered that craziness as normal.

[FlynnCoyote]

Because it provides a measure of stability and reliability that your system wouldn't be able to enforce.

I have Chron's Disease and require fortnightly doses of Humira. It's an expensive and specalized medication and without it I would be living with constant pain. I am just one example. What happens when the people making medicine decide they want more for it? Or decide they simply don;t want to make medicine anymore? What if nobody else knows how? There was nothing to regulate the creation and distribution but the goodness of people's hearts, and now that goodness has run out. A bunch of people are now screwed.

Gee, thanks Anarchy. :v

[evan]

7 hours ago, Rassah said:

 The "disorder" and "chaos" were probably added later, probably by the same people who would personally lose out if the idea of anarchy started to seem too acceptable to the people 

you literally just tried to claim that a synonym of a word is a conspiracy against the merit of anarchy

[Endless/Nameless]

2 hours ago, evan said:

you literally just tried to claim that a synonym of a word is a conspiracy against the merit of anarchy

Don't confuse connotation with definition. 

[evan]

8 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Don't confuse connotation with definition. 

That is very easily a rule of thumb that should be applied to a large amount of whats been said here, not simply my criticism of his logic.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

[DrGravitas]

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

This post made me say to myself "Wait, what's the color of Rassah's balls again?" Well done.

[Pignog]

 

 

[Rassah]

19 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I have Chron's Disease and require fortnightly doses of Humira. It's an expensive and specalized medication and without it I would be living with constant pain. I am just one example. What happens when the people making medicine decide they want more for it? Or decide they simply don;t want to make medicine anymore? 

Will you be willing to pay for that medicine? How much are you paying now, $100 a pill? What if I sell for $95? What of my competition undercuts me and sells for $90? And we end up in a price war, where we end up selling it for cost plus small profit, for $25? Would you still be willing to pay for it? What if another competitor comes up with an even better alternative and starts selling it for $5, without bothering to wait 5 to 10 years of going through the bureaucratic approval process? You are focusing on one side if the issue here - getting "free" money to help you pay for the pills - while ignoring the other side - why are those pills so expensive in the first place?

What do you think makes your pills so expensive, so difficult to obtain, and for newer better cheaper medications to start being available in a timely matter? It's not the free market...

 

14 hours ago, evan said:

you literally just tried to claim that a synonym of a word is a conspiracy against the merit of anarchy

A synonym or alternative/expanded definition is based on colloquial and social uses of the word. That social use was changed. In part by TPTB that "Need to remind you why you need them," and in part to those anarcho-commie assholes that know jack shit about economics, protest against "capitalism," and start riots breaking shit and throwing molotov cocktails everywhere.

 

10 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

The yellow flag is missing a black corner on the bottom-right. Thing is, Anarcho-Communism is actually "not anarchism." If someone decides to voluntarily trade labor for capital, saves up capital, uses it to start a business (factories and whatever), and offers to hire people to work for him, as any good AnarchoCapitalist would strive for, AnarchoCommunists would try to stop him, complaining that his business isn't commonly owned, that he's not obeying the horizontal community requirement where everyone is equal, and will actually try to take his business for common use. Even if it was obtained entirely voluntary through mutual exchange. And to enforce those commie requirements, AnarchoCommunists will need to appoint someone in power, a "state" if you will, that will enforce their laws, under the threat of a gun of necessary. AnCaps are basically all about voluntary exchange and personal freedom, even if you want to sell a few hours of your time/labor to someone else, while AnComs can only create their society through force and abolition of personal freedom, Soviet style.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

Sorry, was recently reminded on something on the topics here, and reminded again in the child labor laws thread:

Are things like roads, police, firemen, schools, (and child labor standards), etc. SO despised by society, that they require  the threat of armed government force and imprisonment to force people to support? Is that really the only thing that keeps people pretending to want those things?

[MalletFace]

As much as Rassah thinks he knows about these movements, I would assume by now he would know how to interpret something as simple as this.

Or he would know what a wildcat is and what it has to do with Noam Chomsky.

Or he would know why the AIT is not on best footing anymore.

Or he would know how this aided anarcho-communists/syndicalists.

There is always a point at which you can say "I don't know, show me." You do not have to know everything, and assuming you do hurts other people.

[Crazy Lee]

On 3/10/2016 at 11:29 PM, Rassah said:

Will you be willing to pay for that medicine? How much are you paying now, $100 a pill? What if I sell for $95? What of my competition undercuts me and sells for $90? And we end up in a price war, where we end up selling it for cost plus small profit, for $25? Would you still be willing to pay for it? What if another competitor comes up with an even better alternative and starts selling it for $5, without bothering to wait 5 to 10 years of going through the bureaucratic approval process? You are focusing on one side if the issue here - getting "free" money to help you pay for the pills - while ignoring the other side - why are those pills so expensive in the first place?

What do you think makes your pills so expensive, so difficult to obtain, and for newer better cheaper medications to start being available in a timely matter? It's not the free market...

Yes, but what if the actual cost of the pill, including manufacturing, shipping, and the amount the pharmacy adds to it for profit, not mentioning advertising costs, administrative costs, and whatever other costs the maker of the pill needs to get in order to keep their business afloat, do additional research, and make a profit (hello runon sentence!), ends up making the base cost of that pill $50? Or say $25? Eventually the price will go as low as it can go. Any further lower and the company is actually losing money. The price of that pill can only go down so far.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

>Child labor laws

Not exactly related, but it should be noted that corporations have no real reason to care about their employees' health unless something particularly domineering comes along and forcibly compels them to comply with a new standard that potently emphasizes workplace safety.

Prior to the enactment of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act and the subsequent institution of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), companies didn't have any authentic incentive to ensure that the welfare of their workers was guaranteed. In fact, it was often the case that merely hiring a substitute laborer to replace the former guy who got savagely mauled on the job by a four-hundred ton hydraulic press was more economically sensible than compensating him for his grievous injuries for the next ten or twenty years of his life.

They only started to give an iota of damns about the mortality of their wage slaves when Uncle Sam started bludgeoning them over their heads with heavy-handed pieces of pro-worker legislation and lawsuits that made the cost of contending with fatalities and injuries on worksites utterly unacceptable.

In your anarchist world where laissez-faire capitalism is the economic standard, these very same manufacturing companies would be immune to government mandate. People would be getting grounded into thick hamburger meat left and right and the only thing that would dynamically change is the guy who's pushing the button or pulling the lever.

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Rassah]

@MalletFace Sabotage, and don't know about the last three, but I don't keep up with insignificant retard stuff. I have more important things to read and keep track of (plus reading their crap while understanding things like economics just makes me rage).

On 3/19/2016 at 10:27 PM, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

>Child labor laws

Not exactly related, but it should be noted that corporations have no real reason to care about their employees' health..

Um, I care about my employee's health a lot. My husband's boss cares about his health too. And every job I've had, my boss always cared about my health too, since I perform poorly when I'm sick, and customers worry about getting sick. What makes you think "corporations don't care about their employees' health? What do you think corporations are?

On 3/19/2016 at 10:27 PM, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

In fact, it was often the case that merely hiring a substitute laborer to replace the former guy who got savagely mauled on the job by a four-hundred ton hydraulic press was more economically sensible than compensating him for his grievous injuries for the next ten or twenty years of his life.

That's not a corporation problem, that's our shitty unjust government justice system problem.

On 3/19/2016 at 10:27 PM, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

In your anarchist world where laissez-faire capitalism is the economic standard, these very same manufacturing companies would be immune to government mandate. People would be getting grounded into thick hamburger meat left and right and the only thing that would dynamically change is the guy who's pushing the button or pulling the lever.

No, in my laissez-faire world, worker safety would be much higher than it is now, and accidents at manufacturing companies will be unheard of. It would be an economy with a safety record envied by the world.

^ See? My argument (statement?) is just as supported and this just as valid as yours. But, if I was actually making an argument instead of stating what I feel because, then I would say something like there are actual costs to hiring and training new people, there are lost profit potentials for when your production equipment has to be shut down, accidents actually cause declines in profits, and mandated safety regulations always take money away from other areas where safety may need to be improved, and always lag behind technological developments, and thus force old outdated inefficient safety measures over newer, improved, safer onesones.

But it's easier just to say how I feel things will be, without bothering to support my feels, because feels always win in arguments.

[MalletFace]

55 minutes ago, Rassah said:

@MalletFace I don't keep up with insignificant retard stuff.

You lacking the effort is not an excuse for ignorance if you're going to be so haughty about opposing it.

If I wanted to go your route, by the way, I would've just responded with this.

[Cross]

Government is garbage, no need for anybody to tell me how to live.

[Vitaly]

Looks like Rassah found a friend :3

[PastryOfApathy]

On 3/20/2016 at 11:53 PM, Rassah said:

@MalletFace Sabotage, and don't know about the last three, but I don't keep up with insignificant retard stuff.

Spoken like a true intellectual. *tipz le bittcon xd*

Edited March 21, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Rassah]

On 3/20/2016 at 0:58 AM, MalletFace said:

You lacking the effort is not an excuse for ignorance if you're going to be so haughty about opposing it.

If I wanted to go your route, by the way, I would've just responded with this.

It's not my job to read up on their arguments and try to figure out how they can convince me they're right. It's their job. And so far they have been failing miserably, simply because their arguments don't follow logic, economics, or reality. Or history, for that matter, as every attempt to do what they propose have resulted in terrible outcomes.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]