Orogun01

He's hispanic not white. Hispanic is not a race.

I can understand why you might perceive me that way. I am passionate about this, but I also make a point to speak in basic and unambiguous terms (invoking, oppression, theft, murder) to cut to the root. First, one cannot remove their participation from The State. If I and a group of others were to hypothetically homestead wilderness, we would be fine until we were discovered. Once discovered, we'd be taxed under threat of violence and likely fined for not abiding by that territory's authority (building permits, etc.). The situation would then be binary. Fight for freedom and potentially die, or submit and be yoked. This cannot be argued. Second, I do not believe The State keeps evil people restrained. For the most part, it gives them employment. That employment also gives them power to organize and propel society towards degrees of destruction and atrocity that would never be possible if people had to freely unite and pool scarce resources to commit. Governments give us tanks, hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, etc. These things are wildly impractical, expensive, dangerous to produce, and provide absolutely no productive value. There is absolutely no incentive to develop these kinds of devices outside of State violence. No doubt there might be some turf wars or family blood feuds, but these are trivial in comparison to scale of wars and destruction that only a State can engender. I said that it was expansive but not impossible, there are still areas in the world where there is no civilization or where it exists in its lowest stage. Although I would't recommend settling there without some psychopathic murderers to protect you from the other psychopathic murderers. Anarchy is very naive, it ignores both the state of nature and society's benefits in favor of some ideal version of humanity that can exists with each other with no moderation. I still haven't seen my points about the futility of Anarchy as it just reverts humanity to an earlier stage from which they will work their way back to a society. Or about how those virtues you base your alternative on, emerged from society. You seem to treat the state as a nebulous cognizant entity where in reality it is just made of people whose quality determines the state of the nation. I don't think you have a clear basis on both what the state is and what individuals are. I would like to hear what you think those concepts are.

I do not think that an anarchistic society would be a utopia. I recognize that evil exists, and shall persist indefinitely. It is my belief that there are better ways to deal with human nature and societal complexity. My main grievances are thus: Distilled to logical conclusion, compulsory government is immoral; and therefore can never ultimately do good. The State does more to foster and insure evil than such a structure can possible prevent or mitigate. The State actually fosters significantly worse harm on a catastrophically greater scope than would ever exist otherwise. The State prevents people, both directly and indirectly from pursuing more realistic, practical, and effective solutions. It's not that I think I am perfect, or that other humans are. I do believe that The State prevents humans from becoming better people though. Much like dogma and superstition are the underdeveloped person's substitution for philosophy, The State is the religious cognitive dissonance of those not yet brave enough to acknowledge history and human nature. Edited for clarity. I think you're projecting your personal view way too much into your model of what the state is, and you're quite possibly ignoring a fact that you are clearly stating. If you know people are evil then how would removing the one thing that keeps them reined in be a good thing? What do you mean by acknowledging history and human nature? For someone who seems to hate the state you seem very keen to use its byproducts to support your ideology. Also government isn't compulsory, its is just expansive and hard to get away from but you're free to go into the wilderness and live off the grid in whatever country you wish. I don't understand how you say that evil comes from humans and yet somehow the state is guilty of fostering, if such thing were true then no one would be subjugated to it for long periods of time. Also, there are some things you seem to be ignoring: The only reason why you have a concept of "better" or anarchy or virtue is because the state allowed men to specialize in tasks and gave a vehicle to those ideas. Quite frankly (and I mean no offense) you're coming off as an edgy teenager that has started rebelling against his/her father (the state) for no reason, despite all that it did for them.

You should see what I name my chants, you'd think that reading "Kana has stopped chanting You touch My Tra La La" gets old. It doesn't.

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed. I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate. It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions. People gravitate towards The State for solutions for a variety of very common reasons. The State exists. Why bother negotiating with anyone when you can simply get The Masters to do what you want without consideration? It doesn't always work out that way--but that's why people pursue that avenue. The State exists. How many thousands of years did it take people to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the church? The State exists. Coming to solutions outside of The State, or without its blessing often provoke its attack. See homeschooling, food co-operatives, small businesses, etc. Indoctrination, erm, compulsory education in State (approved) schools. Civics. Pledge of Allegiance. It's a secular religion. Laziness. (See bullet #1) Fear. (See bullet #1) Greed. (See bullet #1) Ignorance. (See bullet #4) Evil. (See: Politicians, Ulterior Motives, etc.) Vestiges of monotheism are probably more significant that I note here, but this is a pretty casual list. Hyperbole and emotion aside there where some good points there. Yet they describe a malfunctioning state, if your argument is that the State is corruptible and should therefore be done away with I would ask you if you think you're perfect or otherwise will you do away with yourself. It seems like an extreme solution for a problem that doesn't require it, government needs and overhaul not an amputation.

That's a fallacy. If they are "like-minded", then they do not need a coercive body to compel them to cooperate. The State actually destroys cooperation, because instead of getting to know your neighbors, working things out, compromising, and taking responsibility for your community--people petition to paternal state. This doesn't create bonds or society. At best, this creates proxy aggression were no social cohesiveness can ever reasonably or realistically formed. I was actually talking more along the lines of a cabinet or a senate. It also looks as if you have a very misguided view of communities; its weird how you hold the state accountable for what in your example is a choice by the community. Plus, you don't put forth any explanation as to why communities gravitate towards the state for solutions.

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need The question wasn't how best to tax the serfs, it was 'why do you need someone to rule over you?' Because for every form of decision making you need an arbiter that has the last word, otherwise people will splinter off into smaller groups that are ripe for the taking by larger ones. The best way for social groups to operate is under the guidance of an individual or a group of like minded individuals that have a sense of direction.

Ok, were getting into weird territory. Do you guys mind keeping the discussion clean, please?

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives. Sure but lowering government expenditure is something that should happen anyway and is what most governments aspire to achieve I like the free market concept but there will always be certain things that any government will want to be responsible for to ensure fairness and reasonable control of so its not abused by the private sector So free markets aren't the solution for everything ? You're such an optimist. Government is not a cohesive thing, democratic governments are a game of exquisite corpse where each incumbent tries to leave their mark and somewhere along time comes one that ****s up the composition. Government spending isn't going to be fixed until it becomes a problem for the government, as long as they can throw money at a problem that's what they'll do. Free markets should not be directly regulated, it is different from regulating substances. The problem lies less with the free market than how regulation has made sure that there isn't any competition. As well as raising the entry cap and growth for small businesses that are not big enough to make use of tax loopholes. As what we have isn't a free market due to regulation I will say that indeed the solution is a free market and that direct regulation just stifles it creating oligarchies and duopolies.

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives.

Huh? What don't we know, are you saying Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother aren't responsible ? I think he clearly said "we don't know"

On hindsight I probably should have spent time splitting the thread up into two but my supper was starting to burn... Was it hot dogs?

Mysterious plague, people going crazy, you are a doctor. What else is there to discuss?

Classes, in the sense of privileged groups, arise as a result of two principles: accumulation of wealth (be it land or capital) and force. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's profession being more or less useful, as throughout history, the "profession" of landowner has consistently accumulated the most privileges and power, while at the same time being, arguably, the most useless to the community. Nowadays landowners have lost clout relative to "financiers" and other equally useless "professions", while those who do the heavy lifting in the world, i.e. teachers, doctors, engineers etc. just get by. The society we have today is the result of using those two principles as the cornerstone of human interactions. Marx was starting from the point of a civilized society after they have gained a concept of currency and capital ownership. In a tribal setting there is no way to accumulate wealth but there are desired status within the group for which all members vie. It is not the people who choose what is necessary and in demand but rather the nebulous thing called society, a necessary profession will raise in value (both socially and economically) when there is a scarcity of practitioners. Redundant and obsolete professions are the only ones that are culled. There are however, artificially inflated professions that only exist and are in demand because either their relation to other more useful ones or because of popularity. I do agree with your last point about losing human interaction, in a society where all your needs can be met in an impersonal matter there is no need for it. Rather it becomes a commodity to be sold for those that want it.

A plague outbreak of boneitits during which all societal notions of decency begins to unravel and it thrust the country into chaos? You know Pathologic: Chiropractor edition.

Anarchy is the only rational form of association. Note that anarchy is not mutually exclusive to law or cooperation. Absent a compulsory state, anarchy actually fosters cooperation, civilization, and society. Unfortunately, humans are by and large too lay and gullible to avoid falling for the tired, millennia old lies of narcissistic sociopaths that claim we need to coercively organize through murder, theft, and violence in order to prevent those very crimes. Anarchy is just closer to a state of nature it just removes the consolidation of power from the few to a larger number. Humans naturally come together to make up for their weaknesses, when groups reach large proportions then individuals begin specializing. Since some professions are more sought out or useful than others then they gain privileges within the group, that's the foundation of society and classes. When different groups of people that are this stage encounter each other the larger one will assimilate or destroy the smaller one, only when the number is similar is diplomacy necessary. The society we have today is the result of clashes between different groups over the course of time. Going back to an earlier point because you don't like the present state is futile, it just invites chaos and can only benefit those that seek to restructure society and place themselves at the top. Also; >seriously believing Anarchy to be a solution How's high school treating you?

The pendelum is slowly turning back to sanity. Brace for the next wave of hypersanity.

...Not really? I'm saying a classless system would perform better. But currently that is unfeasible due to the moral crisis induced by capitalism. A classless system is impossible in our current economical models, as there is capital there are those who own it and rise above the rest. The only difference is the distribution of capital but its possession will always create a preferred class.

While I find the comparison agreeable I don't think that its accurate, Socrates criticism was of direct democracy. His belief regarding representative democracy was that the elected officials would become corrupt or couldn't adequately understand perspectives other than their own (e.g: rich man trying to find a solution to help the poor)

The point I tried to make was that their training seems less focused on diffusing situations rather than responding with full force. There's a world of difference with making mistakes while doing your job and having been trained wrong. @Hurlshot: While I'm all for freedom of speech I can understand why a police department might not want to be associated with them, still the problem should be handled at a Federal level (which my conspiracy sense tells me that its the whole point of publicizing these transgressions) Edit: I just realized that that last part could be misinterpreted to mean that the racist's cop case should be handled at a federal level. I meant to say that the police brutality and investigations into police corruption should be handled at a federal level rather than by IA. Absolutely not. I'm not sure if there is a worse case scenario than that. Putting aside the fact that the Feds have no authority to do such a thing, centralizing that kind of power would be worse than letting the foxes in the hen house. There is no simple solution in regards to fixing the police brutality and abuse issue. There's a myriad of causes and different departments/localities have different problems. The solution is at the local and state level. The only thing to be done at the Federal level in regards to local police forces would be to amend the Constitution to forbid the oodles of immunity and special privileges laws that have been given to public officials and police over the last century. That isn't happening anytime soon. But the problem is the local and state levels; politicians want to show results and buff their graphs to show decrease in crime, so they put it to the departments to redouble their efforts. Hence quotas which are handed down from the top down to prove that they are doing something about crime.

Heh, "social programming". It almost sounds like you accept the premise that people's thinking can be influenced by unquestioned and widely held societal norms. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are workshops out there talking about changing attitudes and behaviour through gaming....[snip] I'm just surprised you guys are capable of recognizing the phenomenon but still think patriarchy as an idea is insane. What can I say? I'm a cat person. Seriously though, I have no idea what you're getting at. I'm talking about conditioned reflexes and how you can program animals to response in a particular way to stimuli. That said, what discredits the notion of a Patriarchy is both the lack of direction and intent (there is no one really trying to demean women) and the amount of competing information (women's representation that are not demeaning). The absurdity is that under the idea of Patriarchy subjective reason dictates that due to the tainted nature of the source every content must be tainted as well. So unless a feminist priest decides that it's Kosher then it must be corrupt because of reasons. It is a thought model that they want to force on everyone because they believe that it will achieve their ultimate goal of feminist equality; so less of a science and more of a religion. It ultimately comes down to this; what carries more influence in dictating human behavior, reality or fiction? Most of us believe that people are rational and will form opinions and thought models based on their life experiences rather than fiction. Fiction only creates thought models when its the only source of information, if they don't have any other input then it would lead to misguided notions.

Heh, "social programming". It almost sounds like you accept the premise that people's thinking can be influenced by unquestioned and widely held societal norms. Said Pavlov's dog (or cat if your avatar is an actual picture of yourself)

Its hard to beat that social programming that tells you that if you believe in conspiracies you're a nut and people will shun you. I've no problem with an idea just because its a bit far out there, I just need some evidence that supports it.

I imagine this is the "support Obsidian during this trying time thread" If so count with me.