Petition to ban trump from facebook and twitter for hate "speech"

Venus55

Venus55

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
no, i'm not saying that...i said ^that....republicans are a good bit worse than democrats, but neither are angles, by any means...a kid who kills small animals for fun is much worse than a chronic masturbator...but i wouldn't vote for either one....
Click to expand...
I wish I could like this twice
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Venus55 said:
Do your own historical research I’m not here to do it for you. Because one lies does not necessarily make one “corrupt”.

More often than not, a statist's argument against Anarchism boils down to an unwillingness to take control and responsibility for their own lives, actions, and communities. The sad truth is that the human animal has been domesticated to the point where it actually fears Liberty.
Click to expand...
Everybody lies. How about that? What makes the lie important is the intent and the effect it has.

Yes, I linked your statement about lies to something that is important, corruption. Those are the lies that matter. Not the ones where the politician praises an ugly baby. Was that your point? That sometimes politicians say what people want to hear in order to get elected? That is obvious. But I think you are too smart to have meant simply that.

A good argument against Anarchism is that it is a baseless philosophy that ignores human behavior, just like the one Marx dreamed up. Also in the same bin as conservative Libertarians. We don't know what would be the ideal government because we don't really understand mankind yet. We keep trying different ways to organize in comparatively large societies and the successful experiments are the ones that survive. Majority rule and rule of law with a capitalistic economy has won out over communism, for example. Not that I think it's the best, it's just what has worked best thus far.

Can you name any modern society (post-1800) that had a thriving population and was able to defend itself, able to grow and was based upon Anarchy? Ursula LeGuin named several but they were all fictional utopias. While I liked the society she wrote about in The Dispossessed, I never took it seriously as a model for the real world. Although, I liked some of her ideas.
 
Venus55

Venus55

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
She's Australian. I can't say how it is down under. I can say that broadly casting everybody as crooks just because they hold political office is mindless cynicism. Nothing wrong with being skeptical but what Venus posted was cynical, not skeptical. Skeptics follow up and look for facts. Cynics simply believe the world is out to get them or hold them down or cheat them.

Over the past 20 years, there have been a number of corruption cases on both sides. Probably more on the Republican side but I'm not disputing Democratic Party politicians have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Though the idea that they are all corrupt without any reason to say so is disputable. OTOH Trump and his right wing Republican party have abandoned following the rule of law in their quest for power, money and influence. They are taking corruption while in office to a different level.
Click to expand...
Being a permanent resident and a national are not the same.
 
Dieseltech

Dieseltech

Well-Known Member
The dems should just offer Donald a prime time game show hosting job

The could offer him the lets make a deal and even secure broadcasting rights in russia

He would step down no way he could resist his own show
 
Venus55

Venus55

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
A good argument against Anarchism is that it is a baseless philosophy that ignores human behavior, just like the one Marx dreamed up. Also in the same bin as conservative Libertarians. We don't know what would be the ideal government because we don't really understand mankind yet. We keep trying different ways to organize in comparatively large societies and the successful experiments are the ones that survive. Majority rule and rule of law with a capitalistic economy has won out over communism, for example. Not that I think it's the best, it's just what has worked best thus far.

Can you name any modern society (post-1800) that had a thriving population and was able to defend itself, able to grow and was based upon Anarchy? Ursula LeGuin named several but they were all fictional utopias. While I liked the society she wrote about in The Dispossessed, I never took it seriously as a model for the real world. Although, I liked some of her ideas.
Click to expand...
“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Venus55 said:
“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
Click to expand...
Yes Anarchism is a wild fancy unless you can tell me where and when in the past, a successful society based upon Anarchy philosophy has ever thrived and defended itself. I think it's based upon wishful thinking and not on the human animal. I don't think we can just will ourselves to be better either.

Agree that lab experiments won't do much to explain people's society. We have so much to learn about ourselves, our brains, the way we socialize the way we communicate, how we agree, disagree or find a way to live together with those disagreements that to say any one way "is best" is unjustified confidence. Until we understand ourselves better, trial and error method that allows our systems to evolve makes more sense. I think that we are socially evolving past the time when religion can be used as an organizing tool like we did not too long ago and I don't think we've found anything that is better either.

We are an intensely social primate. Not saying that we are the same as the great apes but I see no examples of Anarchism in our nearest relatives. If it is such a great idea then it should be expressed somewhere in the form of an advantage for survival somewhere.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Why do you care about masturbation, assuming it's done in private?
Click to expand...
don't really, just the first thing i thought of that was distasteful but not "bad"....

what motivations are enough to excuse anything anyone did?...Nixon wasn't trying to save the world, and neither was Wilbur Mills...they both fucked up and got caught doing it...one infraction was much worse than the other, but that doesn't mean the lesser didn't occur, or that there was some kind of "purer motive" for it...
i'm all in favor of cracking the whip on politicians bullshit...but if you think you only have to keep an eye on the republicans, you're going to find out a very different truth...
did all the democratic presidents between republicans withdraw troops from countries with oil we had invaded?
 
Venus55

Venus55

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yes Anarchism is a wild fancy unless you can tell me where and when in the past, a successful society based upon Anarchy philosophy has ever thrived and defended itself. I think it's based upon wishful thinking and not on the human animal. I don't think we can just will ourselves to be better either.

Agree that lab experiments won't do much to explain people's society. We have so much to learn about ourselves, our brains, the way we socialize the way we communicate, how we agree, disagree or find a way to live together with those disagreements that to say any one way "is best" is unjustified confidence. Until we understand ourselves better, trial and error method that allows our systems to evolve makes more sense. I think that we are socially evolving past the time when religion can be used as an organizing tool like we did not too long ago and I don't think we've found anything that is better either.

We are an intensely social primate. Not saying that we are the same as the great apes but I see no examples of Anarchism in our nearest relatives. If it is such a great idea then it should be expressed somewhere in the form of an advantage for survival somewhere.
Click to expand...
“A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution—in fact the best example to my knowledge—is the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside looks spontaneous. Though in fact if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment and thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial—though not totally pre-industrial—society. And that again was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe, and in fact you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. How relevant the Spanish experience is to an advanced industrial society. one might question in detail.”
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Venus55 said:
“A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution—in fact the best example to my knowledge—is the Spanish revolution in 1936, in which over most of Republican Spain there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside looks spontaneous. Though in fact if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment and thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial—though not totally pre-industrial—society. And that again was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe, and in fact you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. How relevant the Spanish experience is to an advanced industrial society. one might question in detail.”
Click to expand...
Didn't thrive and didn't defend itself.

As a society, it was a dead end. A society that doesn't successfully defend itself ends in disaster for the people in it. I'm not knocking the ideal, I'm just pointing out that you are championing a system that lasted a decade or so and ended in disaster for its people.

That said,at least one corporation with Anarchist roots remains -- Mondragon and it is viable in Spain. From what I've read, they aren't exactly utopia for the people in them but they are probably a better situation for the common worker than the status quo outside of them.

https://anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Mondragon
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Lord Kanti said:
Great idea. Show the world that the leftists of America are anti 1st and 2nd amendment. They've already shat all over the 5th. Might as well go down the list. 8-)
Click to expand...
when did you get your letter to turn in your guns and ammo?

a day? week? month? year? decade? century ago?

ever?
 
gearshift

gearshift

Well-Known Member
I can not sign a petition on Facebook, I banned myself from that site.
I have enjoyed reading the replies, thanks @Roger A. Shrubber.
However since I also just found out that I banned myself from this thread, I believe I will go masturbate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top