PNWI Community Thread version 3.0 (KEEP REFRIGERATED AT ALL TIMES)

[Iskandar]

Wait, there's a middle class revolt in China?

[mph4ever]

sure, didn't you read all about it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28273651/

[Reaganista]

good

[Iskandar]

Holy ****, how did I not hear about that?

I think it's a good sign. It shows the CPC regime that lots of people don't like them and won't tolerate their rule indefinitely.

[mph4ever]

the seeds of capitalism shall tear it down, that and oil and the value of the dollar of course

[Iskandar]

When communism does end in China, it will probably be a lot like the ending days of the Soviet Union. Organized labour will probably play a large role as well as religious movements and general civil disobedience.

[ridethelib]

something tells me the parents of the revolters will be worried that they are having their family name dishonored

[mph4ever]

hours of fun for everyone

http://play.sockandawe.com/

[Mr. Ron]

Pastor Rick Warren was selected to deliver Obama's invocation lol.

[mph4ever]

in god we trust

[Dr Hooch]

obama doesn't go to church he goes to the gym instead

like a muslim

[Mr. Ron]

YEAH, exactly like a Muslim

[McP3000]

I should throw my shoes at Obama

do you think he could dodge them?

[Mr. Ron]

He's half black, so I would assume he's athletic.




ouch, too much?

[mph4ever]

no,

i'd say he might keep them too

[lfantwister]

he'd redistribute them

a shoelace here, a sole there...

[Iscariot]

nah he'd tie the laces together and sling them over a telephone line in front of the white house to designate his turf

[Knifeboy]

ahaha

[guitrguy]

you user title is lying to my face.

[siva_chair]

Your face is lying to my user title.

[Knifeboy]

you user title is lying to my face.

As soon as you read my post i've stopped posting

technically it isn't a lie

...

...

but yeah i have no reason to change my usertitle

[guitrguy]

its deceit!

[Der Übermensch]

yay! I have inauguration tickets!

[mph4ever]

yay! I have inauguration tickets!

how much were they?

[McP3000]

Your face is lying to my user title.
i dont get it

[Iskandar]

yay! I have inauguration tickets!Thought you didn't like Obama.

Though you're so mercurial it's hard to tell!:)

[Mr. Ron]

yay! I have inauguration tickets!
...you want to...stand around...with millions of people....in the cold...

[mph4ever]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5EYx1uJYhs

[spitfirejunky]

These spammers are getting desperate.

[Der Übermensch]

how much were they?

free. They are given out by lottery from your member of congress.

Thought you didn't like Obama.

Though you're so mercurial it's hard to tell!
I live in DC and its a historic moment, I might as well go.

Or I could just sell them for 10k a pop...

And what politician do I like for that matter? :p

[Pop music sucks]

I would totally scalp those tickets if I had them.

[Super Batman]

Obama is making me happier--Renegging on all those promises he made. He's leaning towards things that I agree with now, and hiring people that I like.
It surprised me, entirely.

[Der Übermensch]

We're planning on renting out our house for that weekend, so should be able to pull in a bunch of cash as it is.

[Iskandar]

Obama is making me happier--Renegging on all those promises he made. He's leaning towards things that I agree with now, and hiring people that I like.
It surprised me, entirely.He is?

[Reaganista]

obama hasnt renegged on anything conservatives have just become weird since they lost the election

[lfantwister]

i'm wierd

it's taken me a while

i finally got it

[Der Übermensch]

lol

[McP3000]

weird stuff right there

[Mister_Che]

Can anyone suggest reading material (be it articles, or books) that discuss universal theories, specifically accelerated expansion and how/when scientists came up with these observations? Thanks in advance.

[siva_chair]

Can anyone suggest reading material (be it articles, or books) that discuss universal theories, specifically accelerated expansion and how/when scientists came up with these observations? Thanks in advance.

You mean theories of the universe?

[Dr Hooch]

Can anyone suggest reading material (be it articles, or books) that discuss universal theories, specifically accelerated expansion and how/when scientists came up with these observations? Thanks in advance.

cosmologically?

Simon Singh's "big bang" and stephen hawking's "A brief history of time" (make sure you get an illustrated version) are both pretty easy to follow and really very enlightening.

Singh communicates very well and stephen hawking has such a staggering intellect that you can't help feel some of it passed on.

[siva_chair]

I second the good Dr's suggestions.

[Dr Hooch]

I'm revising cosmology RIGHT NOW.

sh!t yeah matter and radiation dominated universes.

[Mister_Che]

You mean theories of the universe?

Yep.

suggestions

Much thanks. I'll check back later in case anyone else has any more suggestions.

[RockAndRoll]

There's an interesting book by Michio Kaku on Cosmology, I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for. I don't remember what it's called off the top of my head, but I'll dig it up later and let you know.

[siva_chair]

There's an interesting book by Michio Kaku on Cosmology, I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for. I don't remember what it's called off the top of my head, but I'll dig it up later and let you know.

The String Theory guy?

I've been meaning to read one of his books (The Physics of the Impossible caught my eye the other day). Seems like a smart dude.

[Mr. Ron]

lolololololol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCD2wigqFUk

[Dr Hooch]

string theory is just pretty maths.

[Mister_Che]

There's an interesting book by Michio Kaku on Cosmology, I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for. I don't remember what it's called off the top of my head, but I'll dig it up later and let you know.

I love Michio Kaku, if only because of his rad hair and because he dumbs down everything so my little mind can understand things better. :/

[McP3000]

lolololololol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCD2wigqFUk
what a dumb story

[Mr. Ron]

I like how they completely missed the point of the sign saying "thou shall not steal"

[mph4ever]

your god is dead to me

[Dr Hooch]

I like how they completely missed the point of the sign saying "thou shall not steal"

"So you're an atheist, quoting the ten commandments. HUH?!?!?!?!"

i don't care anymore. To me Atheist has gotten stupider and stupider over the last couple of years. The Humanists have always come out on top.

[mph4ever]

"So you're an atheist, quoting the ten commandments. HUH?!?!?!?!"

i don't care anymore. To me Atheist has gotten stupider and stupider over the last couple of years. The Humanists have always come out on top.

my partners bestest friend was a humanist. the most dignified celebration of life i have yet to see

atheism is being dragged down like weird concepts such as freedom and peace and anarchy.

[Dr Hooch]

there's that on the one side, and there's the philosophers on the other side, too busy wanking over Russel and quoting Hume and arguing whether there are exactly zero gods or there are less than one gods or whatever it is they do to actually come up with any new ideas or attitudes.

Humanist used to be 'humans have become the gods' but now it's just come to mean intelligent secularists who can talk without shouting

[Iscariot]

atheism has become an obnoxiously militant cult and it's "following" is hilariously contradicting to their apparent distaste for religious hive-think

[thunderzstruck]

Much thanks. I'll check back later in case anyone else has any more suggestions.
i read "the Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene with absolutely no knowledge of theoretical physics and it was extremely enlightening. He goes through it all and into the advance discussion also. It's also easy to follow (for the subject matter, of course) and his writing touch is entertaining

It's a book I'd recommend to anyone

[Dave de Sylvia]

atheism has become an obnoxiously militant cult and it's "following" is hilariously contradicting to their apparent distaste for religious hive-think
most atheists don't care enough to talk about being atheists

[thunderzstruck]

most atheists don't care enough to talk about being atheists
yeah this is pretty much correct

[YellowRoseofTexas]

yeah this is pretty much correct

TNT i am dynomite
tnt i will not fight!!!
tnt i'm powerload
tnt watch me explode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RockAndRoll]

Parallel Worlds is the book I was thinking of.

[beastman168]

Why does Atheism carry such a bad vibe. So what if we don't believe there is a god? Personally, I'm an Agnostic, which is an Atheist w/out balls.

[mph4ever]

Why does Atheism carry such a bad vibe. So what if we don't believe there is a god? Personally, I'm an Agnostic, which is an Atheist w/out balls.

because there are a bunch of immature militant angry dickless gobshites claiming to be atheists going around shoving their immature understandng of atheism into peoples faces


"what do you mean happy christmas, jesus christ never existed and if he did then he was a failed apocalyptic prophet whose mother was raped by a ghost, a holy one that is"

[The Stig]

Why does Atheism carry such a bad vibe. So what if we don't believe there is a god? Personally, I'm an Agnostic, which is an Atheist w/out balls.

because there are a bunch of immature militant angry dickless gobshites claiming to be atheists going around shoving their immature understandng of atheism into peoples faces

I partially agree with this. Another thing I think is that believing in religion (at least most branches of mainstream Christianity) carries with it some sort of positive outlook and/or inherent optimism. When you 'shatter' that optimism by denouncing works such as purported miracles and such, some people see that as a crumbling of their crutch, if you will. I think a lot of people use a strong belief in God as a defense mechanism to avoid thinking about the bad in the world. If you have a strong, well-founded opinion on the matter that undermines this perception, a person is likely to view you in a negative light for ruining their worldview. Some people whom for lack of a better term I'll describe as weak-minded feel insecure if a defense mechanism is taken away, they can't cope, and they project it on what they feel is the cause, mainly the person who challenges their beliefs, not their own inner misgivings about the topic.

That's just me, though.

[Iscariot]

i don't use my belief in god as a crutch to avoid thinking about the bad in the world

with a little less restraint i would be a contributing factor to the bad in the world

i have urges and tendencies that would land me on death row if i didn't have my faith to keep me from acting on them

if being religious is a bad thing then i guess being a serial killer is good

[McP3000]

being religious is bad man, dont do it. you might end up addicted to it like coke or sleep

[Dr Hooch]

atheism has become an obnoxiously militant cult and it's "following" is hilariously contradicting to their apparent distaste for religious hive-think

you're thinking of Atheism with a capital

if being religious is a bad thing then i guess being a serial killer is good

Which brings it back to Humanism. Most humanists are atheist.

[McP3000]

theres a difference between atheism and Atheism, or are you kidding?

[beastman168]

Meh, idk. I guess its just how everyone always brings up the negative persona's for each argument. (e.g. christian/inquisition...atheism/stalin.) To me, all this does is overlook the human consciousness and replaces it w/ our beliefs. Regardless, I hope everyone has a happy Christmas and gets laid!

[mph4ever]

Meh, idk. I guess its just how everyone always brings up the negative persona's for each argument. (e.g. christian/inquisition...atheism/stalin.) To me, all this does is overlook the human consciousness and replaces it w/ our beliefs. Regardless, I hope everyone has a happy Christmas and gets laid!

thanks, just did

implicit atheism with a sprinkling of apathy is where it is at. we don't bother nobody

[Dr Hooch]

theres a difference between atheism and Atheism, or are you kidding?

one's a belief, one's a movement

communism and Communism man

[siva_chair]

What about comMunism?

[Dr Hooch]

What about comMunism?

I'm allergic.

[guitrguy]

Why does Atheism carry such a bad vibe. So what if we don't believe there is a god? Personally, I'm an Agnostic, which is an Atheist w/out balls.

Or an atheist with an enough sense to realize that God is not provable

[JohnXDoe]

merry christmas political peoples :)

hope you got some new shiny guns, siva. and lots of ammo to go with =]

[McP3000]

kids with guns

[siva_chair]

I'm allergic.

Yeah communism causes me to vomit so I can relate.

merry christmas political peoples :)

hope you got some new shiny guns, siva. and lots of ammo to go with =]

I didn't get any new guns, but I did get some ammo!

Thank you. Merry Christmas/Happy Festivus to you too.

[Freiheit]

Anyone ever read Guns, Germs and Steel? I'm reading it, and after a few pages of claiming that racist views of one group being more intelligent than the other is wrong and terrible, he goes right into how New Guineans are smarter than westerners?

[McP3000]

sounds dumb

never heard of it

[mph4ever]

I partially agree with this. Another thing I think is that believing in religion (at least most branches of mainstream Christianity) carries with it some sort of positive outlook and/or inherent optimism. When you 'shatter' that optimism by denouncing works such as purported miracles and such, some people see that as a crumbling of their crutch, if you will. I think a lot of people use a strong belief in God as a defense mechanism to avoid thinking about the bad in the world. If you have a strong, well-founded opinion on the matter that undermines this perception, a person is likely to view you in a negative light for ruining their worldview. Some people whom for lack of a better term I'll describe as weak-minded feel insecure if a defense mechanism is taken away, they can't cope, and they project it on what they feel is the cause, mainly the person who challenges their beliefs, not their own inner misgivings about the topic.

That's just me, though.

who are we to take that away from them. i don't like if they shove it your face.

[Der Übermensch]

Anyone ever read Guns, Germs and Steel? I'm reading it, and after a few pages of claiming that racist views of one group being more intelligent than the other is wrong and terrible, he goes right into how New Guineans are smarter than westerners?

Yeah. I really don't like the book. Too much of an apologist.

[Freiheit]

Apparently Island cultures renounced war....?

[Der Übermensch]

hardly. New Guineans are some of the most violent people out there. Lots of tribal blood feuds on that island.

[Freiheit]

Damn, I'm upset with this book

[beso negro]

i don't use my belief in god as a crutch to avoid thinking about the bad in the world

with a little less restraint i would be a contributing factor to the bad in the world

i have urges and tendencies that would land me on death row if i didn't have my faith to keep me from acting on them

if being religious is a bad thing then i guess being a serial killer is good

so religion keeps you from acting irrationally ok you don't need god to be rational just some intelligence

[Already_Taken]

Apparently Island cultures renounced war....?

makes sense to me

[mph4ever]

yeah, thats why the english never had an empire

[Already_Taken]

well english people are white, which makes them warmongers no matter where they live. however, in the case of pacific islands, those people often had little interaction with any outside people, plus is pretty hard and useless to take over an island unless its like hawaii or part of a bigger plan or w/e

[Iskandar]

The Japanese were warmongerers and they're an island people and they aren't white.

Shazam!

[McP3000]

they aren't white? Their skin color is pretty light idk if we're talking about the same japanese people

[|~Iceb0x~|]

What happened to 'beginners guide to anarchism' and 'political compass' stickies?

Did it suddenly go from "what's in with kids these days" to "what's out with kids these days"?

[YellowRoseofTexas]

What happened to 'beginners guide to anarchism' and 'political compass' stickies?

Did it suddenly go from "what's in with kids these days" to "what's out with kids these days"?

I would totally support bringing those threads back.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Oh they're 'totally back' just that there sticky option has be to set to un-sticky!

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Oh they're 'totally back' just that there sticky option has be to set to un-sticky!

Huh? Do Northerners talk like this usually? I'm drunk and make more sense.

[Iskandar]

Nobody here cares about anarchism, that's why.

[mph4ever]

eh, i do, but its a personal thing that is well satisfied without threads on here

[Iskandar]

You're too rational to be an anarchist.

Well, maybe a philosophical anarchist.

[siva_chair]

That's funny because I have yet to see a rational argument presented against anarchism on here.

And "Omg ur delusional anarchism won't werk!" hardly constitutes as one, either.

[Already_Taken]

The Japanese were warmongerers and they're an island people and they aren't white.

Shazam!

he said island cultures, not island nations. Japanese people probably have a few different cultures considering the fact that Japan is made of more than 1 island. It's hard to wage war over land, and a thousand times harder over sea.

you're grasping at straws, and considering we got 1 line of paraphrased content from a book, arguing about it from here on is pointless

[Already_Taken]

That's funny because I have yet to see a rational argument presented against anarchism on here.

And "Omg ur delusional anarchism won't werk!" hardly constitutes as one, either.

with your analogies of kindergarteners to bank robbers, stealing the tax payers money, to how somalia is the most beautiful anarchy utopia in the world, i'm convinced.

it looks like we all are, good job siva chair

btw it's funny that the only thing keeping "your" anarchy ideas out is the very society you say isn't real

[Dr Hooch]

It's not the idea of anarchism that's flawed; it's the people that would be within that are flawed.

[Already_Taken]

yeah siva read up about bernie madoff, then ask yourself who's going to stop him with your idea? nobody.

unless the market calls for a economic dishonesty task force right right right???? except that won't be profitable, so it won't happen. along with a few other things that won't be profitable. can you imagine the amount of toll roads?? make it easy on me and just take it out of my check, please...

[siva_chair]

with your analogies of kindergarteners to bank robbers, stealing the tax payers money, to how somalia is the most beautiful anarchy utopia in the world, i'm convinced.

Please demonstrate where I have ever said that Somalia is the most beautiful anarchy utopia in the world. You certainly don't help your case by exaggerating and making things up.

it looks like we all are, good job siva chair

btw it's funny that the only thing keeping "your" anarchy ideas out is the very society you say isn't real

It's funny because that is completely obfuscating my position on the matter in a really terrible attempt to try and invalidate it. It's ok, I understand you don't really have any sort of rational argument (and probably couldn't formulate one if your life depended on it) so you continually use ad hominems to compensate.

[Already_Taken]

i haven't said anything about your ignorance in reference to why anarchy is stupid in a while, i think you constantly telling me my arguments are ad hominems is kind of... ironic...

[siva_chair]

yeah siva read up about bernie madoff, then ask yourself who's going to stop him with your idea? nobody.

It's pretty funny you mention him and his Ponzi scheme considering the government runs an even larger one. It's called Social Security. But at least Charles Ponzi didn't force people to give him money....

And who is going to stop him (because the state sure as hell did a bang up job, didn't they)? The courts, obviously. I'll remind you it is a complete non-sequitur to claim that if there were no state there would be no courts.

And another thing I should point out about Madoff: The free market did spot the problem. It even reported it to the SEC (and of course it was ignored). Due-diligence firms use the fees collected from their clients to hire professionals to meticulously review hedge firms for signs of deceit. Aksia LLC investigated Madoff's operation, and found several red flags. It seems as though the market caught this scheme before the government even got a whiff of it. Here is a nice little article that goes into more detail: http://www.cnbc.com/id/28195326

[Iskandar]

Me, I won't rest until air itself has been privatized. I'm sick of Big Atmosphere having a monopoly on the oxygen supply.

[Mr. Ron]

That's funny because I have yet to see a rational argument presented against anarchism on here.

And "Omg ur delusional anarchism won't werk!" hardly constitutes as one, either.
People will always establish government. There you go.

[siva_chair]

People will always establish government. There you go.

Prove it.

[siva_chair]

unless the market calls for a economic dishonesty task force right right right???? except that won't be profitable, so it won't happen. along with a few other things that won't be profitable. can you imagine the amount of toll roads?? make it easy on me and just take it out of my check, please...

It already does happen you dolt. They are called due-dilligence firms.

[Mr. Ron]

Prove it.
History.

[McP3000]

anarchy is what society should strive for, even if we never reach it

[Mr. Ron]

No we shouldn't. There always needs to be people to tell others what to do. Its the brutal truth. However, this can be achieved with small government.

[McP3000]

i said strive for. not actually reach.

[siva_chair]

History.

Sorry but that fails on several levels.

It is a huge "is/ought" fallacy for one, and secondly, it ignores the fact that there have been anarchistic communities who never did actually form a state.

[Already_Taken]

like ireland in the middle ages and earlier? even though operating under anarchy led them to split into several warring factions.

people will always establish a government. well said.

that applies from 2 people to billions, pick a leader and work for 1 cause. it's the smartest way to get things done.

[Iskandar]

Ephemeral at best.

[Mr. Ron]

Sorry but that fails on several levels.

It is a huge "is/ought" fallacy for one, and secondly, it ignores the fact that there have been anarchistic communities who never did actually form a state.
tell me something then

why do most "anarchist" societies fail?

[siva_chair]

like ireland in the middle ages and earlier? even though operating under anarchy led them to split into several warring factions.

Please show how they were "warring factions." I guess if by warring factions you mean they banded together to continually fight off invasions for about a thousand years then yeah I guess they did. These "warring factions" hardly were even close to the degree that wars in the rest of Europe at the time encompassed.

Gaelic Ireland was the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe at the time.

people will always establish a government. well said.

Yes, let's ignore the appeal to tradition. Not only that, it is a false statement. Human beings lived for thousands of years in societies without government.

that applies from 2 people to billions, pick a leader and work for 1 cause. it's the smartest way to get things done.

Yeah that can be done voluntarily without coercive force or the state.

[sweboy]

Guys there is a wonderful, working anarchist society right here on earth: Somalia!

[siva_chair]

tell me something then

why do most "anarchist" societies fail?

There are various reasons.

Many times it is because they are overrun by another state that completely over powers it.

[siva_chair]

Guys there is a wonderful, working anarchist society right here on earth: Somalia!

Somalia is very interesting because people like to use that as some sort of critique of anarchism, yet they fail to realize several things. 1) It is in a state of civil warfare and strife that was spawned by the former state and is not the result of anarchy (violence, oppression, and poverty were all very commonplace before it became virtually stateless), 2) it's economic markets are doing very well comparitively (also considering what levels of poverty they had to rise out of), 3) warlords are continually being funded by outside states (like the CIA providing funds to secular warlords to combat jihadists) which certainly helps perpetuate the violence, 4) most of Somalia is actually relatively peaceful, it is only Mogadishu that is really having super high levels of violence.

This is not to say that Somalia is perfect, or doesn't have a long way to go, but things must be looked at in context.

[Iskandar]

Somalia's conflict is between the legitimate government and Islamist warlords.

[Already_Taken]

Yeah that can be done voluntarily without coercive force or the state.

you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig

[Mr. Ron]

There are various reasons.

Many times it is because they are overrun by another state that completely over powers it.
exactly.

[siva_chair]

Somalia's conflict is between the legitimate government and Islamist warlords.

Well, there is no such thing as a legitimate government. :p

But surely you recognize the chaos in Somalia isn't due to the free market or a result of it, but due to violence between statist elements left over from before that are now vying for power. To say that Somalia represents a failure of anarchism is misleading and false.

you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig

Yeah that's nice. Too bad this has nothing to do with anything.

exactly.

And that is a legitimate argument against anarchism how?

By the same reasoning one could say that because democratic governments have been overtaken by non-democratic ones, democratic governments must inevitably fail.

[Iskandar]

Well, there is no such thing as a legitimate government. :pI completely disagree.
But surely you recognize the chaos in Somalia isn't due to the free market or a result of it, but due to violence between statist elements left over from before that are now vying for power. To say that Somalia represents a failure of anarchism is misleading and false.It's a failure of the government to defeat the Islamic theocrats who would take over if the government fell. And I don't like the word statist 'cause it's meaningless and is basically used to describe anything that's not anarchist.
By the same reasoning one could say that because democratic governments have been overtaken by non-democratic ones, democratic governments must inevitably fail.Democratic governments last a lot longer than a state of anarchy, though.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, there is no such thing as a legitimate government. :p

But surely you recognize the chaos in Somalia isn't due to the free market or a result of it, but due to violence between statist elements left over from before that are now vying for power. To say that Somalia represents a failure of anarchism is misleading and false.



Yeah that's nice. Too bad this has nothing to do with anything.



And that is a legitimate argument against anarchism how?

By the same reasoning one could say that because democratic governments have been overtaken by non-democratic ones, democratic governments must inevitably fail.
Because it cannot even assure its own survival.


Do you really think that people being what they are would somehow all band together and agree on what is important without a power structure and somehow not break out in war or several sects and divisions? It won't happen.

[siva_chair]

I completely disagree.

Well that much is obvious.

It's a failure of the government to defeat the Islamic theocrats who would take over if the government fell.

So you see how absurd it is to use Somalia as a criticism of anarchy?

And I don't like the word statist 'cause it's meaningless and is basically used to describe anything that's not anarchist.

Whether you like the word or not is immaterial to it's linguistic use and function. And it isn't meaningless at all. It means exactly how it is used: any system of the state i.e. anything that isn't anarchist.

If you support the state, you are a statist, plain and simple. Even minarchists are statists.

Democratic governments last a lot longer than a state of anarchy, though.

Except they haven't, so that is nothing but a bare assertion. There is no modern democratic state that has lasted longer than the virtual anarchistic system that was in Ireland for about a thousand years. Even medieval Iceland with it's polycentric private law, private defense, etc lasted longer than the US has been around for, and it didn't even take the US 100 years before a Civil War happened.

[siva_chair]

Because it cannot even assure its own survival.

Neither can any statist form of government, so what is your point? Why exactly does this apply to an anarchistic system and not to a statist one? Democratic governments get toppled by outside forces, too.

There are no absolute guarantees with anything, so using that as an argument against anarchism is quite silly.

Do you really think that people being what they are would somehow all band together and agree on what is important without a power structure and somehow not break out in war or several sects and divisions? It won't happen.

I think that if people have a vested interest in keeping something they will organize and defend it.

Keep in mind that Ireland consistently defended itself against invaders for a thousand years with no state power structure, so that right there flies right in the face of your claim that "it won't happen."

[Iskandar]

So you see how absurd it is to use Somalia as a criticism of anarchy?Yeah, but it's almost equally absurd to use it as an example of anarchy in practice. And the violence in Somalia isn't due to the state trying to impose order. They're trying to prevent a much worse theocratic government from arising.
If you support the state, you are a statist, plain and simple. Even minarchists are statists.Problem is that people use it as a term of abuse. Whenever the anarchist doesn't like something his opponent says, he can just call them a statist. That's why I feel the term has become meaningless. It's like calling someone a fascist, which George Orwell, whom you like to quote so much, noted is meaningless.
Except they haven't, so that is nothing but a bare assertion. There is no modern democratic state that has lasted longer than the virtual anarchistic system that was in Ireland for about a thousand years. Even medieval Iceland with it's polycentric private law, private defense, etc lasted longer than the US has been around for, and it didn't even take the US 100 years before a Civil War happened.if you can call medieval Ireland anarchy, with its monarchs and such, it's still one example versus the many stable democracies in this world. And there are plenty more anarchies that didn't last long at all, like the Paris Commune.

[siva_chair]

Yeah, but it's almost equally absurd to use it as an example of anarchy in practice.

It, as a whole, is certainly not an example of anarchy in practice, nor have I ever used it as such. I simply pointed out some of the successes of their free markets and then everyone seem to imply that I was saying it was some anarchistic paradise, which is silly.

Economically, Somalia is, comparatively, growing very quickly and it goes completely in the face of the notion that a state or government is necessary to provide economic order.

And the violence in Somalia isn't due to the state trying to impose order. They're trying to prevent a much worse theocratic government from arising.

Umm that is the state trying to impose order.

Problem is that people use it as a term of abuse. Whenever the anarchists doesn't like something his opponent says, he can just call them a statist.

Well when they defend the state, he is being a statist. If one doesn't like that, one shouldn't defend the state. Much in the same way if one doesn't like being called a Nazi, one shouldn't defend Nazism. :chug:

if you can call medieval Ireland anarchy, with its monarchs and such, it's still one example versus the many stable democracies in this world.

The monarchs had absolutely zero political power, and were really just a priest and militia leader. The courts and the law operated in a completely stateless manner.

And there are plenty more anarchies that didn't last long at all, like the Paris Commune.

That is a good reason I'm not a collectivist/libertarian-socialist. It is also a good example why egalitarianism often leads to some pretty terrible things (France's history with egalitarianism is pretty nasty, tbh).

[Mr. Ron]

Neither can any statist form of government, so what is your point? Why exactly does this apply to an anarchistic system and not to a statist one? Democratic governments get toppled by outside forces, too.

There are no absolute guarantees with anything, so using that as an argument against anarchism is quite silly.



I think that if people have a vested interest in keeping something they will organize and defend it.

Keep in mind that Ireland consistently defended itself against invaders for a thousand years with no state power structure, so that right there flies right in the face of your claim that "it won't happen."
Because "statist" ones are more often thriving, successful, and creative civilizations. The power structure can ensure it's safety way easier and more efficiently. Of course all civilizations with fall eventually in the long and short term, however "statist" ones are usually better off.

You assume people will have the same invested interest(s). Have you ever had a political debate with a room full of people over what is imporetant? Imagine now that you have a huge number of people arguing endlessly on what to do. What if they do not want to do what is agreed upon, and you need their help to accomplish it?

You're comparing an island of little importance to a modern world?







The monarchs had absolutely zero political power, and were really just a priest and militia leader. The courts and the law operated in a completely stateless manner.



Spanish inquisition

[siva_chair]

Because "statist" ones are more often thriving, successful, and creative civilizations. The power structure can ensure it's safety way easier and more efficiently. Of course all civilizations with fall eventually in the long and short term, however "statist" ones are usually better off.

Is that why Ireland was was the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe at the time?

You assume people will have the same invested interest(s).

I assume no such thing. But if an invading force is threatening a libertarian free market society, and the people wished to keep such a system, then they would defend it.

Have you ever had a political debate with a room full of people over what is imporetant? Imagine now that you have a huge number of people arguing endlessly on what to do. What if they do not want to do what is agreed upon, and you need their help to accomplish it?

And why should they be forced into doing something that you want done that they don't?

That is the whole point of a free market system: people voluntarily participate without coercion. As long as you are not aggressing against someone else's property, you can do what you will.

You're comparing an island of little importance to a modern world?

Of little importance? Considering the time period, it was the most advanced and civilized in western Europe.

If you are going to use that line of reasoning, you need to show what it is about the modern world that makes anarchism impossible. In other words, what aspect(s) of an anarchist system makes it incompatible to our modern world. You can't try and use historical grounds to try and refute anarchism and then completely disregard the historical grounds that support anarchism. It doesn't work like that, friend.

[siva_chair]

Spanish inquisition

What about it?

It is actually one of many examples of atrocities committed by the state apparatus. Surely you aren't suggesting the Spanish Inquisition was a anarchist movement, are you?

[Knifeboy]

Much in the same way if one doesn't like being called a Nazi, one shouldn't defend Nazism. :chug:


uuh... defending nazism doesn't make you a nazi

[siva_chair]

uuh... defending nazism doesn't make you a nazi

Nazi sympathizer. Is that better?

Why exactly would someone defend Nazism if they didn't identify with it to some degree?

[Iskandar]

This all sounds great until you question how it would be implemented and maintained. Unless everyone becomes an anarchist-capitalist tomorrow.

[siva_chair]

This all sounds great until you question how it would be implemented and maintained.

There is no aspect of it that cannot theoretically be implemented or maintained.

Unless everyone becomes an anarchist-capitalist tomorrow.

Or their numbers gradually grow and grow until such institutions can be realized, and the general populace becomes aware of the unethical nature of the state.

And as Samuel Adams said: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.”

This has held true for basically every libertarian inspired revolution. Is this going to happen tomorrow? Probably not, but that does not mean that it is impossible, or even a legitimate criticism of the theory or philosophy of it.

[mph4ever]

anyone got a cyber-bucket?

[Mr. Ron]

Is that why Ireland was was the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe at the time?



I assume no such thing. But if an invading force is threatening a libertarian free market society, and the people wished to keep such a system, then they would defend it.



And why should they be forced into doing something that you want done that they don't?

That is the whole point of a free market system: people voluntarily participate without coercion. As long as you are not aggressing against someone else's property, you can do what you will.



Of little importance? Considering the time period, it was the most advanced and civilized in western Europe.

If you are going to use that line of reasoning, you need to show what it is about the modern world that makes anarchism impossible. In other words, what aspect(s) of an anarchist system makes it incompatible to our modern world. You can't try and use historical grounds to try and refute anarchism and then completely disregard the historical grounds that support anarchism. It doesn't work like that, friend.
I'm going to have to look into Ireland being the most advanced society in western Europe at that time period. Something about that doesn't sound right. You could be right.


No, you are assuming a lot. You can't expect everyone to agree with what has to be done since there are limitless opinions and points of views.


Sometimes people have to be forced to do things, although in extreme conditions, such as a draft in a time where a draft is absolutely needed.



What about it?

It is actually one of many examples of atrocities committed by the state apparatus. Surely you aren't suggesting the Spanish Inquisition was a anarchist movement, are you?
no you said that monarchs had no political power.

[Iskandar]

There is no aspect of it that cannot theoretically be implemented or maintained.Theoretically.
Or their numbers gradually grow and grow until such institutions can be realized, and the general populace becomes aware of the unethical nature of the state.Thing is most people don't think it's unethical and if even if they did they'd find it too useful to get rid of it.

[mph4ever]

You're too rational to be an anarchist.

Well, maybe a philosophical anarchist.

no. more of a pisslosolical one

Gaelic Ireland was the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe at the time.


when

you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig
no matter what you do to a pig they are still pigs

Keep in mind that Ireland consistently defended itself against invaders for a thousand years with no state power structure, so that right there flies right in the face of your claim that "it won't happen."

when

Is that why Ireland was was the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe at the time?

Of little importance? Considering the time period, it was the most advanced and civilized in western Europe.



when

Nazi sympathizer. Is that better?

Why exactly would someone defend Nazism if they didn't identify with it to some degree?

if they were german

[Mr. Ron]

Actually, the single reason why anarchism will never work on a large scale is because once states and governments dissolve, people will rush towards regaining order since they are so used to the structure, and it will start again. It won't work because people in their nature are organizers, and eventually if you form a society the organization evolves into things such as courts, police, local and state governments. Its like a single celled organism developing into a more complex organism.

[siva_chair]

I'm going to have to look into Ireland being the most advanced society in western Europe at that time period. Something about that doesn't sound right. You could be right.

You should definitely check it out. Fascinating subject.

No, you are assuming a lot. You can't expect everyone to agree with what has to be done since there are limitless opinions and points of views.

Of course there are, and the free market is the only mechanism that can address everyone's preference free from coercion. Obviously anyone who would aggress against another person's property is behaving unethically, so a society founded on the Non-Aggression Principle is a necessity for such a free market society. Anything else amounts to coercion.


Sometimes people have to be forced to do things, although in extreme conditions, such as a draft in a time where a draft is absolutely needed.

I reject that premise that people have to be forced to do things and that there needs to be a state that coerces individuals into doing what it wills.

The draft is an excellent example of enslavement.

no you said that monarchs had no political power.

Yeah the Irish ones of medieval Ireland. It was in reference to them, not to Spanish ones, or English ones or any other ones.

Theoretically.

Yeah and? We can't really debate it in any other manner, can we now?

Thing is most people don't think it's unethical and if even if they did they'd find it too useful to get rid of it.

That is no excuse for unethical behavior from a moral standpoint.

Slavery was very useful, too, you know.

[siva_chair]

when

Roughly from 650 AD to around 1650 AD when Cromwell finally overtook it.

when

See above.

when

See above.

if they were german

If a German defended Nazism, I'd be pretty inclined to believe he was in fact a Nazi.

Actually, the single reason why anarchism will never work on a large scale is because once states and governments dissolve, people will rush towards regaining order since they are so used to the structure, and it will start again. It won't work because people in their nature are organizers, and eventually if you form a society the organization evolves into things such as courts, police, local and state governments. Its like a single celled organism developing into a more complex organism.

You falsely assume that government is the only form of order.

As Proudhon said, liberty is "not the daughter, but the mother of order."

Courts and police can and have existed in absence of the state apparatus. Polycentric law has existed, as have private police. It is not unreasonable to see how the free market can supply these services.

[mph4ever]

Roughly from 650 AD to around 1650 AD when Cromwell finally overtook it.



See above.



See above.

and where would you consider western europe to be exactly

If a German defended Nazism, I'd be pretty inclined to believe he was in fact a Nazi.

there are loads of things that are attractive about national socialism. there is no reason why someone wouldn't support it to suit there own objectves.

[Mr. Ron]

You falsely assume that government is the only form of order.

As Proudhon said, liberty is "not the daughter, but the mother of order."

Courts and police can and have existed in absence of the state apparatus. Polycentric law has existed, as have private police. It is not unreasonable to see how the free market can supply these services.
I believe it is the easiest way to have a civilization flourish with adequate protection from outside forces.

You can have liberty with limited government. I know I'll never convince you that even limited government is good, but I just think that there needs to be a certain amount of government.


Private police? Private "police" organizations haven't had such a great track record. Do you really want privately armed groups like blackwater deciding whats right and wrong?

[siva_chair]

and where would you consider western europe to be exactly

The area that primarily adopted Latin linguistic influence.

there are loads of things that are attractive about national socialism. there is no reason why someone wouldn't support it to suit there own objectves.

Yeah like the Nazis. :p

I believe it is the easiest way to have a civilization flourish with adequate protection from outside forces.

Well that is a fine belief, but it isn't necessarily true. The example of Ireland is a good example where that belief did not hold to be correct. Once could also look at the Icelandic Commonwealth of the medieval period as another example. It survived about 300 years, adequately protecting itself, while having a flourishing civilization. It's literary output in relation to it's size during that time period is comparable to that of Athens.

The idea that in absence of a state, there would be some Hobbesian jungle is full of flaws.

You can have liberty with limited government. I know I'll never convince you that even limited government is good, but I just think that there needs to be a certain amount of government.

While I agree that less government is better than more, I have not seen a convincing argument on how it is necessary. All it's legitimate functions can not only be provided by the free market, but can be provided cheaper and more efficiently, I would say.


Private police? Private "police" organizations haven't had such a great track record.

I'm not so sure about that.

Not to mention that public police organizations have abysmal track records, and private police would inherently have more accountability than public police, as they wouldn't be shielded by a government monopoly like public police forces are. This will lead to more efficient and more accountable police services.

Do you really want privately armed groups like blackwater deciding whats right and wrong?

Blackwater is a great example of a corporation that is given definite government favoritism and a pseudo-monopolistic status. To claim that Blackwater could do the things it does and get away with them in absence of the state is pretty fallacious.

Private defense firms would not be able to arbitrarily aggress against individuals in absentia of government protection.

[mph4ever]

The area that primarily adopted Latin linguistic influence.

geographically


Yeah like the Nazis. :p

them too

[Iskandar]

The area that primarily adopted Latin linguistic influence. Oh, so not Germany, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Luxembourg and Switzerland?

[siva_chair]

geographically

Basically the extent of the Western Roman Empire.

[siva_chair]

Oh, so not Germany, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Luxembourg and Switzerland?

No, them too, see above.

[Already_Taken]

Roughly from 650 AD to around 1650 AD when Cromwell finally overtook it.



oh look at this map labled 1014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Www.wesleyjohnston.com-users-ireland-maps-historical-map1014.gif

oh look separate factions, i guess they were anarchists before they started separating based on their ideas and demands

so where would you consider renaissance Italy in 1300 compared to Ireland in 1300 based on power, wealth, and knowledge? you're wrong

[Der Übermensch]

Oh, so not Germany, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Luxembourg and Switzerland?

And somehow Romania gets included...

Basically the extent of the Western Roman Empire.
So... Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Slovenia, and Croatia but not Germany or Scandinavia? Interesting...

[Dave de Sylvia]

Or their numbers gradually grow and grow until such institutions can be realized, and the general populace becomes aware of the unethical nature of the state.
General populace usually doesn't become aware of things that are crackpot. idk I usually agree with you on things, but this whole anarchist nonsense is laaame

[Iskandar]

No, you.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, me.

What.

I mean I'd like to know where he read all this nonsense about thousands of years of benevolent anarchy because it never actually happened. At least not in the books written by actual historians or just in reality in general.

[Der Übermensch]

He's just read to much Ayn Rand :p

[Iskandar]

Oh yeah. That.

[Reaganista]

he was a bag of **** way before he started on any of the ancap ****

[siva_chair]

oh look at this map labled 1014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Www.wesleyjohnston.com-users-ireland-maps-historical-map1014.gif

oh look separate factions, i guess they were anarchists before they started separating based on their ideas and demands

And you still haven't proven they are "warring factions."

Look at these warring factions:

http://county-map.digital-topo-maps.com/united-states-map.gif

Oh look! I guess Ireland is still just warring factions:

http://www.spirited-ireland.net/map/_counties/ireland_map22.gif

so where would you consider renaissance Italy in 1300 compared to Ireland in 1300 based on power, wealth, and knowledge? you're wrong

Italy was divided up into small city-states and kindoms during the time period. Interestingly enough, many of these city-states had anarchic conditions in which a merchant class grew and flourished. It had a superior economic situation than the rest of Europe (which is how it's culture grew so rapidly), which was largely marked by economic freedom. It had a polycentric, stateless law system (see: Law Merchant) that was very effective, and "the state" often had very little power.

So... Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Slovenia, and Croatia but not Germany or Scandinavia? Interesting...

Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria aren't in Europe so no, but in terms of art and scholarship, I'd say probably more then them as well. At least for several centuries, anyhow, until the Hanseatic League and the Italian merchants really spurred wealth and knowledge, while Ireland was stuck fighting off Vikings and English for about 6 centuries and didn't get to benefit as much from that free trade.

I mean I'd like to know where he read all this nonsense about thousands of years of benevolent anarchy because it never actually happened. At least not in the books written by actual historians or just in reality in general.

D.A. Binchy.

Was it some perfect utopian society? No, never claimed it was. But it is a good example of how a complex legal system and society can develop in absentia of the state apparatus. So the claim that the state is necessary for flourishing culture and for a legal system is untrue.

He's just read to much Ayn Rand :p

She's a minarchist, not an anarchist. I disagree with her on many levels.

[beso negro]

ayn rand was a ****ing genius objectivism is awesome

[Knifeboy]

She's a minarchist, not an anarchist. I disagree with her on many levels.


bitch just wasn't troo and kvlt enough

[Mr. Ron]

ayn rand was a ****ing genius objectivism is awesome
lol

[gregulus]

ITT: Siva takes Der's role as board Anarchist to a new extreme.

[Already_Taken]

And you still haven't proven they are "warring factions."

Look at these warring factions:

http://county-map.digital-topo-maps.com/united-states-map.gif

Oh look! I guess Ireland is still just warring factions:

http://www.spirited-ireland.net/map/_counties/ireland_map22.gif



Italy was divided up into small city-states and kindoms during the time period. Interestingly enough, many of these city-states had anarchic conditions in which a merchant class grew and flourished. It had a superior economic situation than the rest of Europe (which is how it's culture grew so rapidly), which was largely marked by economic freedom. It had a polycentric, stateless law system (see: Law Merchant) that was very effective, and "the state" often had very little power.




that is how the picture is captioned on wiki, in our united states we are not at war with one another.

Anarchy in Florence? OOOORLY???

so who decided they should exile Dante? it couldn't have been the wicked government. Much of the construction in Florence was publicly funded as well. If by anarchy you mean a fake democracy run by the Medici family, then maybe you would be kind of right. But the fact that anyone runs something pretty much makes it not anarchy.

And that is an example of why a completely free market sucks, they got filthy rich by gouging all of western europe, and due to the weak government they ascended to be the most powerful people in Europe.

Aside from trying to convince you that renaissance italy wasn't anarchist, they were also miles ahead of Ireland, which was the main point after all, but as we know you like to dodge around and hit only the points that you've made up.

In this vein, you should try reading some Machiavelli. :lol:

[Dave de Sylvia]

Was it some perfect utopian society? No, never claimed it was. But it is a good example of how a complex legal system and society can develop in absentia of the state apparatus. So the claim that the state is necessary for flourishing culture and for a legal system is untrue.
There was no "state" per se, but there was a very rigid power structure and the country was effectively ruled by warlords.

I mean I'm sure you're not trying to paint it to be a utopia, but you can't use it as example of anarchy in action because it's simply not applicable to today's standards.

[Iskandar]

ayn rand was a ****ing genius objectivism is awesomeTerrible. Better luck next time.

[siva_chair]

that is how the picture is captioned on wiki, in our united states we are not at war with one another.

Nowhere does it say "warring factions."

Anarchy in Florence? OOOORLY???

Never did I specifically mention Florence, nor did I even say Italy was truely anarchistic (it certainly had state presence), but they certainly had an anarchistic economic structure. They had vast economic freedom and this was the major reason the arts and learning sprung up in the area.

so who decided they should exile Dante? it couldn't have been the wicked government. Much of the construction in Florence was publicly funded as well. If by anarchy you mean a fake democracy run by the Medici family, then maybe you would be kind of right. But the fact that anyone runs something pretty much makes it not anarchy.

Once again, never did I say Italy was a full-fledged anarchist society.

Though they did have many successful elements of one. Private courts (Law Merchant comes to mind) and private militaries (Condottieri system in 14th and 15th comes to mind, though they were usually used for a statist agenda).

What specifically was publicly funded?

And that is an example of why a completely free market sucks, they got filthy rich by gouging all of western europe, and due to the weak government they ascended to be the most powerful people in Europe.

Yeah damn them for being successful and bringing Europe out of the dark ages! Those dirty Italians!

Aside from trying to convince you that renaissance italy wasn't anarchist, they were also miles ahead of Ireland, which was the main point after all, but as we know you like to dodge around and hit only the points that you've made up.

Italy certainly wasn't ahead of Ireland (in a scholastic or cultural sense) before the 14th century. That is a whole 700 years after anarchistic law was present in Ireland.

You need to learn to read a little better instead of trying to construe my position into something it is not.

In this vein, you should try reading some Machiavelli. :lol:

What makes you think I haven't?

There was no "state" per se, but there was a very rigid power structure and the country was effectively ruled by warlords.

I mean I'm sure you're not trying to paint it to be a utopia, but you can't use it as example of anarchy in action because it's simply not applicable to today's standards.

You can use it as an example of polycentric legal system, which is what exactly my point the entire time has been. It shows that the state is not necessary for legal order, and it certainly isn't the only example of legal orders that were seperate from the state.

Unfortunately whenever you point out such things, people seem to think you are implying that it was some sort of perfect example of an anarchistic utopia or some such thing. It seems that there cannot be an honest rational discussion of anarchism on these boards because it usually devolves into ad hominems and other such silliness.

[siva_chair]

lol

I would think you would like her. She is a hardcore minarchist, afterall...

Terrible. Better luck next time.

Not that I am a fan of hers, but I'm curious: What specifically do you think is wrong with her philosophy?

I see a lot of people bash Rand on here, but they never seem to give specific reasons why she is incorrect.

[Dr Hooch]

Haven't you played bioshock, man?

[siva_chair]

Haven't you played bioshock, man?

Nope, but I heard it has lots of "Randian-isms."

[Dr Hooch]

It's a (pretty ****ing violent) interpretation of those kinds of ideas taken to an extreme. It's really well put togehter though, you should play it. Prime "Games as art" material.

[Iskandar]

Not that I am a fan of hers, but I'm curious: What specifically do you think is wrong with her philosophy?Egoism. Humans are too interdependent to only pursue their self-interest all the time.

[McP3000]

whose says that pursuing other people's interests are counterproductive to one's own interests? I'd say all levels of self-sacrificing is in the person's best interest, even if on a surface level it doesn't seem to be.

[Iskandar]

Well, ideally you should pursue your own interest when it either doesn't conflict with that of others, or is complimentary with theirs.

That's an interesting thing for a libertarian to say.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Using spark notes to look over Ayn Rands books is not an accurate way to give an opinion.

[Dr Hooch]

I don't have to read Einstein's work on the steady state universe to know that it's wrong, freezer compartment.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Then your not finding any holes at all, you lack research.

[Iskandar]

Like I'm going to read Ayn Rand's thousand-page tomes on the virtues of selfishness.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

So why bother have an opinion at all if your unwilling to what it's all about?

Who said you had to read her novels, you could always get the simple minor books like Anthem or The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Dr Hooch]

So why bother have an opinion at all if your unwilling to what it's all about?

I could just as easily say the same to you, unless you've read everything she's ever written.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

I'm in the process of reading.

And it's not just that but the fact that I've been else where were there are Randbots that usually dominate when someone comes along.

And yes you can say Ayn Rand is wrong...but you'd have to say it as it's wrong for you.

[Mr. Ron]

[quote=siva_chair;16987638]I would think you would like her. She is a hardcore minarchist, afterall...


/quote]
Me and Hitler like an occasional Wagner song, doesn't mean I like him.

She's a moron.

[sweboy]

Ayn Rand is probably the stupidest ****ing person ever

and no I haven't read her stuff, my god why would anyone do that

[Mr. Ron]

I read a bit of atlas, and I began to feel frightened.

[Iskandar]

The Ayn Rand Cult would make for better reading.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You can use it as an example of polycentric legal system, which is what exactly my point the entire time has been. It shows that the state is not necessary for legal order, and it certainly isn't the only example of legal orders that were seperate from the state.
That doesn't change the fact that it was based on an extremely rigid class system, it wasn't at all uniform and didn't provide any sort of stability until the Crown came in and established itself as an independent arbiter and the guarantor of land title.

I mean, you can proceed to use Ireland as an example of a functioning legal system, but it was so limited in scope as to be effectively useless in any argument you're trying to make about anarchism. It has no relevance to the discussion except to demonstrate another example whereby the absence of a state didn't really benefit anybody.

Unfortunately whenever you point out such things, people seem to think you are implying that it was some sort of perfect example of an anarchistic utopia or some such thing. It seems that there cannot be an honest rational discussion of anarchism on these boards because it usually devolves into ad hominems and other such silliness.
But it's just a ridiculous thing to bring up. I don't know if you've formulated this argument based on your own reading or the writing of some very motivated anarcho-capitalists, but it would require a supremely skewed perspective to actually accept pre-modern Ireland as anything approaching a functioning non-state entity.

[beso negro]

no she's awesome i don't share her views on homosexuality and pacifism but other than that :thumb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ

right on

[Knifeboy]

yeah but you're a nutjob so who cares

[Dave de Sylvia]

123

[Iskandar]

To be quite honest.

Market fundamentalism is not cool.

[Aaron]

Anyone else play Nation States still?

For 5 weeks now I've been alternating between Democratic Socialist and Authoritarian Democracy. That seem an odd combo?

[Iskandar]

Yes because socialism = tyranny!

[beso negro]

The Free Land of AynRandIsAGenius
"Capitalism ftw"

Category: Anarchy
Civil Rights: World Benchmark
Economy: Strong
Political Freedoms: Excessive
Location: the Pacific

Regional Influence: Minnow

The Free Land of AynRandIsAGenius is a fledgling, socially progressive nation, notable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 5 million live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs.

There is no government in the normal sense of the word; however, a small group of community-minded, corrupt, liberal, pro-business individuals is effectively ruled by the Department of Law & Order, with areas such as Religion & Spirituality and Commerce receiving almost no funds by comparison. Income tax is unheard of. A large private sector is led by the Trout Farming industry, followed by Automobile Manufacturing and Soda Sales.

Crime is pervasive, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. AynRandIsAGenius's national animal is the Ayn, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the rand.

just made it

[Dave de Sylvia]

Anybody who's nationstate is anything other than a brutal dictatorship is an idiot and doesn't deserve the internet.

[Iskandar]

Oh god, it's worse than I thought.
Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 5 million live in a state of perpetual fear, as a complete breakdown of social order has led to the rise of order through biker gangs.Lol.

[Aaron]

Anyone got a serio answer for me, as wiki has sent me round in circles.

[Iskandar]

What was your question?

[Aaron]

Nation-States puts me on the cusp of Democratic-Socialist and Authoritarian-Democracy [jumps between the two with each question I answer quite often]. I'm confused as to how they can be so close in fundamentals.

[Iskandar]

Probably something to do with the scoring.

[Aaron]

Oh hey there Aaron:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_socialism

[Iskandar]

Lol, what?

[Aaron]

Well I make sweeping statements and don't propose how it'd work... lol.

[Iskandar]

Oh I see.

Democratic socialism for the win.

[Aaron]

123, in my tree, said the bee, to me.

I think because I'm partial to religious advisors being called upon for some issues of governance my Nation States skews me towards Authoritarism, but it's really I like all leaders in the community to be consulted in areas of morality.

[siva_chair]

Egoism. Humans are too interdependent to only pursue their self-interest all the time.

Actually I think that pursuing their self-interest is what makes them interdependent. People work together to improve their own sense of satisfaction. Every conscious action is intended to improve a person's satisfaction.

Me and Hitler like an occasional Wagner song, doesn't mean I like him.

She's a moron.

That's fine. I just thought it was interesting that you two share pretty much the same political views, is all.

Ayn Rand is probably the stupidest ****ing person ever

and no I haven't read her stuff, my god why would anyone do that

How exactly did you conclude she was the stupidest ****ing person ever if you have never read her stuff?

That doesn't change the fact that it was based on an extremely rigid class system, it wasn't at all uniform and didn't provide any sort of stability until the Crown came in and established itself as an independent arbiter and the guarantor of land title.

Funny because women enjoyed more legal rights than they did when the "stability of the crown" came in.

And why does everything have to be uniform?

I mean, you can proceed to use Ireland as an example of a functioning legal system, but it was so limited in scope as to be effectively useless in any argument you're trying to make about anarchism. It has no relevance to the discussion except to demonstrate another example whereby the absence of a state didn't really benefit anybody.

I'd say it provides just one of the several examples of a functioning (and yes, it was a functioning) legal system in absence of a state. That is the whole point of bringing it up: as a response to people claiming there wouldn't be courts or legal systems if the state weren't around. That isn't to say that a modern day polycentric legal system would function identically to that of ancient Ireland, but it does illustrate that the state is not an neccessary component to legal order.

And I don't know how you can say it didn't benefit anybody.

But it's just a ridiculous thing to bring up. I don't know if you've formulated this argument based on your own reading or the writing of some very motivated anarcho-capitalists, but it would require a supremely skewed perspective to actually accept pre-modern Ireland as anything approaching a functioning non-state entity.

I've read lots on the subject because it fascinates me.

And pre-modern Ireland was certainly functioning, how could you say it was not? It's scholarly and cultural output was far greater than pretty much everyone in the area (and they had the "stability" of a state).

Medieval Iceland is another example of a completely functioning polycentric legal order. In the 300+ years it was around, it never experienced a civil war, successfully defended itself against foreign invaders, and had the literary output comparable to Athens.

[Already_Taken]

after learning about ayn rand and seeing that you, siva, basically worship her, i'll say this.

**** YOU, i hope you get violently robbed, beaten, and raped while hundreds of people stand around and watch with indifference, after all, you can do everything yourself. I hope nobody ever helps you for your own sake for the rest of your life. you are a parasite to our species.

[Iskandar]

That kind of talk doesn't help.

[Already_Taken]

rofl dude posting on an internet forum doesn't help so it's not like we're facing any serious regression here

[Dave de Sylvia]

Funny because women enjoyed more legal rights than they did when the "stability of the crown" came in.
It depends upon how you'd define "more." They had limited rights of divorce and, very rarely, inheritance, but they were still effecively owned by their fathers and husbands.

And why does everything have to be uniform?
You don't uniform application of the law is important?

I'd say it provides just one of the several examples of a functioning (and yes, it was a functioning) legal system in absence of a state.
Functioning how? It was a system that functioned by appealing to authority rather than truth or justice. There were many admirable things about Brehon Law, but it was still very much an improvised system designed for small, male-dominated, class-conscious communities. Its relevance to the modern world is...

That isn't to say that a modern day polycentric legal system would function identically to that of ancient Ireland, but it does illustrate that the state is not an neccessary component to legal order.
It demonstrates that the state was not a necessary component to legal order in small kingdoms in Ireland a thousand years ago. You'll need to work harder to apply that maxim to the modern world.

And pre-modern Ireland was certainly functioning, how could you say it was not? It's scholarly and cultural output was far greater than pretty much everyone in the area (and they had the "stability" of a state).
Its scholarly and cultural output was limited to monasteries. There was no intellectual class like that that existed in the rest of Europe. I mean, Ireland did play a role in preserving ecclesiastical and classical texts, but it's vastly overstated. Ireland was then, and always had been, a backward outpost on the fringes of Europe, clerical triumphs aside.

[beso negro]

no ann coulter is a moron at least mrs rand has enough intelligence to choose logic over religion

[siva_chair]

after learning about ayn rand and seeing that you, siva, basically worship her, i'll say this.

It's funny because I don't worship her. I never have, and I have serious differences with what she says.

**** YOU, i hope you get violently robbed, beaten, and raped while hundreds of people stand around and watch with indifference, after all, you can do everything yourself. I hope nobody ever helps you for your own sake for the rest of your life. you are a parasite to our species.

Lol. My, I appear to have pushed a button.

It depends upon how you'd define "more." They had limited rights of divorce and, very rarely, inheritance, but they were still effecively owned by their fathers and husbands.

That's more than what they were given under the English system that replaced it.


You don't uniform application of the law is important?

No, particularly when belonging to a tauth was completely voluntary and you were free to leave and join other tauths that you agreed with.

Functioning how? It was a system that functioned by appealing to authority rather than truth or justice. There were many admirable things about Brehon Law, but it was still very much an improvised system designed for small, male-dominated, class-conscious communities. Its relevance to the modern world is...

And you don't think every other system doesn't appeal to authority in some manner? Even the major body of Anglo-Saxon law (common law) was developed over centuries by competing judges applying time-honored principles rather that the shifting decrees of the state. They weren't decided arbitrarily by any king or legislature, they were decided by applying rational principles to the cases.

Besides, the secular part of ancient Irish law was not simply some arbitrary appeal to authority or tradition. It was rooted in the Stoic conception of natural law, which was discoverable by man's reason.

I think you are missing the point of why this legal system was pointed out to begin with. It wasn't to propose it as some identical model to be followed, it was to show that the state is not neccessary for a legal order, so the argument that "If there were no state, there wouldn't be any courts or law!"


It demonstrates that the state was not a necessary component to legal order in small kingdoms in Ireland a thousand years ago. You'll need to work harder to apply that maxim to the modern world.

Specifically what aspect of the modern world would prohibit a system of polycentric law?


Its scholarly and cultural output was limited to monasteries. There was no intellectual class like that that existed in the rest of Europe. I mean, Ireland did play a role in preserving ecclesiastical and classical texts, but it's vastly overstated. Ireland was then, and always had been, a backward outpost on the fringes of Europe, clerical triumphs aside.

What? There wasn't much of an intellectual class anywhere in Europe during this time period. Most of the intellectual class everywhere in Europe was confined to the monasteries or churches. That change came after the birth of the Italian Renaissance, which happened at the very tail end of the period I am referring to anyway (not to mention it was brought on by free trade and minimal interference in the economies by the state).

And I would hesitate to say that the Celtic cultural output was even limited to monastaries. The art, music, body of law, linguistic, etc. output from the Gaelic sources was tremendous.

[beso negro]

after learning about ayn rand and seeing that you, siva, basically worship her, i'll say this.

**** YOU, i hope you get violently robbed, beaten, and raped while hundreds of people stand around and watch with indifference, after all, you can do everything yourself. I hope nobody ever helps you for your own sake for the rest of your life. you are a parasite to our species.

this must be directed at me siva doesn't like ayn rand

[siva_chair]

this must be directed at me siva doesn't like ayn rand

He's not going to listen to that. He already has it made up in his mind that I'm a member of the Randian cult, so don't even bother. :p

[Knifeboy]

yeah, siva isn't a fan of ayn rand because she isn't ****ed up enough!

[guitrguy]

I read The Fountainhead and enjoyed the **** out of it.

[The Stig]

I'm a fan of Ayn Rand and a large portion of her general philosophy, but I think she's wrong in some areas.

[Der Übermensch]

Something along those lines, yes.

laaaame.

[Der Übermensch]

Yay, i'm going to shoot tomarrow.

We're shooting these babies right here (the pics a little dark,i'm on the right): http://i2.tinypic.com/xaz8s2.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/xaz984.jpg

I will pick you and your AK off with my SKS long before you get in range of me :p

[The Stig]

well AKs are so inaccurate what is their effective range about 10 meters

[Der Übermensch]

bit more then that, but they are for medium range at best

[The Stig]

I was being slightly facetious.

[Der Übermensch]

There is no such thing on the internets!

[The Stig]

these aren't youtube comments though

wait I forgot this is PNWI and humor is usually banned here.

[Iskandar]

Lol at Ron's friend holding his AK while wearing basketball shorts.

[sweboy]

**** guns 4ever

[Foehammer]

these aren't youtube comments though

wait I forgot this is PNWI and humor is usually banned here.

Speaking of which,

Why have I seen many users get banned here recently?
I've read through their posts and seen nothing wrong

[McP3000]

i got banned yesterday for two weeks and then i was unbanned today, idk

[Foehammer]

Yeah when I got on I saw your name with a strikethrough.
No clue what's going on?

[mph4ever]

are they banned for pnwi posts or other places

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's more than what they were given under the English system that replaced it.
It depends on your perspective. I'd say enforced monogamy gave women far more power than Brehon Law ever did, but I suppose it depends on your perspective.

No, particularly when belonging to a tauth was completely voluntary and you were free to leave and join other tauths that you agreed with.
If they didn't decide to kill you, yeah.

And you don't think every other system doesn't appeal to authority in some manner?
Yeah. It's not enshrined though, as it was in Brehon Law.

Besides, the secular part of ancient Irish law was not simply some arbitrary appeal to authority or tradition. It was rooted in the Stoic conception of natural law, which was discoverable by man's reason.
By "natural law" they meant the elements of Brehon Law that were indisputable. There is no comparison to be made between that and any European concept of natural rights.

I think you are missing the point of why this legal system was pointed out to begin with. It wasn't to propose it as some identical model to be followed, it was to show that the state is not neccessary for a legal order, so the argument that "If there were no state, there wouldn't be any courts or law!"
I know, it annoys me when Brehon Law gets fetishised.

Specifically what aspect of the modern world would prohibit a system of polycentric law?
Complex interdependence. Economics. Pooling of resources. They usual benefits of a strong central authority.

What? There wasn't much of an intellectual class anywhere in Europe during this time period. Most of the intellectual class everywhere in Europe was confined to the monasteries or churches. That change came after the birth of the Italian Renaissance, which happened at the very tail end of the period I am referring to anyway (not to mention it was brought on by free trade and minimal interference in the economies by the state).
Of course there were intellectual classes across Europe, they were just constrained by constant warfare and, to a smaller extent, Church persecution. Ireland hadn't developed a significant intellectual class by this stage, and even so the standard of intellectual thought within monasteries was constrained by the minimal contact they had with the rest of Europe.

And the was a significant state-driven renaissance in learning under Charlemagne.

[McP3000]

Yeah when I got on I saw your name with a strikethrough.
No clue what's going on?
me neither
are they banned for pnwi posts or other places
i got banned for quoting a pate picture than Eliminator made in R&M

[mph4ever]

Basically the extent of the Western Roman Empire.

so what you are saying is that gaelic ireland was the most advanced, most scholarly and most civilised in the latin adopted western europe, right? during the 1000 years between 650 and 1650

my irish history is a little rusty. it may even be a little different to yours so i am interested in examples for all three that made it the most advanced, most scholarly and most civilised.


And pre-modern Ireland was certainly functioning, how could you say it was not? It's scholarly and cultural output was far greater than pretty much everyone in the area (and they had the "stability" of a state).


sure it was. ireland was a distant island on the edge of europe with no natural resources that any of the majot state coveted. christians took refuge there simply to be totally isolated and. befiore the advent of printing, to be able top write their books in peace. back to your point above, how does this make them more advanced?


i got banned for quoting a pate picture than Eliminator made in R&M

this is why i am scared to step outside the door of pnwi. end up having a few drinks and bit of craic with the lads and get banned.

[Mr. Ron]

question: Does the Casimir effect prove that matter can appear out of "nowhere"?

[mph4ever]

in my limited knowledge i always consider the product to be a force rather than matter

[Dr Hooch]

question: Does the Casimir effect prove that matter can appear out of "nowhere"?

The concept of "nothing" is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, I'm reading some stuff on it and its pretty interesting. Mind boggling, but interesting. I'm reading about "quantum foam" right now.

[beso negro]

question: Does the Casimir effect prove that matter can appear out of "nowhere"?

well it proves that two massless conducting plates microscopically close to each other will attract in vacuum. this is counter intuitive because massless things shouldn't attract because with no mass there doesn't exist a gravitational attraction.

the plates attract because particles are waves and the # of waves outside the plates is greater than the # of waves inside the plates. but this is in vacuum so where do these particles come from? they are virtual particles.

since these particles are created in vacuum, i guess you can say it supports "something from nothing."

[Dr Hooch]

virtual particles only come from nowhere because the human word for "nothing" does not describe anything effectively on a quantum scale.

the science isn't baffling, the language is merely insufficient.

[gregulus]

Aren't virtual particles just particles that cannot be detected like "real" particles, but their existence can be seen in the mathematics of QM? Don't they essentially mediate certain interactions between certain other particles?

[spitfirejunky]

^ Yes.

[McP3000]

virtual particles only come from nowhere because the human word for "nothing" does not describe anything effectively on a quantum scale.

the science isn't baffling, the language is merely insufficient.
sounds pretty crazy tbh

[siva_chair]

I will pick you and your AK off with my SKS long before you get in range of me :p

I'll take you both out with my Savage .308 police tactical.... :p

It depends on your perspective. I'd say enforced monogamy gave women far more power than Brehon Law ever did, but I suppose it depends on your perspective.

Yeah except she often didn't have a whole lot of choice who she was forced to be monogamous with.


If they didn't decide to kill you, yeah.

Ok where exactly is the evidence that this was common occurrence? Everything I have read has indicated that no individual was bound to a tuath. They were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing one.


Yeah. It's not enshrined though, as it was in Brehon Law.

What? The Brehons drew from from a body of ancient custom (Much like English common law was, etc). The Brehons had no connection whatsoever with individual tuaths. They were basically arbiters. This is a contrast to the system the English imposed, as the judges were basically political hacks (much like they can be today).

By "natural law" they meant the elements of Brehon Law that were indisputable. There is no comparison to be made between that and any European concept of natural rights.

Actually there is, as they were drawn from the reasoning abilities of men, not some divine authority like a king.

I know, it annoys me when Brehon Law gets fetishised.

So I'm not allowed to bring it up when it is indeed a working example of stateless law?

It served the Irish for about a thousand years and they didn't descend into some primitive barbarism and slaughter each other wholesale like the rest of Feudal Europe seemed to want to do at the time (With no central authority, they couldn't afford to field large armies for any extended period of time. This is another reason why it took the English centuries to conquer them).

Complex interdependence. Economics. Pooling of resources. They usual benefits of a strong central authority.

Oh so that is why centrally planned economies tend to fail?

The market lends itself well to complexity and self-organization. It is the only thing that can rationally allocate resources.

Of course there were intellectual classes across Europe, they were just constrained by constant warfare and, to a smaller extent, Church persecution.

What does that tell you about the state?

Ireland hadn't developed a significant intellectual class by this stage, and even so the standard of intellectual thought within monasteries was constrained by the minimal contact they had with the rest of Europe.

Of course they had a significant intellectual class. They had scholars that preserved Greek and Roman writings (without which a good portion of the Renaissance probably wouldn't have happened), they had professional legal scholars (which were probably more common in Ireland than anywhere else in Europe at the time), and they had plenty of poetry and literature. Compare this with the Europe that was busy being decimated by the Visigoths, Huns, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc at the time.

And the was a significant state-driven renaissance in learning under Charlemagne.

And? How exactly does this take away from the fact that the state is not necessary for culture and intellectualism to thrive? I've never denied that learning can take place where the state is, I have denied that it cannot develop without the state.

It is also important to point out Charlemagne engaged in some pretty terrible wars that ravaged most of Europe.

so what you are saying is that gaelic ireland was the most advanced, most scholarly and most civilised in the latin adopted western europe, right? during the 1000 years between 650 and 1650

my irish history is a little rusty. it may even be a little different to yours so i am interested in examples for all three that made it the most advanced, most scholarly and most civilised.

Complex stateless legal order, didn't have the huge bloody and constant wars that the rest of the area did, preserved a huge body of Latin and Greek works that would have probably been lost and helped contribute to the Renaissance, had much more liberty when it came to property rights, "kings" could be sued and were subject to the law just like anyone else (this didn't happen in most of the rest of Europe until much later), the literary/musical/etc output was impressive, etc.


sure it was. ireland was a distant island on the edge of europe with no natural resources that any of the majot state coveted.

Why did the English try to conquer it for centuries, then?

christians took refuge there simply to be totally isolated and. befiore the advent of printing, to be able top write their books in peace. back to your point above, how does this make them more advanced?

See above.

[siva_chair]

Aren't virtual particles just particles that cannot be detected like "real" particles, but their existence can be seen in the mathematics of QM? Don't they essentially mediate certain interactions between certain other particles?

Yes.

Hey man do you want the Feynman lectures?

[mph4ever]

Complex stateless legal order, didn't have the huge bloody and constant wars that the rest of the area did, preserved a huge body of Latin and Greek works that would have probably been lost and helped contribute to the Renaissance, had much more liberty when it came to property rights, "kings" could be sued and were subject to the law just like anyone else (this didn't happen in most of the rest of Europe until much later), the literary/musical/etc output was impressive, etc.

man you look at it through green tinted glasses

Why did the English try to conquer it for centuries, then?

trees bahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hehehehehehehehehehehehe and it was probably a great issue for england since ireland could very easily facilitate englands enemies in creating two fronts on english soil

See above.
i did and it makes no sense

[siva_chair]

man you look at it through green tinted glasses

No sorry. Nothing I have said is factually incorrect.

trees bahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hehehehehehehehehehehehe and it was probably a great issue for england since ireland could very easily facilitate englands enemies in creating two fronts on english soil

Well it obviously wasn't worthless if they spent several centuries trying to conquer it then, is it?

i did and it makes no sense

You should not confuse your lack of understanding with me being incorrect.

[mph4ever]

No sorry. Nothing I have said is factually incorrect.

thats not what i implied. you may be factually correct but you may contextually wrong. you may be exaggerating the importance of irelands history in support of your point.

Well it obviously wasn't worthless if they spent several centuries trying to conquer it then, is it?

when are you referring to when that they spent centuries trying?

You should not confuse your lack of understanding with me being incorrect.
i don't. you will have to explain why i would see above unless of course you have actually taken it out of context

[siva_chair]

thats not what i implied. you may be factually correct but you may contextually wrong. you may als be exaggerating the importance of irelands history in support of your point.

Considering the point was to demonstrate how a system of polycentric law can and has been done before, I think I was completely appropriate.

what years are you referring to when they spent centuries trying?

They spent about five centuries from the initial Norman invasion of the mid-12th century to about 1650 when Oliver Cromwell finally brought it completely under English rule.

The English found it hard to rule over the Irish precisely because there was no state apparatus to actually rule them through. The British encountered similar problems when they tried to rule several tribes in West Africa. With no state apparatus to transmit British orders through, it became a nightmare to rule.

i don't. you will have to explain why i would see above unless of course you have actually taken it out of context

You have yet to show how I have taken it out of context, though. Everything I have said is certainly documented. You are welcome to check it out for yourself. If you believe me to be taking things out of context, you will have to show me where I have done that and how.

[mph4ever]

Considering the point was to demonstrate how a system of polycentric law can and has been done before, I think I was completely appropriate.

are you suggesting that it was done on purpose? by design?

They spent about five centuries from the initial Norman invasion of the mid-12th century to about 1650 when Oliver Cromwell finally brought it completely under English rule.

oh that time

The English found it hard to rule over the Irish precisely because there was no state apparatus to actually rule them through. The British encountered similar problems when they tried to rule several tribes in West Africa. With no state apparatus to transmit British orders through, it became a nightmare to rule.

they found it hard to rule over thr irish because they really didn't take it seriously and the irish are a bunch of nutjobs

You have yet to show how I have taken it out of context, though. Everything I have said is certainly d0cumented. You are welcome to check it out for yourself. If you believe me to be taking things out of context, you will have to show me where I have done that and how.
you said see above and i did and saw nothing. should i put my fog lamps on?