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

[Mr. Ron]

lmfao

[Aaron]

:lol:

[spitfirejunky]

http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8384675&postcount=118

http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8384707&postcount=123

http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8384916&postcount=148

:lol:

Amit:

http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8385216&postcount=193

[1338 h4x0r]

haha you have assburgers

When I go to my high school reunion, I want to check up on the lot of everyone who said that, and compare it with my own.

Chris, what happened to going to Sweden? Kekeke.

Idk maybe, not living there though. I think I'd like to relocate to somewhere in greater China i.e., mainland/Taiwan/S'pore/Macau/Hainan/Hong Kong, excepting certain tracts of Malaysia cuz I'm not really interested in that country.

[Iskandar]

Suit yourself, I guess. I don't care for China personally but I have the utmost respect for anyone brave enough to tackle their crazy language.

[Aaron]

*languages.

[Iskandar]

When people say Chinese you automatically assume they mean Mandarin, unless they specify otherwise.

[Chu]

Wow Chris, you have gone crazy!

[Aaron]

Quiet you, hehe.

[1338 h4x0r]

Suit yourself, I guess. I don't care for China personally but I have the utmost respect for anyone brave enough to tackle their crazy language.

Only the (original) writing system is really hard. The grammar is best described as 'piss easy'. In fact it's like English grammar taken to its logical conclusion, i.e., an isolating language with no inflection whatever.

[Mr. Ron]

Chris you will die of all zee pollution in China.

[Iskandar]

Only the (original) writing system is really hard. The grammar is best described as 'piss easy'. In fact it's like English grammar taken to its logical conclusion, i.e., an isolating language with no inflection whatever.Don't assume grammar is easy just because it has no inflections. Chinese syntax has some features that will surprise you.

Besides which the phonology is very hard and the simplified characters may be easier than traditional but they are still no picnic.

[1338 h4x0r]

Chris you will die of all zee pollution in China.

Nah dude

It depends on where you go

True, Beijing is really dirty, and so are cities like Guangzhou and Shanghai. But if, like me, you have the face of a new Waffen SS recruit, going to Shanghai is worth ten years off your life.

Don't assume grammar is easy just because it has no inflections. Chinese syntax has some features that will surprise you.

Besides which the phonology is very hard and the simplified characters may be easier than traditional but they are still no picnic.

'le' is kind of weird but otherwise most everything is not unlike English. Even English uses features like measure words in some places.

Sound production is not very hard for me. Listening is hard! But that's always true.

The most important thing is oral rather than written and, regardless, most people are familiar with either pinyin or zhuyin. One time I emailed someone using the zhuyin doohickey on pinyin.info cuz he couldn't read pinyin lol.

[siva_chair]

Hong Kong is the place to go, tbh.

[Iskandar]

Hong Kong looks boring. It's just a financial center.

[Mr. Ron]

I've always wanted to go to Japan for some reason. I hear they abhor white people though.

[siva_chair]

Hong Kong looks boring. It's just a financial center.

Yeah that's where you make a lot of money so you can travel to anywhere you want (i.e. places that do not look boring).

[Iskandar]

Fair enough. I thought you meant as a vacation destination.
I've always wanted to go to Japan for some reason. I hear they abhor white people though.It's funny because they want to be Americans so badly.

[Mr. Ron]

One thing is for sure though, I want to travel, and soon. I need to see the world! :D

[Iskandar]

I can show you the world.

[Mr. Ron]

shining, shimmering, splendid?

[Iskandar]

Tell me, princess, now when did
You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes
Take you wonder by wonder
Over, sideways and under
On a magic carpet ride

[spitfirejunky]

Everyone I know that's been to Japan has enjoyed it intensely.

[Mr. Ron]

Tell me, princess, now when did
You last let your heart decide?

I can open your eyes
Take you wonder by wonder
Over, sideways and under
On a magic carpet ride

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of view
No one to tell us no
Or where to go
Or say we're only dreaming

[Iskandar]

I think I would hate it, based on Japanese TV.

[siva_chair]

Why would someone go to Japan to watch TV, anyway?

[Iskandar]

... ?

[McP3000]

iskandar you look so peaceful with that gandhi avatar

[fingers mccoy]

Why would someone go to Japan to watch TV, anyway?

lmao

[Iskandar]

I like to think some of his peaceful spirit is here with us in this forum. Then VF posts and I am jarred back into reality.

[McP3000]

how now brown cow?

[Iskandar]

Who are you calling brown? Are you racist? Because America is about to elect an African president for the first time and that means racism is over forever!

[Mr. Ron]

he's not black damn it!

[Iskandar]

Halfrican. Lol.

[McP3000]

Who are you calling brown? Are you racist? Because America is about to elect an African president for the first time and that means racism is over forever!
he is a mocha flavored white guy

[1338 h4x0r]

Most American 'black' people are part-white to begin with (lol exploitation), so moot point. For all practical intents and purposes, Obama is black.

Hong Kong looks boring. It's just a financial center.

That's why it's elite.

I've always wanted to go to Japan for some reason. I hear they abhor white people though.

It's complicated. I'm probably biased, but I think I'd hate being in Japan despite the fact that technopoles are usually awesome.

And speaking of technopoles ...

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

I don't like Japan but who can dislike Yellow Magic Orchestra?

[siva_chair]

He's a statist is what he is dammit. :p

[Mr. Ron]

Most American 'black' people are part-white to begin with (lol exploitation), so moot point. For all practical intents and purposes, Obama is black.



That's why it's elite.



It's complicated. I'm probably biased, but I think I'd hate being in Japan despite the fact that technopoles are usually awesome.

And speaking of technopoles ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbtEjhCOFPs
haha that was awesome


made me watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXD6Gtinvbc

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah basically that's how it started: YMO wanted to be the Kraftwerk of the East and I have to say they outdid them in some respects.

Their skits are funny too.

BTW, that Radioactivity remix is one of the few good ones. The Tour de France remix is abysmal.

TSCHER-NO-BYL
HAR-RIS-BURG
SEL-LA-FIELD
HI-RO-SHI-MA

Also lol @ bald Kraftwerk LOL YOU'RE OLD

This Kraftwerk song makes me look forward to the future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCZVeIJ8xk

[Mr. Ron]

I am adding


and subtracting

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm controlling

And composing

By pressing down a special key it plays a little melody

...

I'm looking for the Kraftwerk key on my calculator ... I guess I need to shell out for a more elite modell.

[Mr. Ron]

I figure an advanced A.I. bent on destroying mankind would listen to Kraftwerk while doing so. Looping it endlessly.

[1338 h4x0r]

Kraftwerk wird die Menschen vernichten
Bis niemand mehr stört Deutschlands Glück
Und wenn sich die Reihen auch lichten
Für uns gibt es nie ein zurück

[Iskandar]

He's a statist is what he is dammit. :pOh, everyone is a statist to you.

[McP3000]

being a statist is fun if you are the state

[siva_chair]

Oh, everyone is a statist to you.

Anyone who supports a state, yeah.

[1338 h4x0r]

lol @ anarchy

[siva_chair]

lol @ assburgers

[Knifeboy]

Oh, everyone* is a statist to you.

*everyone who isn't a complete nutjob

[1338 h4x0r]

lol @ assburgers

Asperger's is something I was born with, and I try my best not to be an asshat in spite of it

You chose to become an anarchist, and you do your best to behave like an asshat because of it

[siva_chair]

Asperger's is something I was born with, and I try my best not to be an asshat in spite of it

You chose to become an anarchist, and you do your best to behave like an asshat because of it

Why are you crying about this?

[1338 h4x0r]

I haven't shed a single tear

In fact I'm chillaxin' to some Kraftwerk and Whitest Kids U' Know skits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqt-6qlVGeg

:angry:/

[Knifeboy]

excellent choices in both musicery and comedy good sir

[Mr. Ron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkgMbU-we1o

[Iskandar]

Anyone who supports a state, yeah.So everybody but a small group of fringe movements with nothing else in common.

[siva_chair]

So everybody but a small group of fringe movements with nothing else in common.

Yes, and?

[Iskandar]

Just that it's kind of pointless to call someone a statist when the vast majority of people are to a greater or lesser degree. It'd be much more constructive to discuss how statist they are, and in what way.

[siva_chair]

Just that it's kind of pointless to call someone a statist when the vast majority of people are to a greater or lesser degree. It'd be much more constructive to discuss how statist they are, and in what way.

No more pointless than calling someone who supports racist views a racist. The specific brand of racism is irrelevant, just as the specific brand of statism is irrelevant.

And that point aside, Obama is a blatent statist if you want to talk about specific degrees of statism. Every solution to a problem is "more government" to him.

[Iskandar]

Obama is not really that statist in the grand scheme of things. He is probably more so than many Democrats, however.

[siva_chair]

Obama is not really that statist in the grand scheme of things. He is probably more so than many Democrats, however.

Horseshit. He is a statist through and through.

What's the solution to the economic crisis? More government

What's the solution to the energy crisis? More government

What's the solution to the inequality of wealth? More government

What is the solution to lower crime rates in this country? More government

What is the solution building infrastructure here at home? More government

The only thing I can see that he proposes the government be less involved in is a part of the war on drugs.

"Not really a statist." Ha!

[Knifeboy]

No more pointless than calling someone who supports racist views a racist. The specific brand of racism is irrelevant, just as the specific brand of statism is irrelevant.

Ah, but the way you're using statist, would be the same as calling everyone racists because they can see (and thus have a conscious or subconscious reaction to) skin color

[siva_chair]

Ah, but the way you're using statist, would be the same as calling everyone racists because they can see (and thus have a conscious or subconscious reaction to) skin color

No because that isn't what racist means.

Statist means you support the state. It doesn't simply mean that you believe a state exists.

[Knifeboy]

Racist means you discriminate (distinguish) between races
as soon as you note someone has a different skin colour, you are discriminating.

[Iskandar]

Okay, now compare him to an actual statist like Mussolini.

[siva_chair]

Racist means you discriminate (distinguish) between races
as soon as you note someone has a different skin colour, you are discriminating.

No racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences are what produce the superiority of a certain race.

[Iscariot]

Racist means you discriminate (distinguish) between races
as soon as you note someone has a different skin colour, you are discriminating.

Um no.

Recognizing that someone has a different color skin than your own is not discrimination or inherently racist. Racism is viewing one's own race or skin color as superior to another and discrimination is treating someone with obvious favor or disdain because of the color of their skin, creed, preference, etc.

[siva_chair]

Okay, now compare him to an actual statist like Mussolini.

That is retarded. That is like saying that VF isn't a racist because he doesn't hang black people like some others do.

Obama IS an actual statist, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Knifeboy]

Um no.

Recognizing that someone has a different color skin than your own is not discrimination or inherently racist. Racism is viewing one's own race or skin color as superior to another and discrimination is treating someone with obvious favor or disdain because of the color of their skin, creed, preference, etc.

I was making fun of how siva uses the word statist

[siva_chair]

I was making fun of how siva uses the word statist

Except I haven't used it incorrectly at all, so good job on making fun of me for using a word correctly.

[Knifeboy]

:rolleyes:

[Iskandar]

By your definition every single politician in Washington is a statist, including Ron Paul. It's a matter of degree. Obama is more statist-leaning on economics (as most politicians are these days because of the recession) and moderate on social issues, and probably leaning towards less statist in foreign policy. That makes him a pretty typical Democrat tbh. It's dumb and not at all illuminating to call him by a term which by definition includes everyone from Gandhi to Hitler.

[Knifeboy]

Except I haven't used it incorrectly at all, so good job on making fun of me for using a word correctly.

rac·ism
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion
the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

I was taking the piss, but I didn't use the words -incorrectly- either

[Iscariot]

I was making fun of how siva uses the word statist

Oh ok, my bad. It's late and I've been drinking.

[siva_chair]

By your definition every single politician in Washington is a statist, including Ron Paul.

Yes, yes they are. And I've never said otherwise.

It's a matter of degree. Obama is more statist-leaning on economics (as most politicians are these days because of the recession) and moderate on social issues, and probably leaning towards less statist in foreign policy. That makes him a pretty typical Democrat tbh.

Yeah and Democrats and Republicans are both statists.

It's dumb and not at all illuminating to call him by a term which by definition includes everyone from Gandhi to Hitler.

I suppose we should refrain from calling anyone a politician because Hitler was one too, huh? Or perhaps we shouldn't call anyone white because Jeffery Dahmer was white, and we wouldn't want to call him a term that includes everyone from Mother Teresa to Stalin.

[siva_chair]

rac·ism
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion
the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

I was taking the piss, but I didn't use the words -incorrectly- either

Actually, you were using the words incorrectly, because you were equivocating.

[Iskandar]

I suppose we should refrain from calling anyone a politician because Hitler was one too, huh? Or perhaps we shouldn't call anyone white because Jeffery Dahmer was white, and we wouldn't want to call him a term that includes everyone from Mother Teresa to Stalin.Calling Hitler a politician or Stalin white wouldn't be very illuminating either.

[siva_chair]

Calling Hitler a politician or Stalin white wouldn't be very illuminating either.

They are both defining characteristics of those individuals.

By your logic, calling VF a racist isn't very illuminating of his character, either, is it?

[McP3000]

illuminato is my favorite harry potter spell

[Iskandar]

Not exactly, because there are tons of politicians who were nothing like Hitler, and likewise for white people and Stalin. And I called VF a racist because I wanted him to know why he was banned, not for any meaningful insight into his character.

You just love argument, don't you. Your job must be very boring.
illuminato is my favorite harry potter spellExpelliarmus.

[siva_chair]

Not exactly, because there are tons of politicians who were nothing like Hitler, and likewise for white people and Stalin. And I called VF a racist because I wanted him to know why he was banned, not for any meaningful insight into his character.

So he was banned for a vague and non-illuminating reason? Hmm....

Obviously saying racist remarks is enough to label an individual a racist, so surely saying pro-state rhetoric is enough to call an individual a statist. No?

You just love argument, don't you. Your job must be very boring.


I just don't particularly like the silly apologetics that yourself and others engage in on these boards, so I call them out. You are trying to obfuscate the issue by dancing around the simple fact that Obama is a statist. You can say that label isn't very illuminating, but it illuminates the fact that he supports the sovereignty of the state.

And don't worry about my job, it's just fine. I just haven't been very busy as of late.

[Iscariot]

Expelliarmus.

Avada Kedavra.

[Iskandar]

The thing is that it's normal for politicians to be "statist" (in that they support the continuing existence of state, or else why would they aspire to lead it?) so it's not really worth commenting upon. On the other hand, it is unusual for someone to hold overtly racist views around here.

[siva_chair]

The thing is that it's normal for politicians to be "statist" (in that they support the state, or else why would they aspire to lead it?) so it's not really worth commenting upon. On the other hand, it is unusual for someone to hold overtly racist views around here.

Just because it is common for politicians to be statist, doesn't mean statism isn't wrong.

Are you going to ban or censor me because it is unusual for someone to hold anti-statist views around here?

[fingers mccoy]

isnt racism against the board rules

[siva_chair]

isnt racism against the board rules

Yes it is. I was just using the example to illustrating the lack of consistency that our mod seems to be displaying here.

[fingers mccoy]

k just wonderin

the thing is that siva's use of the word statism is quite specific to anarchist parlance and altho i'd argue it makes a bit more sense statism is usually used (within statist circles i guess) to refer to particular instances of state intervention or forms of government in which state intervention is significant

the ideological support of a state is not necessarily statism it depends who you're talking to

[Iskandar]

Racism can't lead to productive discussion and is harmful to the welcoming atmosphere we try to create around here. Discussing statism could actually be interesting and doesn't involve insulting people for factors that are beyond their control.

As it is, I won't ban anyone for their beliefs no matter how dumb they are. I banned that Holocaust-denial guy because he was insulting others instead of presenting his views in a civilized way.

[Iscariot]

the welcoming atmosphere we try to create around here.

:lol:

[siva_chair]

Racism can't lead to productive discussion and is harmful to the welcoming atmosphere we try to create around here. Discussing statism could actually be interesting and doesn't involve insulting people for factors that are beyond their control.

As it is, I won't ban anyone for their beliefs no matter how dumb they are. I banned that Holocaust-denial guy because he was insulting others instead of presenting his views in a civilized way.

I understand that. I was just saying that labelling someone a "racist" or a "statist" is hardly as worthless or "un-illuminating" as you are making it out to be.

When discussing politics, whether someone is a statist or not has far reaching implications. I've not used the word dishonestly or incorrectly, so I don't know what your problem with me using it is, exactly.

Also lol at welcoming atmosphere part.

[Iskandar]

It has implications if you're an anarchist. For the rest of us, it refers more to policies which may be perceived as overbearing, or an excessive amount of intervention, ie. authoritarianism. Very few people here actually believe in that sort of thing (though more than enough world leaders do, for sure).

Oh and I am the friendliest mod ever, as long as nobody dares to piss me off.:)

[siva_chair]

It has implications if you're an anarchist. For the rest of us, it refers more to policies which may be perceived as overbearing, or an excessive amount of intervention, ie. authoritarianism. Very few people here actually believe in that sort of thing (though more than enough world leaders do, for sure).

No, it has implications if you are observing politics. Whether or not one supports the defining modus operandi of the state invariably has implications for all political matters. Even in the case of people who wish to limit the current governmental status quo like Ron Paul it has implications. He still advocates certain legitimate functions of the state, which has an effect on policy.

Either way, Obama is still a statist, as he is calling for more government.

Oh and I am the friendliest mod ever, as long as nobody dares to piss me off.:)

We will see.

[Iskandar]

No, it has implications if you are observing politics. Whether or not one supports the defining modus operandi of the state invariably has implications for all political matters.No it doesn't because everyone in politics does.

[siva_chair]

No it doesn't because everyone in politics does.

No, because political matters do not inherently require the state.

While it may be said that every politician does (at least rhetorically), not everyone involved in politics can be said to.

[Iskandar]

Only a tiny group of people actually wants to abolish the state. Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to call them a group. That'd be collectivist, wouldn't it.

[Iscariot]

Apparently the government and CDC issued a peanut butter warning, due to multiple salmonella cases being linked to peanut butter and peanut butter products.

But I'm so hard that I just ate two spoonfuls of crunchy peanut butter because I fear NOTHING!

[Iskandar]

It's just Big Gummint tightening its regulatory stranglehold on our nation's peanut butter supply.

[Iscariot]

Those bastards.

How dare they tamper with the most sensual of all flavors and products.

[Iskandar]

I hate peanut butter tbh.

[Shell]

peanut butter in jars is okay

[Iscariot]

When someone claims to not love peanut butter I can only assume that they're a robot and aren't to be taken seriously in any aspect of life.

[siva_chair]

Only a tiny group of people actually wants to abolish the state.

So?

Appeal to majority much?

Actually, I wouldn't go so far as to call them a group. That'd be collectivist, wouldn't it.

No. Group doesn't inherently equate to collectivism. Particularly if that group stresses the importance of individuals.

[Knifeboy]

What does peanut butter taste like?

[Iscariot]

Like heaven.

[siva_chair]

Like magic.

[Iskandar]

No because I didn't say that meaning they were in the right, just that the views of a fringe group are not that important in politics.

[siva_chair]

No because I didn't say that meaning they were in the right, just that the views of a fringe group are not that important in politics.

They are important enough.

Either way, the actual number of anti-statists has nothing to do with the original point anyway, so I don't really know why you bothered to bring it up.

[Iskandar]

Anarchists are not important.Libertarians aren't even very important and they have their own party.

And this has to do with your point that it's important whether someone is a statist because I'm arguing it's not because nearly everyone is.

[Iskandar]

Anarchists are not important. Libertarians aren't even very important and they have their own party.

And this has to do with your point that it's important whether someone is a statist because I'm arguing it's not because most people are.

[siva_chair]

Anarchists are not important.Libertarians aren't even very important and they have their own party.

Anarchists have influenced lots of important things throughout history.

And this has to do with your point that it's important whether someone is a statist because I'm arguing it's not because nearly everyone is.

That is silly. Just because most people subscribe (or passively advocate) a particular ideology, does not mean you get to hijack a word and say it is meaningless.

[Iskandar]

Anarchists, in the grand scheme of things, have had a pretty minimal influence throughout history. The two events that come to mind are the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune, and those were social anarchists and neither lasted long. Anarcho-capitalists are a splinter group within anarchism itself. In fact, they have so little in common with social anarchists it's better to think of them as extreme libertarians.

[mph4ever]

What does peanut butter taste like?

it tastes sort of buttery and peanutty but at the same time

toasted bread, hot and crispy on the outside, with crunchy style peanut butter melting so it doesn't stick your tongue to the roof of your mouth.....oh,

[siva_chair]

Anarchists, in the grand scheme of things, have had a pretty minimal influence throughout history. The two events that come to mind are the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune, and those were social anarchists and neither lasted long. Anarcho-capitalists are a splinter group within anarchism itself. In fact, they have so little in common with social anarchists it's better to think of them as extreme libertarians.

You are ignoring the vast influence that anarchism (and individual anarchists) have had on many notable individuals (including various founding fathers, philosophers, etc).

Anarchism is simply the idea of liberty taken to it's logical conclusion. Unless you are prepared to argue that the idea of liberty hasn't had much of an influence throughout history....

Either way it still doesn't follow that you get to hijack a word and declare it meaningless.

[Iskandar]

Anarchism is liberty without any means to preserve it. That's why the classical liberals who gave us this crazy idea of representative government weren't anarchists.

In my opinion.

[Knifeboy]

it tastes sort of buttery and peanutty but at the same time


worst description ever

[mph4ever]

thanks for tuning in, its the siva & iskandar show coming to you today from downtown mx where all the talk is about anarchy

imagine that

[mph4ever]

worst description ever

i know, i looked at it and thought if that was true then it should be called butpea nutter

[Iskandar]

thanks for tuning in, its the siva & iskandar show coming to you today from downtown mx where all the talk is about anarchy

imagine thatSomebody has to set him straight.

[siva_chair]

Anarchism is liberty without any means to preserve it. That's why the classical liberals who gave us this crazy idea of representative government weren't anarchists.

In my opinion.

There are plenty of means to preserve it without a state, though. In fact.

[Iskandar]

Private militias don't seem to have done such a great job. In fact.

[mph4ever]

Somebody has to set him straight.

i know

thing is that lots of it is so in line with what i think but its just not practical. maybe we should have a thread where the assumption is that everything is hypothetical, it would work there

[Iskandar]

I don't get it. You're an anarchist, but sort of not one?

[Knifeboy]

i know, i looked at it and thought if that was true then it should be called butpea nutter

I laughed, I won't lie

[Iskandar]

Fluffernutters?

[mph4ever]

Fluffernutters?

ma rules

[mph4ever]

I don't get it. You're an anarchist, but sort of not one?


given an ideal world then anarchy is for me. but there is no room for being idealistic when there are other humans around

[Iskandar]

A philosophical anarchist, then.

That's the kind of anarchism I respect most. They believe that government is not legitimate, but it's idealistic to think of overthrowing it. Actually I agree with that in a way.

[siva_chair]

Private militias don't seem to have done such a great job. In fact.

Private militias aren't the only source of protection. In fact.

A philosophical anarchist, then.

That's the kind of anarchism I respect most. They believe that government is not legitimate, but it's idealistic to think of overthrowing it. Actually I agree with that in a way.

You have said nothing that indicates that you even remotely agree with philosophical anarchism. You haven't even advocated a minimal state like Ron Paul and the other minarchists (in fact, I distinctly recall many instances where you called Ron Paul a crazy for advocating such things as a minimal state), but instead have supported giving it more power, more size, and supported taxation. :confused:

Even your good buddy Ghandi advocated decentralization and individual self-rule.

“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."

He persistently spoke of "Swaraj" which is literally "Self-rule."

[mph4ever]

A philosophical anarchist, then.

That's the kind of anarchism I respect most. They believe that government is not legitimate, but it's idealistic to think of overthrowing it. Actually I agree with that in a way.

thats it really. idealistic actions and expecting humans to take the consequential good with the bad just doesn't work. i've come to accept the necessary evils. its a personal thing

[Iskandar]

Gandhi's self-rule referred to the right of India to pursue its own affairs. And when did I say I wasn't in favour of decentralization?

[siva_chair]

Gandhi's self-rule referred to the right of India to pursue its own affairs.

No, he didn't.

"Everyone will have to take (swaraj) for himself. If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."

"In such a state of affairs, everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor."

Even wikipedia says swaraj is specifically a kind of individual anarchism.

And when did I say I wasn't in favour of decentralization?

On the subjects of: Education, welfare, healthcare, law, police, defense, etc.

You criticized Ron Paul for advocating stronger state government rights and weakening federal government power.

Now, do tell, in what way are you for decentralization?

EDIT: and yes I'm well aware of the fact that I accidentally left the h out of his name.

[Iskandar]

When did I say those things are exclusively the domain of the federal government? In the Canadian model it's the provinces which provide these things.

I am a supporter of individual freedom, as much as is practically possible. We cannot reasonably expect to abolish government.

As for Ron Paul, what I criticized was his market fundamentalism. I am in agreement with him on many issues like the war on drugs and foreign policy.

[mph4ever]

i just had a fluffernutter and i feel ill :upset:

[siva_chair]

When did I say those things are exclusively the domain of the federal government? In the Canadian model it's the provinces which provide these things.

No, it is funded by various levels of government. The federal government gives substantial bloc transfers of funds to each province.

Not to mention it is all still regulated by the federal government, so that certainly isn't decentralization.

I am a supporter of individual freedom, as much as is practically possible. We cannot reasonably expect to abolish government.

I'm glad Gandhi didn't feel the same way.

As for Ron Paul, what I criticized was his market fundamentalism. I am in agreement with him on many issues like the war on drugs and foreign policy.

The market is decentralization. Your support for various welfare entitlements, is not.

[Iskandar]

No, it is funded by various levels of government. The federal government gives substantial bloc transfers of funds to each province.Yes, they fund them, but they don't run them. That is a big difference.
I'm glad Gandhi didn't feel the same way.Gandhi was a man of contradictions. He was both an idealist and a pragmatist. He supported the Indian National Congress, because achieving independence from Britain was the first priority. After that he believed India would be able to embark on reforms of decentralization and communalism (yes, he was a socialist, by Western standards). His vision for India, based on agrarian village life, was never implemented.

[siva_chair]

Yes, they fund them, but they don't run them. That is a big difference.

They fund and regulate them.

Gandhi was a man of contradictions. He was both an idealist and a pragmatist. He supported the Indian National Congress, because achieving independence from Britain was the first priority. After that he believed India would be able to embark on reforms of decentralization and communalism (yes, he was a socialist, by Western standards). His vision for India, based on agrarian village life, was never implemented.

Funnily enough, Gandhi faced many of the criticisms that you and others throw at me on a regular basis. Namely that his ideas are "utopian" and that he isn't realistic. I rather like his response to those accusations:

“It may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it.”

Also, "socialism" is workable in small-scale agrarian communities, but I have no desire to, nor think it is even reasonable to expect the civilization to, revert back to that kind of lifestyle. Socialism is simply not compatible with a post-industrial world, which is why I am against it.

[Iskandar]

His idea of a self-sufficient, agrarian India was utopian. Indian independence wasn't and that is the achievement he is remembered for.

It is good to have ideals and to question the status quo, but not to be extremist. At that point your ideas are so far out of the mainstream you have doomed yourself to obscurity.

[siva_chair]

His idea of a self-sufficient, agrarian India was utopian. Indian independence wasn't and that is the achievement he is remembered for.

It is good to have ideals and to question the status quo, but not to be extremist. At that point your ideas are so far out of the mainstream you have doomed yourself to obscurity.

Gandhi was an extremist, though. He was a revolutionary radical.

The wheels of social change are not driven by mediocre ideas, but revolutionary ones. I prefer ideas that steer that wheel in the direction of liberty. I see no reason for state apologetics.

[Iskandar]

If you think that would constitute progress, go for it.

I for one don't get why you're so cynical about government but harbour no concerns about the potential abuses of corporate power, especially in an unregulated market.

[siva_chair]

If you think that would constitute progress, go for it.

I for one don't get why you're so cynical about government but harbour no concerns about the potential abuses of corporate power, especially in an unregulated market.

Because 1) corporations wouldn't have nearly the power they even currently enjoy without the state (the state amplifies the power of wealth) and 2) dealing with private enterprise is voluntary in a free market. They cannot unilaterally expropriate money (tax) you. You ultimately choose to buy their products.

The state has caused far more death and destruction than ANY private enterprise could ever hope to. This holds true for totalitarian governments to democratic governments. Even if a corporation (or even a few) managed to abuse their "power," they wouldn't even begin to come close to such destruction.

[Iskandar]

How do you fee about trust-busting?

[siva_chair]

How do you fee about trust-busting?

Do you mean trusts in the sense of monopolies or what?

[Iscariot]

Can you guys redirect the single most boring discussion anyone has ever had to it's own thread please?

[mph4ever]

barry hussein is going to have the first ever first lady's mother living in the white house with him. guess michelle wears the trousers huh

[Chu]

Congratulations Americans.

His mother is living with him, so she can look after the kid's, apparently.

[Aaron]

Yes. I second the congratulations. I was considering writing a letter to him as a well wishery thing.

[Iscariot]

I'm so happy Obama is president. I was a month too young to vote in the Bush v. Kerry campaign, so this is my first actual presidential election that I participated in and my candidate won. What a great feeling.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

I'm so happy Obama is president. I was a month too young to vote in the Bush v. Kerry campaign, so this is my first actual presidential election that I participated in and my candidate won. What a great feeling.

You should have never had the right to vote being mentally ill.

[Iskandar]

And where in the Constitution does it say that? Or any law, for that matter.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

And where in the Constitution does it say that? Or any law, for that matter.

The mentally ill aren't even allowed to own guns in this country. I would submit to you a mentally ill person wielding arms is significantly less threatening and dangerous than an idiot wielding an election ballot.

[siva_chair]

And where in the Constitution does it say that? Or any law, for that matter.

Well, most states say that a person can't vote if they are a convicted felon or declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.

Key words there are "declared" and "by a court of law."

[Iskandar]

A mentally ill person with a gun is much more dangerous. Of course depending on the extent of mental illness, what kind etc.
Well, most states say that a person can't vote if they are a convicted felon or declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.

Key words there are "declared" and "by a court of law."Yes, and Jared is not mentally incompetent* so VF's argument holds no water.


*Though sometimes I wonder.

[siva_chair]

Yes, and Jared is not mentally incompetent* so VF's argument holds no water.


*Though sometimes I wonder.

I know, I was just saying it is actually in law.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

A mentally ill person with a gun is much more dangerous. Of course depending on the extent of mental illness, what kind etc.
Yes, and Jared is not mentally incompetent* so VF's argument holds no water.


1. Well maybe one with a gun is more dangerous than one with a voting ballot. But how many actually have guns and how many actually have the right to vote? Because you'll see relatively few on the former, and many tens of millions on the latter.

and 2. Iscariot has openly admitted to his mental illness and schizophrenia and made public threats against my life. I consider that "mentally incompetent".

[Iskandar]

You've admitted to mental illness and made public threats too. What's your point?

I know that's a tu quoque fallacy but I don't care enough to argue properly with you.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

You've admitted to mental illness and made public threats too. What's your point?

I know that's a tu quoque fallacy but I don't care enough to argue properly with you.

Well there's a difference between threatening someone's life and threatening to run for Congress and raise your taxes 200%. I fail to see the connection.

[Iskandar]

Too lazy to care.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Too lazy to care.

Well you need to stop making accusations against me. I have done nothing wrong. I am not anti-anyone. I am pro-White, pro-heterosexual, and pro-Protestant.

[siva_chair]

And pro-retarded.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

And pro-retarded.

No that is one minority group I heap laughter upon.

[Iskandar]

You can't be pro-white at the expense of other groups.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

You can't be pro-white at the expense of other groups.

It's not at the expense of anyone. If whites want to donate to charities that benefit whites I consider that an honorable thing. If they want to donate to a black charity it's also an honorable thing but to feel a connection to one's own people is not racist at all.

[Iskandar]

Thing is "pro-white" advocacy is just a thinly disguised front for racism. Read Stormfront some time; you'll probably agree with a lot of what they say.

Whites are the dominant group in Western society and anyone who doesn't realize this is a moron, tbh.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Whites are the dominant group in Western society

Not in the donut stores.

[siva_chair]

I wouldn't call white seperatists inherently racists, tbh. You could be a "pro-white" seperatist and not be racist, methinks.

Nor would I call black seperatists inherently racist, either.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

I wouldn't call white seperatists inherently racists, tbh. You could be a "pro-white" seperatist and not be racist, methinks.

Nor would I call black seperatists inherently racist, either.

But what he's suggesting is that if a white does it it's racist and if a black does it it's because they've been put down all their life and because the white devil tormented them for so long.

[Iskandar]

Most white and black separatists have been racist though. Why else would they want to separate?

[Iscariot]

The mentally ill aren't even allowed to own guns in this country. I would submit to you a mentally ill person wielding arms is significantly less threatening and dangerous than an idiot wielding an election ballot.

I own a gun too so I guess you're screwed.

A mentally ill person with a gun is much more dangerous. Of course depending on the extent of mental illness, what kind etc.
Yes, and Jared is not mentally incompetent* so VF's argument holds no water.


*Though sometimes I wonder.

Hey, eff you. :mad:

[YellowRoseofTexas]

I own a gun too so I guess you're screwed.


Yes but did you obtain it legally and are you in compliance with the Gun Control Act of 1968?

[Iskandar]

Lol, you know we're bros.

[Iscariot]

Yes but did you obtain it legally and are you in compliance with the Gun Control Act of 1968?

Since I bought it at Sportsman's Warehouse and passed a background check I would assume my firearm is legally owned, yes.

Lol, you know we're bros.

True true. But sometimes your words cut me like a steak knife, man. Like a ****ing steak knife.

[siva_chair]

But what he's suggesting is that if a white does it it's racist and if a black does it it's because they've been put down all their life and because the white devil tormented them for so long.

Umm no he wasn't suggesting that, you are making things up.

Most white and black separatists have been racist though. Why else would they want to separate?

Well some people just prefer to be with those of their own kind. That doesn't necessarily mean they think their race superior to other races. It is kind of like how some people prefer blondes to brunettes.

Randy Weaver (the Ruby Ridge guy) was a white seperatist who said: "I'm not a white supremacist. I'm a white separatist. I was born white. I can't help that. If I was black I'd probably be affiliated with Louis Farrakhan's group, but as it is, I don't belong to anything. I don't believe I'm superior to anyone, but I do believe I have the right to be with my own kind of people if I choose to."

I don't believe you have to subscribe to some sort of forced integration to be considered not racist. While it is very true that many white seperatists ARE racist, I don't think it necessarily follows that being a white separatists inherently makes you so.

[Iskandar]

But why separate? You can still choose to associate with your own race and ethnicity in a multicultural society; and many people do to some extent.

Besides which separatism would be impossible without some sort of coercion, I think, but that's a different subject.

[siva_chair]

But why separate? You can still choose to associate with your own race and ethnicity in a multicultural society; and many people do to some extent.

And you can still choose to seperate without thinking yourself superior. I don't see what the deal is. Many seperatists believe that there are fundamental differences in the cultural attitudes between races that inevitably lead to conflict, so isolating themselves from those other races is seen as a way to avoid that conflict and tension. They are free to see it that way and they are free to isolate themselves to avoid that conflict.

Besides which separatism would be impossible without some sort of coercion, I think, but that's a different subject.

No, a group of white/black/asian/etc could purchase property elsewhere and form their own society. Randy Weaver went and lived in the woods, for instance. No coercion involved.

Now a policy of forced integration, on the otherhand....

[Iskandar]

Multiculturalism isn't forced integration. Or maybe it is but that term is a mischaracterization of what multiculturalism means.

[siva_chair]

Multiculturalism isn't forced integration. Or maybe it is but that term is a mischaracterization of what multiculturalism means.

I never said it was. There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism as long as it is voluntary.

But forcing private businesses/organizations/etc to cater or serve all people of all types IS coercive and IS forced integration. And it is also unethical and wrong.

[Iskandar]

What's more important, the right to be racist or the right not to be discriminated against?

[siva_chair]

What's more important, the right to be racist or the right not to be discriminated against?

In what situation?

People have every right to discriminate against whoever they wish on their own property.

If I don't want to allow left handed red heads on my property, I should have every right to bar entry to them.

[Iscariot]

Businesses aren't private property, at least not in the sense of the business owner controlling every aspect of its use.

Ultimately the city/state owns every bit of property that these businesses are operated on, and the city/state is controlled by the federal government. So if the government says, "You have to accept business from all customers regardless of X", then they have to. End of story.

If business owners had exclusivity over their property, then smoking bans would be illegal.

[Iscariot]

I'm going to go smoke a cigarette and contemplate how much I despise every human other than myself.

[siva_chair]

Businesses aren't private property, at least not in the sense of the business owner controlling every aspect of its use.

As it currently stands, yes. This is wrong and unethical, however. Property rights are intimately linked with liberty and freedom.

Ultimately the city/state owns every bit of property that these businesses are operated on, and the city/state is controlled by the federal government. So if the government says, "You have to accept business from all customers regardless of X", then they have to. End of story.

Yes, which is what makes the government a territorial monopolist. This is a major point of contention. I am saying the government has no right to make claim to what should be private land.

If business owners had exclusivity over their property, then smoking bans would be illegal.

Which is why I think smoking bans are beyond ridiculous and unethical.

[Iscariot]

TBH man I agree with you. I believe that a business owner should be in complete control of the property that they run their business on. I was just pointing out that your points of legality are moot in the actual scheme of things.

[siva_chair]

Well unethical and wrong stuff goes down all the time when it comes to the government. I think anyone can agree with that.

[Iskandar]

Unethical stuff happens all the time whenever people are involved. The government are just that, people. But when they do wrong things it's exacerbated by their position of power.

[siva_chair]

Exactly.

[Iskandar]

That goes for anyone in a position of power be it government, military, corporate leaders, religious leaders etc.

[siva_chair]

Sure, but the state exacerbates that power (and abuse) far more than others tend to (although military is a part of the state, and a large part of the power of the other two mentioned derive said power from the state) in that it enjoys the almost unquestioned guise of legitimacy.

[Aaron]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/obama-retakes-the-oath--slowly/2009/01/22/1232471460922.html

lol

[Iskandar]

I bet the folks at Stormfront were hoping it would be mean his presidency wasn't legitimate. Too bad.

[McP3000]

id lol if after 8 years documents proving obama's birth in a different country appeared out of nowhere

[Knifeboy]

eh, noone would believe that anyway

[Iscariot]

I just want to see if, when Obama leaves office, he says, "I'm out, bitches!"

[mph4ever]

i reckon hes had to be so white while getting elected that we will slowly see the dark side come out over the course of his presidency

[Iskandar]

First step: Rename the White House.

[siva_chair]

To the Half-White House?

[Iscariot]

He should rename it to The Inside-Out Oreo Cookie House. It's white on the outside and black on the inside, but everyone wants a piece.

[mph4ever]

all those pc dopes get their way it will be called the gray house before long

[siva_chair]

No that may offend space aliens.

They will just call it "The House."

[mph4ever]

i'm guessing benson is getting all nervous in there now. there was a time when he was the only black man in the house

[Knifeboy]

No that may offend space aliens.

They will just call it "The House."


That will offend the homeless people

they'll have to call it "The Place"

[siva_chair]

That will offend the homeless people

they'll have to call it "The Place"

Very good observation, sir.

[hismajestythepope]

That will offend the homeless people
explain

[Knifeboy]

:confused:

you want me to explain a lame joke?

[McP3000]

Scooby Doo

[sweboy]

I wonder if Obama has installed a disco ball in the oval office yet

[DBoons Ghost]

I wonder if Obama has installed a disco ball in the oval office yet

I hear he was waiting for his velvet framed pictures of Shaft and Foxy Brown to be put up first. MTV Cribs will be over there soon I understand.

[Aaron]

Obama In da House

[Mr. Ron]

"yeah this is my fridge, its stocked with hip shi you kno for any l8dies visitin'"

[Aaron]

He'll get neons installed under his desk in the oval office. Crunk it up.

[mph4ever]

iskandar - supermod - does that mean banning and stuff now too

[siva_chair]

It means he fights crime offline as well and wears a cape.

[mph4ever]

the new meds and obama have lifted the siege of negativity that had hung over pnwi

all we need now is some topics relating to politics, news or world issues and all will be fine. in the meantime lets just keep bashing the usual suspects

[Iskandar]

iskandar - supermod - does that mean banning and stuff now tooYes.

Really there is no need for me to be a supermod because the other forums are well covered. But I needed to be able to ban idiots who pop up now and then. This is a forum for serious discussion only.

[Der Übermensch]

...spoilsport...

[Iskandar]

Huh? Banning people who break the rules minimizes distractions and keeps discussion on track.

Iskandar makes the trains run on time.

[sweboy]

I welcome great leader Iskandar! He will make sure quality of discussion is always high and will protect us from enemies of MX.

[Der Übermensch]

Iskandar makes the trains run on time.

So did Mussolini!!! I knew it! You fascist you!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[Iskandar]

... that was the reference.

[mph4ever]

This is a forum for serious discussion only.

except in this particular café, right?

[Iskandar]

This is the one thread where we can talk about whatever and be as off-topic as we want. Certain people seem to think the Report Problems thread is the place for that....

[siva_chair]

Report problems thread is great for making fun of people who report stupid problems.

[mph4ever]

This is the one thread where we can talk about whatever and be as off-topic as we want. Certain people seem to think the Report Problems thread is the place for that....

we are all guilty from time to time, 'cept siva. you never see him go off topic

[Iskandar]

Lol yes you do. And I am as guilty of that as anyone though I try to set an example since I am the moderator around here!

[siva_chair]

we are all guilty from time to time, 'cept siva. you never see him go off topic

I always deviate from the topic if it is a retarded topic or has been discussed to death wtf are you talking about?

[mph4ever]

I always deviate from the topic if it is a retarded topic or has been discussed to death wtf are you talking about?


i guess you could take one of two ways. it could be sarcasm or i could mean that you alway reduce everything down to being the fault of the state, which, by the way, you could take as sarcasm also

[siva_chair]

i guess you could take one of two ways. it could be sarcasm or i could mean that you alway reduce everything down to being the fault of the state, which, by the way, you could take as sarcasm also

Well the state plays a pretty big part of politics, so....

And if the topic is about psychology, science, etc I don't usually mention the state.

[Knifeboy]

Hey Siva, random question
What are your thoughts on the harshness of penalties for crimes? IE do you generally think prison sentences should be longer, or shorter?

[mph4ever]

i downloaded the patent and copyright book you referenced. it looks good. someone bought me one of those sony ebook readers things and all i have to do is download the .pdf and copy it across

[Knifeboy]

considering how radical I am about my views on copyright (and the abolishment thereof) I should probably look into that book too.. Never actually read anything about the subject.

[siva_chair]

Hey Siva, random question
What are your thoughts on the harshness of penalties for crimes? IE do you generally think prison sentences should be longer, or shorter?

A criminal should lose his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights. Proportionality. This is a maximum, rather than a mandatory, punishment for the criminal.

i downloaded the patent and copyright book you referenced. it looks good. someone bought me one of those sony ebook readers things and all i have to do is download the .pdf and copy it across

It is good. I hope you enjoy it.

[siva_chair]

considering how radical I am about my views on copyright (and the abolishment thereof) I should probably look into that book too.. Never actually read anything about the subject.

Yes, you definitely should. (Especially considering you support the abolishment of it).

[Knifeboy]

A criminal should lose his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights. Proportionality. This is a maximum, rather than a mandatory, punishment for the criminal.

If I'm reading this right, you want milder penalties for the majority of crimes compared to what they are now?

[siva_chair]

If I'm reading this right, you want milder penalties for the majority of crimes compared to what they are now?

Well what do you mean? You are going to have to be more specific for me to elaborate any.

[Knifeboy]

Milder penalties for things like drug crimes (I'm guessing you want to get rid of the penalty for that altogether), no such thing as a three strike law.. I can't really think of much more now. I wanted to ask because I was thinking about how all penalties here are really mild compared to what happens over there in americanaland. And thought about how that fit in with the whole libertarian anarchist viewpoint

[siva_chair]

Milder penalties for things like drug crimes (I'm guessing you want to get rid of the penalty for that altogether), no such thing as a three strike law.. I can't really think of much more now. I wanted to ask because I was thinking about how all penalties here are really mild compared to what happens over there in americanaland. And thought about how that fit in with the whole libertarian anarchist viewpoint

Yes, drugs are a victimless crime so they definitely aren't compatible with a libertarian judicial order.

Three strike laws are silly and also incompatible as they tend to disproportionately deprive an individual of his or her rights.

Basically, restitution would become central.

[Knifeboy]

Ah, now I get it.
Say you randomly attack me, and cut off my leg. Will the restitution be in the form of me getting to cut your leg off? :p or would that just result in imprisonment, or imprisonment + restitution in the form of money?

[Iskandar]

Putting restitution aside for a moment, what about reforming of criminals? Is it possible/feasible?

[siva_chair]

Ah, now I get it.
Say you randomly attack me, and cut off my leg. Will the restitution be in the form of me getting to cut your leg off? :p or would that just result in imprisonment, or imprisonment + restitution in the form of money?

It could I suppose. If I were to cut off your leg, you would have the right to pursue to have my leg cut off + court costs, medical expenses, etc.

Or, I could enter into some voluntary contract with you and buy my punishment off (which you would obviously be free to set the price at. Whatever monetary value you feel your leg was worth).

Putting restitution aside for a moment, what about reforming of criminals? Is it possible/feasible?

The purpose of justice is to to secure restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer, though.

"Reforming" criminals is far more uncertain and arbitrary than the deterrence principle.

[Iskandar]

Okay, what about repeat offenders?

[siva_chair]

Okay, what about repeat offenders?

They will repeatedly have to pay, obviously.

Also, in a Libertarian society, it would follow that such individuals would either have obscenely high insurance premiums or possibly wouldn't be able to get insurance coverage for many things at all. (This goes with the idea and role of insurance in such a society. For a more comprehensive and detailed look at that aspect I would recommend Chaos Theory by Robert Murphey. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf)

[Iskandar]

God, you have a Mises Institute link for everything.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Okay, what about repeat offenders?
I assume a third leg-cutting offence would necessitate the removal of a third leg.

[McP3000]

why would you let them cut off your penis

[siva_chair]

God, you have a Mises Institute link for everything.

Well that is because they have lots of libertarian literature in .pdf format.

Mein apologies for burdening you wiz zee convenience and all, mein fuhrer. It vill not happen again.

[Dave de Sylvia]

why would you let them cut off your penis
cos libertarianism

[siva_chair]

In that scenario you would really find out how much someone values their dick.

[Iskandar]

Beyond price, I would hope.

[siva_chair]

Only a free market can tell.

[Iskandar]

A free market for penises? Wow, libertarianism just got a whole lot gayer.

[Mr. Ron]

don't even talk about that, I get nervous enough trimming the hedges.

[siva_chair]

A free market for penises? Wow, libertarianism just got a whole lot gayer.

No on the marginal value of dickcapitation.

Though there would be a free market for penis, it's called male prostitution. :thumb: