[/font]Not sure what's all that, but welcome (back?) to RT, Brojees!
[font=comic sans ms]LOLOL!! And would you have your bard mute?[/font]
I am Brojees
That is quite of an introduction Brojees! 
Welcome aboard!
Welcome aboard!Please help find a cure for Autism support The Walk For Autism by clicking this link. http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/kevin_perks70
-
NOA Imawario
- Commanding Knight
- Posts: 1594
- Location: Coming to a message board near you!
-
Diabolique
- Da Queen
- Posts: 11682
- Location: Da DIB Dungeon
Aww I so hope that things settle down in Venezuela! I know how much you loved it there. Have you been home to Ireland since you came to the U.S.?Brojees wrote:[font=comic sans ms]My land is gone for me for the time. Hopefully Rosales will triumph over Chavez in the month coming. But that may well not happen.
Even were Rosales to triumph, I would still think prudence would dictate we wait another 3-5 years before returning. We currently are traveling again, looks like we have a few years to pass in the Arizona desert.
And how have you been keeping yourself? I see the new site is as lovely as the old.[/font]
So this time it's Arizona, huh? Well...at least you will get dry heat there.
Things have been good here! We moved RT a few months ago, since Ezboard wasn't giving us much feature wise and had bugs that weren't getting fixed for months and months.
[font=comic sans ms]Thank you all for the warm welcomes. I hope the prose is enjoyed, it is my safety valve.
No Ingrid I never get to Ireland...may have a chance with this new company as they manufacture there...we'll see. I am to the point anymore where I am not about to ever fall in love with another land...It seems like all of them, people who are determined to betray you sneak into office and do exactly that.
I find myself enamoured with the simplicity and beauty of pure anarchy more and more each day. And am not surprised to see the falsehoods and mistruths that those who survive as government leeches spread about anarchy. It scares the beJesus out of them![/font]
No Ingrid I never get to Ireland...may have a chance with this new company as they manufacture there...we'll see. I am to the point anymore where I am not about to ever fall in love with another land...It seems like all of them, people who are determined to betray you sneak into office and do exactly that.
I find myself enamoured with the simplicity and beauty of pure anarchy more and more each day. And am not surprised to see the falsehoods and mistruths that those who survive as government leeches spread about anarchy. It scares the beJesus out of them![/font]
Anarchy isn't good for the simple reason that if something that really does require government intervention pops up, there won't be any government there to prevent the situation from degrading into utter chaos. What you would probably prefer is a Libertarian government, which exists purely to do the minimum of required taxation and regulation to keep the country functioning, is there in case of emergencies, and otherwise stays out of the way. There's something to be said for that, really. 
[font=comic sans ms]Libertarianism is the world's largest high school debating society. And self defeating in approach. I speak as a former Libertarian chair.
The failure of the Libertarian philosophy is in it's misguided attempt to compete in the political arena. The currency of the polital arena is POWER, and Libertarian philosophy eschews POWER at every opportunity. There is no way any political philosophy will ever gain widespread acceptance to bring about the Libertarian utopia so many dream of if they continue to reject POWER...But then were they to accept POWER, then they would not be Libertarian, would they?
A far more prudent approach is Rational Anarchy. Rational in that it accepts these basic truism.
The failure of the Libertarian philosophy is in it's misguided attempt to compete in the political arena. The currency of the polital arena is POWER, and Libertarian philosophy eschews POWER at every opportunity. There is no way any political philosophy will ever gain widespread acceptance to bring about the Libertarian utopia so many dream of if they continue to reject POWER...But then were they to accept POWER, then they would not be Libertarian, would they?
A far more prudent approach is Rational Anarchy. Rational in that it accepts these basic truism.
- Freedom is personal, noone can "Give nor Take" it from you.
Government is inevitable. Common man is not brave enough to live witout it.
The inevitable government is never to be trusted, only tolerated to a minimum level and when it becomes too intrusive...Absent yourself from said government, do not engage in the folly of trying to change it, you cannot.
If there's an inevitable government, as you put it, then there's not anarchy. Definition of anarchy, as listed in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order
You can't have anarchy unless you completely eliminate all government, and as you said, there'll pretty much always be one. I don't think that's merely because people aren't brave enough to live without one. Having a government, assuming it's a functional, non-oppressive one, is useful in many ways. For example, I don't trust people to moderate themselves on their own. Too many people are too violent. Also, who would maintain all the roads and public utilities? Private companies? They would all have different building standards, and nothing would get done properly. That's the way it was when we first got railroads in this country. All the different states had different track sizes and whatnot, making interstate railroads impossibly hard to work out. Only with federal regulation did we get anything accomplished. We didn't really grow as a country until we became the United States. That doesn't work without an overseeing government.
As for Libertarianism being a self-defeating cause, I doubt the founders intended for it to be a political powerhouse in the first place. Isn't it more of an ideology, anyway? As you said, the point is to limit the power of government. The only way Libertarian candidates would ever get elected is if the people were so thoroughly sick of big government that they were willing to go to extremes to reduce its size and influence. I doubt we'll ever see that point, though. As long as the living standard is decent and the country is relatively stable, most people will stick with the mainstream. That's human nature.
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order
You can't have anarchy unless you completely eliminate all government, and as you said, there'll pretty much always be one. I don't think that's merely because people aren't brave enough to live without one. Having a government, assuming it's a functional, non-oppressive one, is useful in many ways. For example, I don't trust people to moderate themselves on their own. Too many people are too violent. Also, who would maintain all the roads and public utilities? Private companies? They would all have different building standards, and nothing would get done properly. That's the way it was when we first got railroads in this country. All the different states had different track sizes and whatnot, making interstate railroads impossibly hard to work out. Only with federal regulation did we get anything accomplished. We didn't really grow as a country until we became the United States. That doesn't work without an overseeing government.
As for Libertarianism being a self-defeating cause, I doubt the founders intended for it to be a political powerhouse in the first place. Isn't it more of an ideology, anyway? As you said, the point is to limit the power of government. The only way Libertarian candidates would ever get elected is if the people were so thoroughly sick of big government that they were willing to go to extremes to reduce its size and influence. I doubt we'll ever see that point, though. As long as the living standard is decent and the country is relatively stable, most people will stick with the mainstream. That's human nature.
[font=comic sans ms]LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
You cannot deny me my anarchy!!
LOLOLOL!!!!
And I made the specific distinction when I described Rational Anarchy. But in any event, Merriam-Webster (Daniel Webster, not a bloke one would describe as a friend of anarchy now, is he?) is wrong and their "Definition" is quite biased.
Back to basics. First reject what you have been told. Anarchy is in no way synonymous with chaos, that erroneous paradigm has originated amongst those to whom anarchy is the antithesis of their very being.
Next, anarchy is not by definition a "Group State". You may have a group of anarchists, (Doubtful, but we are trying to illustrate a point), but the group itself is not anarchic. Simply cannot be, anarchy rejects the group as the individual anarchist has discovered that freedom, liberty only exists on the individual level.
Finally, liberty...freedom is not a physical state. To presume that it is would deny those who have no physical mobility their freedom. Rather freedom is an intellectual state. In other words, you might imprison my physical body...but as long as my mind functions, my thoughts are my own...e.g. you will never wipe the grin from my lips, nor the defiance from my eyes.
And I can assure you, that frustrates the oppressor far more than it frustrates the free man. Laughing at people can be a very good thing.[/font]
You cannot deny me my anarchy!!
LOLOLOL!!!!
And I made the specific distinction when I described Rational Anarchy. But in any event, Merriam-Webster (Daniel Webster, not a bloke one would describe as a friend of anarchy now, is he?) is wrong and their "Definition" is quite biased.
Back to basics. First reject what you have been told. Anarchy is in no way synonymous with chaos, that erroneous paradigm has originated amongst those to whom anarchy is the antithesis of their very being.
Next, anarchy is not by definition a "Group State". You may have a group of anarchists, (Doubtful, but we are trying to illustrate a point), but the group itself is not anarchic. Simply cannot be, anarchy rejects the group as the individual anarchist has discovered that freedom, liberty only exists on the individual level.
Finally, liberty...freedom is not a physical state. To presume that it is would deny those who have no physical mobility their freedom. Rather freedom is an intellectual state. In other words, you might imprison my physical body...but as long as my mind functions, my thoughts are my own...e.g. you will never wipe the grin from my lips, nor the defiance from my eyes.
And I can assure you, that frustrates the oppressor far more than it frustrates the free man. Laughing at people can be a very good thing.[/font]
Brojees wrote:[font=comic sans ms]And I made the specific distinction when I described Rational Anarchy. But in any event, Merriam-Webster (Daniel Webster, not a bloke one would describe as a friend of anarchy now, is he?) is wrong and their "Definition" is quite biased.
[/font]
I wasn't even using the rest of the definition besides the first part, which states that anarchy is simply an absence of government. This much is indisputable - lack of government is what we refer to as anarchy. Whether or not chaos results is irrelevant. Tacking the word "rational" on in front of the word anarchy doesn't change its fundamental definition. 
If you wish for a duel of semantics, however, then prepare to be rationalized into hamburger meat, for I shall certainly triumph! Muaha!
</cheezy English duel-type voice>
Anyway, it seems to me that what you refer to as "rational anarchy" is not actually anarchy at all. Case in point:
Chaos - Anarchy doesn't automatically equate to chaos, but historically, it usually has. The rotten part of society tends to be emboldened by what they perceive as a lack of potential consequence for their actions, and the end result is an increase in chaos and violence. This happens almost every time you have a temporary collapse in government due to war or disaster. It makes it hard to disassociate chaos from anarchy, even though I don't technically include it in my personal definition of the word.
Group State - Well yeah, I don't think anybody would argue that anarchy is a state of any sort. Isn't the whole point a rejection of the state in the first place? This becomes relevant as a contradicting point in the next note.
Personal Liberty - I can see where this idea makes sense, and to its credit, it has inspired some of the greatest human rights leaders in human history, such as King and Gandhi (it's also part of the reason why my people, the Jews, have outlived every oppressor thus far for the last four or five thousand years
) The only problem is when the oppressor gets tired of watching you smirk at him and simply decides to kill you outright. You can't claim freedom when you're dead, and anyone evil enough to oppress you in the first place isn't going to lose any sleep at night by taking it one step further and killing you entirely.Also, consider this - what's to prevent said oppressors from killing you other than an overlying government which prohibits the act? Unless you've got the strength to protect yourself, you have to either rely on a greater power to do it or band together with others, which according to your own definition, anarchists are reluctant to do. All this essentially makes anarchy viable only for two types of people: those who are willing to fight and kill to survive, and those who are willing to go live somewhere where there are no other people around. If you can't deal with that, the risk is just too high that you'll end up trampled by people of the first type I just mentioned. Quite frankly, I'm grateful for the government of this country for making it so I don't have to worry about that ever happening.
[font=comic sans ms]Frong wrote:Brojees wrote:[font=comic sans ms]And I made the specific distinction when I described Rational Anarchy. But in any event, Merriam-Webster (Daniel Webster, not a bloke one would describe as a friend of anarchy now, is he?) is wrong and their "Definition" is quite biased.
[/font]
If you wish for a duel of semantics, however, then prepare to be rationalized into hamburger meat, for I shall certainly triumph! Muaha!
</cheezy English duel-type voice>
Anyway, it seems to me that what you refer to as "rational anarchy" is not actually anarchy at all. Case in point:
Chaos - Anarchy doesn't automatically equate to chaos, but historically, it usually has. The rotten part of society tends to be emboldened by what they perceive as a lack of potential consequence for their actions, and the end result is an increase in chaos and violence. This happens almost every time you have a temporary collapse in government due to war or disaster. It makes it hard to disassociate chaos from anarchy, even though I don't technically include it in my personal definition of the word.
Group State - Well yeah, I don't think anybody would argue that anarchy is a state of any sort. Isn't the whole point a rejection of the state in the first place? This becomes relevant as a contradicting point in the next note.
Personal Liberty - I can see where this idea makes sense, and to its credit, it has inspired some of the greatest human rights leaders in human history, such as King and Gandhi (it's also part of the reason why my people, the Jews, have outlived every oppressor thus far for the last four or five thousand years
Also, consider this - what's to prevent said oppressors from killing you other than an overlying government which prohibits the act? Unless you've got the strength to protect yourself, you have to either rely on a greater power to do it or band together with others, which according to your own definition, anarchists are reluctant to do. All this essentially makes anarchy viable only for two types of people: those who are willing to fight and kill to survive, and those who are willing to go live somewhere where there are no other people around. If you can't deal with that, the risk is just too high that you'll end up trampled by people of the first type I just mentioned. Quite frankly, I'm grateful for the government of this country for making it so I don't have to worry about that ever happening.
Quite frankly, I'm grateful for the government of this country for making it so I don't have to worry about that ever happening.
You may trust in government. I prefer to trust in myself. By heritage we are quite divergent. Your Jewish heritage is one which has long trusted in governments, governments which have traditionally betrayed, abused and oppressed you. Yet the long suffering Jews take the stiff upper lip and struggle on through adversity.
My heritage is one where the traditional greeting has long been, "I greet you as a free man". I am Irish Tinker, the People. Governing us has been equated to herding cats. My rejection of government is nothing more than generations of breeding as is your acceptance of same.
By relying on your paradigms to analyze my views, you also missed a third alternative to submitting to oppression. Those appendages on the bottom of your legs are more than just shoe stretchers.[/font]