Modern Anarchy: Justification

Your own wikipedia article proves my point, anarchist seek to eliminate the state.

Public ownership of goods is through government, in communism there is no such thing as ownership period. Everything is communally produced and taken as needed.

You really need to pick up a dictionary.

 

Back to the main point through, anarchy is another noble fantasy that has no pragmatic applications.

 

"Your own wikipedia article proves my point, anarchist seek to eliminate the state."

Anarchists seek to eliminate authority. The State is only one form of authority.


"Public ownership of goods is through government"

You didn't read this definition very well either, did you? public or common ownership. Public or common. Or did you just not read it?


"You really need to pick up a dictionary."

Ridiculous. You think a dictionary can tell me what I believe in?


"Back to the main point through, anarchy is another noble fantasy that has no pragmatic applications."

I am not a pragmatist, so I don't see what your point is about that. I couldn't care less about what you think "works," since you have no standard to determine what "works."

And it is not a "fantasy," insofar as its principles are based on facts, rather unlike the fantastic principles of democracy and capitalism. There is very little in capitalist economics and democratic theory that actually makes any sense: it's all vacuous nonsense that falls apart at the merest examination. (I know: I used to believe in it, until I realized how undefendable it is)

 

This one statement alone tells me that debating any issue with you is not worth my time. Without precise definitions of words there can be no meaningful discussion. I'm sorry, but you don't get to unilaterally change the definitions of the English language to suit your selfish needs.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia.

Every Anarchist I've known personally, about half a dozen, was a selfish whiner who just didn't want to pay taxes or be held legally responsibility for his actions. Everything you've said here reinforces that perception.

.

 

I'm just going to quote this

 

Dictionaries are not adequate in defining technical terms. Encyclopedias are. Furthermore, wikipedia is more current than any printed encyclopedia, therefore it presents the perfect place to look up such terms.

The fact that you do not understand this basic fact about defining terms tells me that neither of you have ever seriously debated any kind of ideological issue. Debating complex issues from a dictionary definition is pretty much error #1 in any such debate, it's a newbie mistake honestly.

If you want to debate what Anarchists believe, then ask them what they believe. If you want to debate straw men of what YOU think Anarchists believe because "I read it in a dictionary!!!", then debate the dictionary. There is nothing more disrespectful than to assume what people believe instead of just, you know, ASKING THEM.

 

You think you speak for all anarchists when most anarchists associate on the belief of no government, enough said. Anarchy is well defined, both in definition and practical application, but you want to change it to fit your own personal beliefs that you've barely even described to begin with which is why we can't argue anything minus you're asinine definition of anarchy. Still waiting for the rebuttal on how capitalism can't exist without government, so anarcho-capitalism is asinine.

Now, either, TITS OR GTFO

 

"You think you speak for all anarchists"

No, I don't speak for all anarchists, but I speak for all of those that matter. "Anarcho-capitalists" reduce anarchism to anti-statism, are you one of them? I don't think they matter, personally.

I at least speak for the AFAQ:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA1.html

"Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."

How much clearer of a statement do you need, from the most accepted FAQ in the Anarchist community? Do you need me to quote you individuals one by one until you give up? You are a tiresome bore.


"Still waiting for the rebuttal on how capitalism can't exist without government, so anarcho-capitalism is asinine."

What are you blabbering about? I never said otherwise. Are you arguing with your imaginary friend or something? Ironically, so far you seem to be the ancap here, since only ancaps argue that Anarchism is anti-statism exclusively, as far as I know.

"Now, either, TITS OR GTFO "

Go take your meds, kid.

I understand now why you don't like Wikipedia: reading about any of these topics on Wikipedia for two minutes would refute pretty much everything you believe about them. You obviously haven't read anything, any book or essay or site or anything of the sort, about Anarchism or socialism. You are talking about stuff you have no idea about, and it's pointless.

 

my thoughts on the definition, is that it not only means the absense of government, but also the denial of authority, as the Merriam Webster Dictionary says.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/anarchy
just throwin that out there.

we dont need labor to have products... a revolution has been drawing need since the Industrial Revolution, and too many people are religiously bowing down to the money institution, and things'll only get worse as less and less jobs are needed as human labor is being replaced by machines, and for every single job. engineers have already invented and made machines that can perform bypass surgery successfully. apply that machine, along with self-sustainability, to an economy and you create peace, understanding, mutuality, equality, a very high standard of living, and proper parasitism as humans.

so pretty much yeah its parasitism. we humans parasite off the earth, whether we are burning fossil fuels, absorbing the sun, making a garden, etc. The difference between a resource-based economy and any monetary system is that monetary systems will always and perpetually fight itself and even destroy the organism it relies on.

wiki is good for providing information, but dictionaries are extremely reliable for definitions. if u disagree with that, i'm sorry you're just lost dude. its not like definitions of words change that much that we need an "up-to-date" source for definitions. if so, why don'tcha use the urban dictionary

 

One of the first discussion boards I joined was CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), founded by Matthew J. Slick. Matt banned so many people for disagreeing with him and his minions that a man named John W. Ratcliff started a forum called AARM (Atheists Apologetics Research Ministry). Each of these men were immortalized with his own page on Wikipedia.

For quite a period of time the supporters of each forum were changing the Wiki page for their rival founders almost daily. The information one would read on Wikipedia would depend on what day you read it and who was the last to change it.

The point is, Wikipedia is a good place to start a propaganda campaign. (propaganda - the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person)

Since this time Wikipedia has put in place some controls to help prevent this but, the information is still far from reliable. It does download faster than most encyclopedias and is somewhat easy to use, but relying on it for good and accurate information is a big mistake. There is nothing like an encyclopedia that uses information from bona fide, recognized experts on each topic.

A dictionary defines a term, an encyclopedia gives you information about topics. A good encyclopedia is mindful of dictionary definitions.

encyclopedia - a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.

dictionary - a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses.

When you use words improperly, nobody understands what the hell you're talking about. Imagine ordering a hamburger and getting a bowl of water with vegetables in it because the chef (an anarchist) has defined that as a hamburger.

.

 

Funny story, I was actually banned from the CARM forum, a few days after I had a formal debate against Matt Slick, for posting in rhyme. It was pretty awesome. Matt Slick fails at debating though.

 

His logic is circular and if it isn't in the Bible he doesn't have a clue.

There was a period of time when those banned souls were invited to join AARM, that's how Ratcliff stocked his forum. I was also banned for going toe to toe with Matt Slick. I was tired of having my posts edited and warnings for disagreement, so I found his pet topic and figured I'd go out with a bang; but my posts were deleted almost immediately.

That was my first experience with Apologists. The term does not suit them, they never apologize for the unwanted colostomies they've performed with their Bibles. After several operations, I still need to have Genesis and Revelations removed; and those red letters still give me gas. Yesterday I farted half of "The Sermon on the Mount."

.

 

I agree here.

 

I'm all for anarchy if it gets Obamy out of the white house.

 

Some people NEED to be watched. Even controlled. How would that happen under anarchy?

 

14 posts and i haven't seen an inkling of intelligence yet . . .

edit to note - shrinking post count, down to 11 [currently]

never noticed that before, deletions?

 

oh, the anarchy they're talking about is the kind where everyone has guns and is massively paranoid

so with any luck the assholes will all kill each other

i'll let you know when it's safe to come out

:hide:

 

Sounds like east LA to me.

 

i like east la

better than west or south or north anyways, not too crazy about la in general . . .

izzat where you live?

edit - note to self, scratcho says where he lives, it's not los angeles, and i am stupid

 

hahaha. Good one. I was using east LA as an example of places where the law has little control and there's plenty of gunplay. Maybe some other location would have been better. I haven't been there since '87.