ICEBreaker on 30/3/2002 at 03:35
Quote:
In reply to Anarkos Piracy and politics are quite distinct topics. Is it a deliberate attempt to express your political opinions at every possible opportunity? This is an unsolicited advertisement of your propaganda. (I actually have no idea what unadvertisement is. No doubt some coined word from your propaganda.)
Now, I ask you one question. How dare you talk of Anarchy when know not what it is?Many other points in your post (which I will not include for the sake of brevity) revolve mainly about my ignorance of political theories as well as the works of various famous historical philosophers. This is correct for the most part, although some of them are not (e.g. I know more than you concerning German history seeing as that is my country, and yes I certainly know who Martin Luther was, I got mixed up since you always name both of them in the same verbal regurgitation). The simple point is this. I admit that I am in no position to argue with you about famous historical characters and events, mainly due to my lack of knowledge. This means I will not engage in a theoretical debate on politics (besides this is not the right forum), however it still leaves a lot of things for me to reply to. Things, which appeals to the common sense of righteousness as oppose to knowledge of historical facts.
You are arrogant and foolish - especially at your young age - to assume superiority over some of the greatest theorists and economists of our world.I do not! You just grab any name and associate it with yourself. You have given no evidence that the views of those influential thinkers are on the same line as yours. I am sure you can pick out vague similarities, seeing as you call yourself an Anarcho-Democratic-Socialism, which covers a pretty broad spectrum. I have nothing against Democracy nor against Socialism, so you can just about stop pulling names out of the hat. It is like saying, "I am an Islamic-Christian-Jew and prominent figures who back my views started with Moses all the way up to the current Pope". You just cannot associate yourself with every these people, and pit me against them.
I do not want to destroy the state. I want a state. I want a people's state. How, then, could I be an Anarchist?Then perhaps you should not add the prefix "Anarcho" to your long string of Anarcho-Democratic-Socialism.
I detest this view. If it's legal, it's right! That is a disgusting show of moral cowardice. You think piracy is immoral - correct? - but if it's legal, you think it's fine?There is a difference between morality and abiding by the law. The law is not everything, and is subject to change. If a certain law dissatisfied someone, they have the right in a democratic country to pursue the proper channels in the hope that the law can be changed. If the law is indeed unfair, a large enough demand for the change in the law will exist, and the law will be abolished. I merely stated that if piracy is not illegal in New Zealand, then go right ahead and do it if you wish. Software companies will then lose interest marketing to New Zealand, decreasing bilateral trade, and increasing pressures within the government to respect intellectual property. There are always loop holes within the law, and it is immoral to exploit it, but soon the laws will change to cover the loopholes. The legal system is not perfect, but as citizens of a country, we have vowed to uphold the law, and anyone breaking those laws blatantly is considered enemies of the state and anti-society. Do NOT associate yourself as some grand revolutionist. These people appealed to the masses against the oppression of the few. At the moment, it is only your view that the government and global corporations somehow still oppress us. However not many people share that view. All the complains you have for the current political, economic, and social model can be changed while still keeping within the confines of the current legal system. It does not require the abolishment of the current and the implementation of the new. I do not advocate this, but one solution to one of your problem is to increase corporate taxation, lower consumer taxation and increase welfare to the public. It does not require drastic and extremist efforts.
I support the peacefull protesters caught in the police aggression.Look, as I said before, I don't know if you are being naive or you are trying to make a fool out of me. If that is really your belief, then fine, I have nothing more to say on the subject of demonstrations and police aggression. However I will not for one moment sympathise with demonstrators. I am pretty sure the police on many occasions use excessive force. The police have been known to beat up a person on the basis of his race. However protesters know what they are getting into. They know they broke the law. There is no point complaining that the police used excessive force. I know who cast the first glass bottles. In any riot there will be casualties. Quoting the death of someone is meaningless. Who knows how he was killed? Mob trampled perhaps? Police baton, maybe. The police could be using "self defence". All speculations. Even if you have direct evidence that someone died at the hands of the police, it is still acceptable. In order to contain order, a certain amount of force is necessary. At times the force given by one individual could become lethal. I have no doubt in my mind that there are some police who enjoyed beating protesters. In the same way I am sure that a much larger number of protesters enjoyed beating the police. The bottom line is, the protesters planned a demonstration, broke the law, were given an opportunity to leave, resisted arrest, and any consequential events is their responsibility. No one there could claim they did not know what they were getting themselves into.
LMAO. You see, strangely enough, we "troublemakers" and we "thugs" don't know this...who recruited us, boss? [Note the sarcasm....] The comical thing here is you believe secondhand knowlege. Even when I tell that I know these people. They weren't "recruited" by some evil Anti-Globalist conspiracy.Just pawns of something larger. We will never agree on this point. I know we both have information that we cannot divulge in public, so just leave it at that. We both know we will never convince each other.
And I have seen my friends, peaceful people, honourable people, with broken bones and wounds from rubber bullets. These are not rioters - I can tell you that plainly. I can tell you that from my personnal knowlege.I can believe that. However your friends must be a minority of that crowd. Perhaps others ruined it for you. Maybe. In football hooliganism, a minority of rioters provokes the fights. Then everyone grows wild, and start attacking everyone.
Riot, legally, means what you say. In truth, we are arrested for self-defence. It might be, ah, obvious, to you how evil we Anti-Capitalists are, but to me it is the opposite. I have seen who starts it. Dear God, have a look the internet; you will find Right Wing Libertarians defending our abused right to protest.Their credibility level is pretty low.
Also, who has the upper hand? 300,000 untrained, unarmed civilians or 10,000 well-trained, heavily armed, well-organised police? The police.Really? One person against 30. Even Bruce Lee with a machine gun would be taken down by 30 men. The point is that assuming the numbers above (which is arbitrary) was true, the police would need to use 30 times the force of a single protester in order to control them. This may be the excessive but necessary force you have been describing.
LMAO. You are talking, you realise, to someone who want a Law Degree - time to rethink your predjudices, perhaps....Not really. You study the law, but you don't respect it.
Nope. Every time that YOU hear about. Was their trouble at the G8 solidarity marches? At the marches on the Argentine Embassies?Quite true. I over generalised. However if even a small but significant number of the marches becomes a riot, that is reason enough to disallow them for a certain period of time.
We can argue all day over this. The bottom line is this. I try to abide by the laws of the country I am staying at. It is an oath of sorts given when I entered into the country. If I do break a law, I might curse what a stupid law it is, but I will respect it enough to hold myself responsible for it. I will admit my wrongdoing. If motivated enough I will try to change the law so that no one in future will have to go through that trap. I despise the blatant disregard for the law. I also despise people who pick and chose which law they will abide by. Those people are arrogant enough to think they are above the law. Finally I despise people who try to create instability in a society in which the majority are happy with. My opinions are straight forward, and their conclusions certainly do not require in depth knowledge of various facts and events.
Anarkos on 30/3/2002 at 05:03
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Piracy and politics are quite distinct topics. Is it a deliberate attempt to express your political opinions at every possible opportunity? This is an unsolicited advertisement of your propaganda. (I actually have no idea what unadvertisement is. No doubt some coined word from your propaganda.)Agreed; however, one can influence the stand you take on the other; my politics change my attitude to piracy.
BTW, an unadvertisement is a modified ad designed to carry an opposite message.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Many other points in your post (which I will not include for the sake of brevity) revolve mainly about my ignorance of political theories as well as the works of various famous historical philosophers. This is correct for the most part, although some of them are not (e.g. I know more than you concerning German history seeing as that is my country, and yes I certainly know who Martin Luther was, I got mixed up since you always name both of them in the same verbal regurgitation). The simple point is this. I admit that I am in no position to argue with you about famous historical characters and events, mainly due to my lack of knowledge. This means I will not engage in a theoretical debate on politics (besides this is not the right forum), however it still leaves a lot of things for me to reply to. Things, which appeals to the common sense of righteousness as oppose to knowledge of historical facts.Agreed; but, as you appear to evade, this means you are in no position to tell me that "Any talk of promoting anarchy cannot be classed as intelligent." This is what created my response here; to claim that is to claim that the brilliant Anarchists of history were being unintelligent. I merely state you are in no position to judge them, to make such rude and generic statements.
Also, on Luther, well, glad to hear that. Most of what I recall about him comes from "Divinity" at a private school I attended for two years (a scholarship). Divinity roughly meant "why Anglican Protestantism is the best religion". If you can explain a less biassed view of Luther to me, I would appreciate it.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I do not! You just grab any name and associate it with yourself. No I do not. We appear to have a misunderstanding; I am defending Anarchism, an ideal I do not support but do respect. You stated that to support Anarchim was unintelligent; I stated you could not fairly make that claim without knowlege.
Those names I "grabbed" were a list of famed Anarchist philosophers.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You have given no evidence that the views of those influential thinkers are on the same line as yours. They are not; I'm no Anarchist. BUT their views ARE Anarchism.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I am sure you can pick out vague similarities, seeing as you call yourself an Anarcho-Democratic-Socialism, which covers a pretty broad spectrum. I have nothing against Democracy nor against Socialism, so you can just about stop pulling names out of the hat. It is like saying, "I am an Islamic-Christian-Jew and prominent figures who back my views started with Moses all the way up to the current Pope". You just cannot associate yourself with every these people, and pit me against them.I just love arguing at cross purposes. If you wish, I will explain my ideals; but I expect they will not be appreciated. I'm not pulling out these names to defend myself, but to defend their theories.
Basically, if you will admit that Anarchism is a valid idea and all not its supporters are stupid, then the point I was attempting to make has been made.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Then perhaps you should not add the prefix "Anarcho" to your long string of Anarcho-Democratic-Socialism. "Anarcho-..." means a situation whereby a weak state styled body exists. I use that word indicate I advocate a more direct form of Democracy than Constitutional Democracy. I would say "LIbertarian", but that has become associated with varios right wing movements.
Democratic Socialism describes groups and societies such as the Labour Party and the Northern European situation; naturally, that alone does not describe me.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker There is a difference between morality and abiding by the law. The law is not everything, and is subject to change. If a certain law dissatisfied someone, they have the right in a democratic country to pursue the proper channels in the hope that the law can be changed. If the law is indeed unfair, a large enough demand for the change in the law will exist, and the law will be abolished.Idealism. That's the theoiry, not the reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I merely stated that if piracy is not illegal in New Zealand, then go right ahead and do it if you wish. Software companies will then lose interest marketing to New Zealand, decreasing bilateral trade, and increasing pressures within the government to respect intellectual property. There are always loop holes within the law, and it is immoral to exploit it, but soon the laws will change to cover the loopholes. The legal system is not perfect, but as citizens of a country, we have vowed to uphold the law, and anyone breaking those laws blatantly is considered enemies of the state and anti-society.
Interesting. May I point out that the majority of citizens have made no such vow.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Do NOT associate yourself as some grand revolutionist. These people appealed to the masses against the oppression of the few. At the moment, it is only your view that the government and global corporations somehow still oppress us. However not many people share that view.
Well, if I succeed in my life, then it will not be the view of a mere few. I won't try any kind of revolution now; all I can do is try some reform and do PR for the movement....until, that is, we can sway the masses to our view.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker All the complains you have for the current political, economic, and social model can be changed while still keeping within the confines of the current legal system. It does not require the abolishment of the current and the implementation of the new. I do not advocate this, but one solution to one of your problem is to increase corporate taxation, lower consumer taxation and increase welfare to the public. It does not require drastic and extremist efforts.To one such as I, that would. You see, we believe the state is corrupted. The state is corporate.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Look, as I said before, I don't know if you are being naive or you are trying to make a fool out of me.
Niether is the case.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker If that is really your belief, then fine, I have nothing more to say on the subject of demonstrations and police aggression. However I will not for one moment sympathise with demonstrators. I am pretty sure the police on many occasions use excessive force. The police have been known to beat up a person on the basis of his race.
Then let us say no more.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker However protesters know what they are getting into. They know they broke the law. There is no point complaining that the police used excessive force. I know who cast the first glass bottles. In any riot there will be casualties. You don't know that. I honestly believe the opposite; we believe different things here.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Quoting the death of someone is meaningless. Who knows how he was killed? Mob trampled perhaps? Police baton, maybe. Carlos Giulliani was shot twice in the head from close range, by a policeman seated in a vehicle. They then ran over him twice as they returned behind Police lines. Another women was found dead in a river near Genoa; she was last seen in Carabineri hands; that appears to have been an unnofficial excution.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The police could be using "self defence". All speculations. Even if you have direct evidence that someone died at the hands of the police, it is still acceptable. In order to contain order, a certain amount of force is necessary. At times the force given by one individual could become lethal. I have no doubt in my mind that there are some police who enjoyed beating protesters. In the same way I am sure that a much larger number of protesters enjoyed beating the police. The bottom line is, the protesters planned a demonstration, broke the law, were given an opportunity to leave, resisted arrest, and any consequential events is their responsibility. No one there could claim they did not know what they were getting themselves into.You assume the worst from the protestors; you follow the mainstream lies. There is evidently no point in my trying to persuade you to seek out alternative views.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Just pawns of something larger. We will never agree on this point. I know we both have information that we cannot divulge in public, so just leave it at that. We both know we will never convince each other. Indeed.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I can believe that. However your friends must be a minority of that crowd. Perhaps others ruined it for you. Maybe. In football hooliganism, a minority of rioters provokes the fights. Then everyone grows wild, and start attacking everyone.Exactly. We try to stop the minority from doing this; but we cannot succeed. If we prevent protestors rioting, the police tend to send in agent provocateurs and claim we rioted.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Their credibility level is pretty low. Afraid so; the media is controlled by the people we oppose; that's something it's damn hard to counter.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Really? One person against 30. That is assuming the 30 people are trying to do one thing, all trying to attack the policemen or whatever. In truth it's not so.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Even Bruce Lee with a machine gun would be taken down by 30 men.Unlikely, particularily in open flat terrain with little cover; like a street :p
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The point is that assuming the numbers above (which is arbitrary) was true, the police would need to use 30 times the force of a single protester in order to control them. This may be the excessive but necessary force you have been describing. "Excessive but necessary"? That is oxymoronic...
Again, you're being overly simplistic. It's the statistician's fallacy. 1:30 does not directly transfer to the one person neeeding 30x the force.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Not really. You study the law, but you don't respect it. Partially right. I respect the law, but respect my sense of morality further. I will not do an immoral act to appease the law.
However, you've made me agree to one thing. Piracy is arrogant of me; however I'll continue in it. I'd rather send my cash to where it's needed.
theImmortalThief on 30/3/2002 at 06:37
I agree with the general hatred of piracy,but if you think a little about it you will see that paying $30 for a game in a lot of countries where peaple make around 200 a month is a lot.
Dragonclaw on 30/3/2002 at 12:25
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
That we do :) Before we start, do you mind if I ask if you've read the works of Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon or, dare I say it, Lenin?
No, actually not.
As far as I know, they describe the perfect society (how new). But if I want to read about the perfect society I get my bible.
I know a bit (not much) about the idea of socialism, and well, it sounds nice. But when I look at the world around, I really don't think any society like that could be established for long.
But I know about the fate of some states, that tried Socialism (with some crimes, but still): DDR, Soviet Union, for example.
Have the people there been rich?
Have they been happy? (Depends on measurement of happiness, but taken the "I know I'll survive the next year"-one)
Do these countries still exist?
No. No. And, surprise, no.
And, mind if I ask if you have taken some courses in economics, majorly international economics (dunno how it's called). This might change your view just as much as you think Marx would change mine...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Exactly. The most important sentence related to that point was the one you declined to quote - "I would rather give my money to charity"
I would rather help those who are in true need.
Then I guess you have NO money, NO house, NO computer, and such?
Because, actually, the money that is there, on rather private property (uh-oh), could also be used to lower the hunger in, for example, Africa. (lower? Not sure, but I can't think of a better word right now)
Note: I'm not telling you to sell all your stuff, and give all your money to the poor, that would be much of a Hypocrit. But if you say, that property is immoral (as I think is said in socialism), then you will have to let me ask: Why do you own?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Yup. Something you might find ironical is that I have to copies of System's Toxicity CD. I d/led the mp3s and burned it to a CD, then bought it when I had the cash. It is a political band that furthers views I admire, if not directly support.
No, I don't find that ironical. I actually do the same sometimes, with movies. DL, watching, if it's worth it, I buy the DVD.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
That is perhaps a misunderstanding. You see, my point there is that I oppose private property [I also oppose state property - don't scream Stalinist or I WILL leave :p]. If I have something I can share with another, I will. However, I'll not risk my life stupidly. And if someone routinely abuses me, I don't want them around me...
I don't see squatting as immoral; the action that to me would be would be abusing those you share the residence with.
Hm, well, that's another major difference between us. You are a socialist by heart, I guess, and I'm rather sceptical towards socialism.
But, as you said, property is immoral: Then you have no right telling the other to leave, if he comes to your house and lives there, even if he is bugging you. It's his house as much as yours. And if you are to be driven away, then I guess you wold have to accept it partially.
For me, it's ok to share stuff, and I would let people live in my house with me. IF they were invited. If someone sneaks into the house, and lives there, without at least asking me, he'll be given the boot rather quick, I guess. If someone comes to my door, and asks me for a place to stay, then he has a good chance of staying there some days (or longer).
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Yes, as long as I was fed, clothed, and sheltered.
I see now, due to the socialism, you don't care about losing much money.
But you could have given those 10,000 also to the poor, not to the printers and such.
Taken that you had given the money from sales to those in need.
So, who profits from your money, I'd say it are the writers, and the people who have your book, but not the poor, who you originally wanted to help.
Still the same opinion?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Hehe; define fair. To me, fair means everyone gets their material needs satisfied. Remember, not every reward must be material....
To me, fair means, that everyone gets that amount of money, proportional to what he did to create the product, also taking into account giving money, and the risks.
The factory worker may do a bigger part for the ACTUAL product (let's stick to shoes ;) ), but without him, another could do his work. And if the factory closed down, he could look for a new job rather easily.
The people who set aside money for the factory beared the risk of losing their money, and therefor get interest on it. And the supported the owner, when he had not much more than an idea, and needed help, and I think that is to be rewarded.
The owner put aside money, he had the idea, gave it a shape, and bears the complete risk of the company running bancrupt. Usually, if a company goes down (smaller and mediate companies), the owners are left with nothing, as they are to pay for the debts of the company. So, it's a large step to open up a company, you risk everything, and have no guarantee for living safely in the future. This risk is paid by the profits that are given to the owner.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
You are creating this hypothesis on the basis that profit is immoral, but a Capitalist market economy exists. The basis of Socialism is the removal of the profit based market.
Then how would markets take place?
I give you something, you give me nothing?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Incorrect; you assume all trade must be monetary and profit orientated.
If I don't get a profit out of a trade, there's no need to trade, and I won't do. Trade costs time, time I can as well spend reading a good book, or sitting in the sun.
But profit does not have to be monetary, either. My profit can just be: to save space, to make something easier, or, the simplest: To get what I need. This is the customer's profit in today's trade: I pay 20 bucks, I get a pair of shoes. My profit: A pair of new shoes, or rather, what a üpair of new shoes is worth to me, minus those 20.
If a pair of shoes is less worth to me than 20, I won't buy it, if it is the same, I could do so or so, if it's worth more, I got my profit. That's one of the basics of modern economy.
Trade is monetary, as it's easier. In the beginning of trade, it was not monetary, it was "You give me this, and I give you that". I hope you can imagine that this was as well hard, as uneffective, and in the most, usually this was what you call markets: Unfair.
I have a cow, and need a pair of shoes ( :cheeky: ). What do I do? Trade a whole cow for a simple pair of shoes? Unfair. Cut a part of the cow, to fit the shoes? Then the cow will die, and the rest may rot, not good. Or I run around, and try to trade the cow for 2 pigs. A pig for two coats, a coat for three hats, and a hat for a pair of shoes.
Granted I CAN find all the traders, and they are willing to trade with me, and I don't get pulled (see cow-shoes), I have to run about the whole market, spent probably the whole day there, and end up with a pig, a coat and two hats. Where should I put all that? I don't need it! Next time I want to trade, I have to wait for someone to want one of those, before I can trade. With money, I get my 100 for the cow, and pay 2 for the shoes. (And doesn't anyone mess in here with the average price of cows today ;) )
I have 98 left, and I can use those for my next trade, and I know, that everyone will accept it. That's the very beginning of money.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Yup.
We saw before: Money is just an easier thing for property, so the logic conclusion is: Property is immoral (therefor I think socialism opposes property, but I am really not sure there).
If property is immoral, then there's no need to work. I just get my part of what others do, so why should I work? I'll just sit in the sun, or sleep longer.
Granted, if you believe in the higher meaning of work, that it is for the community and such, then you would work. But again, that is an opinion rarely to find today.
And if you take such headings into account, then you can also say: Why socialism? Let's just live as the bible tells us: Care about your next, help the poor. This way, the world would be a happy, peaceful place, no hunger or such, except to natural disasters.
So this is even a step further than socialism, as soc. does not guarantee peace on earth (I think).
But still, the world today is not made of such mean and women (sad but true).
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Well, no where. Where does that exist?
In this pure form not, of course, But this is the base assuming for further trade laws and economics. Everyone can get a profit off a trade (and will, else they won't trade).
Of course, this does NOT mean that one side cannot get shorthanded, but that's a dfferent story.
And where does Socialism in it's pure form exist? Can't see that either...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Now that's the trade I don't mind; non-monetary, non-profit, if you will. But lets put this in a more real world context.
I can make 30 shirts for $30.
You can make 30 shirts for $15
I give you $12, tell you cut your overheads and you have to accept it because I'm the only buyer.
I keep the rest.
If I feel short with that trade, I won't sell you. If I feel ok with it, let's trade.
You may be the only buyer, but that actually does not influence me.
Why should it? It could, if I needed the money, but if you are the only other person there, for what should I need the money?
If I think making shirts will ride me into losses, I'll stop producing them, simple as that.
I'll then look for something I can produce with gaining more. If you are always better off, then something is wrong with this 'real world', as this never occurs (in the theory, and also in real world as we know it, I think). If I don't need the money, I'll produce what I need, and don't care about you at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Trade can exist without exploitation, but never universally. When Capitalism exists there will always be exploitation. Exploitation is not a trait of Capitalism. It may occur together, but still I can say the same:
Socialism does not intend suppressing people (I hope). Still, in the countries socialism is applied, people were (or are) suppressed, tortured, treated without ANY spark of justice, and so on, and so on.
What capitalism is actually about is this: Let the market regulate itself.
Markets: (short form)
Markets are regulated by prices, those are made by supply and demand.
Everyone has complete view on the markets, and can therefor perfectly compare prices and what he gets for those. Decisions are not influenced by preferences (place, time, known people, and the like)
The theory behind capitalism is in the rough this: Don't mess with the markets. As soon as the state puts his hands into there, it will get bad (or worse).
The scheme how people act is the following: I produce as much profit as I can. I decide between what's worth more to me, and then do or get this.
Profit does not have to be monetary, again. It can be as well peace, happiness, helping others, or whatever you want.
I agree Capitalism is rare in today's world, and I guess pure Capitalism doesn't exist.
All we can see are Capitalism-parts, mixed with the usual human (mis-)behaviour, mainly such as greed, envy or corruption.
Dragonclaw on 30/3/2002 at 13:19
Geesh, where did that second page come from?
I'm not done with all of it, and much I wrote in the post is probably said already, or may look strange being said now, but well, as I said, I hadn't seen taht other page before posting.
I'll read more of that stuff later, I guess, for now, I just want to talk about two things:
A) Hitler and the germans.
Hitler did in fact get elected by the national party as president (or whatever) He then used his powers (those were from law from the government before) to abolish all politics, and get all the power himself (Führer).
But before he got elected yes, he started a revolution, I think, but as far as I know, that was in Austria still. Being part of the party, they raised their voting step at step, until they had the majority.
But you cannot judge them as this, you need a bit more background.
The times were not easy, and Germany was still suffering from the lost WW I.
Germany had to pay much for making it good (what's the right word, I can't remember... reparations, I think), and most people hated that, as they found it unfair and too much (as I actually do, too)
The Nazis were militant, but just as much as the communists were.
And while the communists demanded joining into Russia, Hitler built up a new pride for Germany, and said they had to become strong again.
Understandable they chose Hitler, no?
Now, Germany had live with it's emperor all the time before, and the people were looking back at that time, when they could be proud to be german (Yes, I look back to that time, too), when there was an emperor to identify with, and this all new government thing was not really theirs. (It was new, and they discussed all the time, without actually relieving the pepople from their needs [like today] )
When Hitler came up, he was shown as the Fuehrer, the guy to lead them out of their misery, and of course, most were gladly willing to believe this. (Hope is easy to establish, if not much is to lose)
Then he made up the Blut und Ehre thing, gathered the masses against the jews (a scapegoat, how useful), and then finally got aggressive.
While at the beginning, Germany had few losses, and the people could be proud again of what they were, later it became more and more clear to most that he had this killing thing on (jews, opponents, intellectuals, and so on), and more people resisted, or hated what he did.
Alas, most who wanted to change things, kept quite, it was a time fo fear, spies everywhere, and you couldn't know whom to trust or not. (Just like in Russia or the DDR)
But enough about that, maybe we'll come back to that later.
(PS : The book is called: Mein Kampf)
B) Luther
LMAO!!!!!! :laff: :laff: :laff:
Where the heck did you get that Luther was nailed against a church door?
There's a LEGEND, that says HE nailed his THESES against the door, but he himself died in bed in Eisleben on February 18., 1546
And I wouldn't take Luther as a very good example.
I'm a Catholic, and don't really like people dooming the pope or my church.
But Luther was far beyond that.
One of his writings is titled like this:
"Against the pope in Rome, created by the Devil!"(1545)
Now that's NOT what I'd call a christian attitude.
And by the way, it may surprise you to know, but Luther also actually was an enemy of the different believing and especially Jews. ('About the Jews and their true lies',1543)
Anarkos on 31/3/2002 at 00:16
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Geesh, where did that second page come from?
I'm not done with all of it, and much I wrote in the post is probably said already, or may look strange being said now, but well, as I said, I hadn't seen taht other page before posting.
I'll read more of that stuff later, I guess, for now, I just want to talk about two things:
That it did, ah well :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw A) Hitler and the germans.
Hitler did in fact get elected by the national party as president (or whatever) He then used his powers (those were from law from the government before) to abolish all politics, and get all the power himself (Führer).You sure? I've studied a few C20th history courses, particularily the 2 wars, and as I recall he was not elected but appointed. The Nazis were a minority, but using their coercive power they managed to get Hitler appointed....oh course, I'm not infallible as we'll soon see :p
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But before he got elected yes, he started a revolution, I think, but as far as I know, that was in Austria still. Being part of the party, they raised their voting step at step, until they had the majority.Munich is in Germany I believe ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But you cannot judge them as this, you need a bit more background.
The times were not easy, and Germany was still suffering from the lost WW I.
Germany had to pay much for making it good (what's the right word, I can't remember... reparations, I think), and most people hated that, as they found it unfair and too much (as I actually do, too)Indeed. Clemenceu was foolish to force so much out of the Treaty. It left your nation, basically, under an unlimitted debt.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw The Nazis were militant, but just as much as the communists were.
And while the communists demanded joining into Russia, Hitler built up a new pride for Germany, and said they had to become strong again.
Understandable they chose Hitler, no?
Now, Germany had live with it's emperor all the time before, and the people were looking back at that time, when they could be proud to be german (Yes, I look back to that time, too), when there was an emperor to identify with, and this all new government thing was not really theirs. (It was new, and they discussed all the time, without actually relieving the pepople from their needs [like today] )
When Hitler came up, he was shown as the Fuehrer, the guy to lead them out of their misery, and of course, most were gladly willing to believe this. (Hope is easy to establish, if not much is to lose)
Then he made up the Blut und Ehre thing, gathered the masses against the jews (a scapegoat, how useful), and then finally got aggressive.
While at the beginning, Germany had few losses, and the people could be proud again of what they were, later it became more and more clear to most that he had this killing thing on (jews, opponents, intellectuals, and so on), and more people resisted, or hated what he did.
Alas, most who wanted to change things, kept quite, it was a time fo fear, spies everywhere, and you couldn't know whom to trust or not. (Just like in Russia or the DDR)
But enough about that, maybe we'll come back to that later.
(PS : The book is called: Mein Kampf)
Gah, I misspelt it, ah well....
Indeed, they were difficult times. However, the option you did not mention was choosing the moderate view. Few did; the people did not choose what was then the best route. They chose a path they knew was violent as it was more attractive. We aren't perfect.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw B) Luther
LMAO!!!!!! :laff: :laff: :laff:
Where the heck did you get that Luther was nailed against a church door?
There's a LEGEND, that says HE nailed his THESES against the door, but he himself died in bed in Eisleben on February 18., 1546As we can see, Divinity classes aren't perfect, especially not under a slightly senile ex-Bishop.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And I wouldn't take Luther as a very good example.
I'm a Catholic, and don't really like people dooming the pope or my church.
But Luther was far beyond that.
One of his writings is titled like this:
"Against the pope in Rome, created by the Devil!"(1545)
Now that's NOT what I'd call a christian attitude.
And by the way, it may surprise you to know, but Luther also actually was an enemy of thedifferent believing and especially Jews. ('About the Jews and their true lies',1543) I'd agree; I'm glad you've been able to destroy the notions that the "Why Our Way Is The Best Religion" class instilled in me about him ;)
ICEBreaker on 31/3/2002 at 03:11
Quote:
In reply to Anarkos It would seem that we have arrived at a point where it is just one person's opinions versus another. So gladly there is not much to discuss.
Agreed; but, as you appear to evade, this means you are in no position to tell me that "Any talk of promoting anarchy cannot be classed as intelligent." This is what created my response here; to claim that is to claim that the brilliant Anarchists of history were being unintelligent. I merely state you are in no position to judge them, to make such rude and generic statements.If you wish, you can give a brief summary of 100 words of what Anarchism is. Using surface analysis I will come to my own judgement and make my own claims. In life, we cannot make detailed investigations of everything before making a judgement. For the most parts, we have to make calculated judgements based on a brief encounter. For example, did you study every single religion before deciding on one, (or on atheism)? Depending on the importance of the subject (to that person), one would place more time and dedication in one's investigation. Therefore I might be inclined to learn a lot more about Communism before coming to a conclusion, seeing as it was influential in the history of the world last century. The same cannot be said for Anarchy. There is a darn good reason why Anarchy is supported by a tiny group of extremist. I feel I have a right to make certain claims when the degree to which it is wrong is strong enough, and that not a lot of investigation is necessary. I will remind you that while I have no right to go to a political forum and make various derogatory remarks on Anarchism, I do have that right to do so in a Deus Ex forum, in a thread about piracy. TTLG is a company whose stance on piracy is clear. It is highly inappropriate of you to come here, talk about the righteousness of piracy and then advertise your propaganda on this board. I have a right to response with rather harsh words. On the other hand I would not be rude and go to your political forums and make a scene. You can believe in what you want, just leave us out of it. Don't disrupt the peace we love so much. Don't go protesting in the streets and ruining our public property, creating traffic problems and other chaotic situations. One thing to also keep in mind is that damage to private property will in the end come out of the pockets of the individual consumer. Piracy means that each legitimate consumer will have to pay more for the game. So the idea that only the "fat cats" will suffer as a result of your piracy is totally simplistic. But I guess one can always make the claim of necessary sacrifices for "the cause".
Those names I "grabbed" were a list of famed Anarchist philosophers... They are not; I'm no Anarchist. BUT their views ARE Anarchism.Can you provide evidence that those thinkers are Anarchists? By evidence I mean a quote from one of their written works or from a speech they made, where they advocated Anarchism. That word has to be in the quote, as oppose to your interpretation that what he said equates to your definition Anarchism. I find it hard to believe that Washington, Marx etc (just one of many people your associated with) would condone (let alone preach) Archaism.
Carlos Giulliani was shot twice in the head from close range, by a policeman seated in a vehicle. They then ran over him twice as they returned behind Police lines. Another women was found dead in a river near Genoa; she was last seen in Carabineri hands; that appears to have been an unnofficial excution.That is only your side of the story, but assuming it is true, then there was evidence of flaw play and police brutality. Every effort should be made to identify the responsible officer and make him stand trial for murder. However that does not change anything. As I mentioned there are bad police as evident in the numerous accounts of racist cops. It does not mean that poor gentle protesters were beaten up for no reason at all. We have all seen clips of riots destroying property and placing various delegates in personal danger when we don't see a single police in sight.
Exactly. We try to stop the minority from doing this; but we cannot succeed. If we prevent protestors rioting, the police tend to send in agent provocateurs and claim we rioted.... right (sarcasm)... the police / government hires people to create a riot in order to give Anarchists a bad name... sure...
Piracy is arrogant of me; however I'll continue in it. I'd rather send my cash to where it's needed. I hope you keep your word. Every single time you pirate a game, I hope you really would go to the store to check its retail price and donate that exact amount (in addition to your usual amount) to an undisputed charity (like World Vision, and NOT Green Peace or other political "charities").
Anarkos on 31/3/2002 at 05:34
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker It would seem that we have arrived at a point where it is just one person's opinions versus another. So gladly there is not much to discuss. Indeed.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker If you wish, you can give a brief summary of 100 words of what Anarchism is. Using surface analysis I will come to my own judgement and make my own claims. In life, we cannot make detailed investigations of everything before making a judgement. For the most parts, we have to make calculated judgements based on a brief encounter. For example, did you study every single religion before deciding on one, (or on atheism)? Depending on the importance of the subject (to that person), one would place more time and dedication in one's investigation. Therefore I might be inclined to learn a lot more about Communism before coming to a conclusion, seeing as it was influential in the history of the world last century. The same cannot be said for Anarchy. There is a darn good reason why Anarchy is supported by a tiny group of extremist. I feel I have a right to make certain claims when the degree to which it is wrong is strong enough, and that not a lot of investigation is necessary. I will remind you that while I have no right to go to a political forum and make various derogatory remarks on Anarchism, I do have that right to do so in a Deus Ex forum, in a thread about piracy. TTLG is a company whose stance on piracy is clear. It is highly inappropriate of you to come here, talk about the righteousness of piracy and then advertise your propaganda on this board. I have a right to response with rather harsh words. On the other hand I would not be rude and go to your political forums and make a scene. You can believe in what you want, just leave us out of it. Don't disrupt the peace we love so much. Don't go protesting in the streets and ruining our public property, creating traffic problems and other chaotic situations. One thing to also keep in mind is that damage to private property will in the end come out of the pockets of the individual consumer. Piracy means that each legitimate consumer will have to pay more for the game. So the idea that only the "fat cats" will suffer as a result of your piracy is totally simplistic. But I guess one can always make the claim of necessary sacrifices for "the cause".Piracy does not in fact mean that, but let's not start arguing the economics of that to....
I find your comments on our "rights" in discussion most odd, and, frankly, quite ridiculous. I posted myopinion on piracy here as I have been continually suprised by the intelligence shown by DX players, and felt you may have interesting points on it - as you did. I did not intentionally come here to discuss my politics; it just...happened.
By the way, something you may find shocking is that since 1936 many factories in Catalonia, Spain, have been run on an Anarchist model. In 1936, Barcelona was, literally, an Anarchist city - and it worked amazingly well. Of course, Franco conquered it, and...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Can you provide evidence that those thinkers are Anarchists? By evidence I mean a quote from one of their written works or from a speech they made, where they advocated Anarchism. That word has to be in the quote, as oppose to your interpretation that what he said equates to your definition Anarchism. I find it hard to believe that Washington, Marx etc (just one of many people your associated with) would condone (let alone preach) Archaism.Whoa, I think we're confusing two lists here. I listed firstly "good" people who broke the law when it conflicted with their morality; in response to the previous list of evil people who did so in order to indicate that you couldn't just simply say that self-righteousness was a trait linked to evil.
I later listed famous Anarchists to illustrate Anarchism has had its influential supporters.
Quote:
Proudhon? Bakunin? Tolstoy? Marx? Godwin? Kropotkin?
Of these, all bar Marx and perhaps Tolstoy are famous because of their Anarchist views; and all were affiliated with The International [except Godwin, who predated it].
To me, Marxist Communism is Anarchism; although Marxist-Leninism most definately is not. Marx, in his celebrated Manifesto detailed a classless "workers' state". This has clear parallels with the Proudhonian and Bakunin ideals.
The key differences between them that resulted in the split of The International were in implementation and personality. Marx favoured a model of revolution based on the Hegelian Dialectic, the Anarchists favoured a more gradual model of change.
This, and the rise of Lenin, resulted in the ideological split between the two.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker That is only your side of the story, but assuming it is true, then there was evidence of flaw play and police brutality. Every effort should be made to identify the responsible officer and make him stand trial for murder. However that does not change anything. As I mentioned there are bad police as evident in the numerous accounts of racist cops. It does not mean that poor gentle protesters were beaten up for no reason at all. We have all seen clips of riots destroying property and placing various delegates in personal danger when we don't see a single police in sight. I tried to be objective in my description. It is true, and, as honesty is highly important to me, your questionning that borders on insulting.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker ... right (sarcasm)... the police / government hires people to create a riot in order to give Anarchists a bad name... sure... I am afraid so. I can't prove it to you, but I can say that it has been proven to me. Whether or not you accept my judgement is your choice. It seems unreal and disgusting; it is. The corporate state's actions often seem so, sadly.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I hope you keep your word. Every single time you pirate a game, I hope you really would go to the store to check its retail price and donate that exact amount (in addition to your usual amount) to an undisputed charity (like World Vision, and NOT Green Peace or other political "charities"). I have not done this in the past, rather doing it more generally (giving when I feel I have surplus cash), but it is certainly a valid condition. I can't promise that I will be that precise, but I will try.
Also, I'll include Greenpeace as a non-political charity. You do not want to get me started on our ecological position.
However, I won't give money to, say, a Socialist "charity".
Cyborg on 31/3/2002 at 07:44
Is someone out of the threads point??? Looks so...
Anarkos on 31/3/2002 at 08:54
I think the word is "everyone", not "someone". ;)
