Anarkos on 10/4/2002 at 21:32
CHILL, I believe you can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you do not impinge upon the rights of another. If you don't directly impact upon another, you can do it.
What immoral act is this not covered by? Murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, assault, hell, even indecent expoxure is covered in that...
Regarding my economuic theories, do you really think that I've not heard that argument before? Do you really think I want that? You see, you can be rewarded in non-material manners. You work well, you get promoted. You worjk hard, you get respct and admiration. And, likewise, if you laze around you get hatred and derision.
ICEBreaker on 11/4/2002 at 04:32
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos CHILL, I believe you can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you do not impinge upon the rights of another. If you don't directly impact upon another, you can do it.Sorry for butting in. What you said above is correct. I think most people agree with this. And as far as US/European laws go, it seems to go along with this, with the exception of suicide and drugs. To there really isn't much excuse for knowingly breaking the law. I am of course referring to the more severe types of law which will possibly get you arrested (as oppose to getting fines etc).
Anarkos on 11/4/2002 at 06:14
And the only laws I break - barring extreme cases; such as self defence - are minor ones which disallow actions that do not - directly - impinge on another...
CHILLman on 11/4/2002 at 06:22
Dragonclaw:
>there are laws that are right, and if you break them, you should feel wrong. On the other hand, there are also laws that are just plain wrong... ( in some countries more than in others), and if you break those laws, there's no need to feel bad...<
Example:
I feel murder is a "wrong law", and as such don't feel bad if I break it. Since that's perfectly natural for everyone (to feel that some laws are good and some are bad), what are you going to do about it?
You see, it is impossible to "personalize" the law, as Anarkos wishes, because everyone has their own opinions and standards of morality, however "off base" we may believe them to be. If the law were to be catered to the individual in this manner, there would essentially be no law at all, only chaos and disarray.
Anarkos:
>You see, you can be rewarded in non-material manners. You work well, you get promoted. You worjk hard, you get respct and admiration. And, likewise, if you laze around you get hatred and derision.<
In most lines of work, promotions add responsibility, however, this is acceptable because the rewards for bearing the added responsibility is well worth it, plus it opens up further potential promotions, with the promise of providing a better life. But what if your only reward were simply to be able to say "I was promoted, yay." Then all you would get would be added responsibility. No improvement in quality of life at all to award me for my notably superior efforts. Answer: why would I want to get promoted?
>>I do not, will not, as a result of my morality, actively hurt another.<<
How admirable of you. However, other people's morality may not restrain themselves in this manner. And seeing as how you are steadfast against laws, government, and policing authorities, how would you ever go about upholding your valiant personal standards?
>CHILL, I believe you can do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you do not impinge upon the rights of another. If you don't directly impact upon another, you can do it.<
And yet you would commit vandalism, theft, and riot. What... do you think these offenses do not infringe upon the rights of others? C'mon now.
Anarkos on 11/4/2002 at 09:03
Oh, I love this - did you read this thread before jumping in to play? :weird:
Three seperate comments of yours ignore things I have already stated, and left, I'm fairly sure, in no doubt...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman And yet you would commit vandalism, theft, and riot. What... do you think these offenses do not infringe upon the rights of others? C'mon now. Theft, riot, vandalism? Theft, like I have repeatedly said, was if I needed to steal to survive. It wouldn't be moral, it wouldn't be right, but, damn, I'd rather live; the same goes for sef-defence. Most people would do the same - would you die rather than stealing? I merely admit that, in certain situations, I would break the law. Vandalism is a tactic. It is a means for gaining [moral] rights of mine, of ours. It, likewise, does not impinge upon any right I accept. I am hurting no person. I destroy an edifice of advertising, I black out a billboard, I do something many would consider immoral. But, in my own small way, I protest the Corporate world. I remove an ugly personification of materialism. Perhaps it's immoral, but leaving our world to it's downward spiral allows worse. Riot - like I said, what, four, five, times - I would not "riot" as you or I define it. However, certain police departments have discoverred that if you charge a protest, beat the marchers shitless, and claim it was a "riot", not only do you get smiles from your state bosses, and thanks from your, ah, Corporate friends, but you get a bunch of malcontents thrown in jail for a crime that no one will argue they comitted. No one, that is, but the other malcontents and Civil Libertarians.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman How admirable of you. However, other people's morality may not restrain themselves in this manner. And seeing as how you are steadfast against laws, government, and policing authorities, how would you ever go about upholding your valiant personal standards? It is unnacceptable for anyone to actively and directly hurt another.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman And seeing as how you are steadfast against laws, government, and policing authorities, how would you ever go about upholding your valiant personal standards? You fucking idiot. Seriously, Do I need to paint this on my forehead?
I am not an Anarchist. Understand me now? Yes? No? Christ, I've been saying this...over...and...over...and..over. I advocate government, I advocate law,
but it must be completely answerable to the people. We must have oversight over the state. The state must not lie to its people. The state must be accountabble.
Did you understand that, or shall I scream a little louder?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You see, it is impossible to "personalize" the law, as Anarkos wishes, because everyone has their own opinions and standards of morality, however "off base" we may believe them to be. If the law were to be catered to the individual in this manner, there would essentially be no law at all, only chaos and disarray. You're talking out of your arse....but anyway: We do not ask for no law. We ask for a Law that represents the people. The highest law must be a code of personnal rights - as we have, but is poorly upheld - that no man can impinge upon. Then the other laws can be formed around these, and, with near-consensus, in addition to these. We cannot cater for everyone, but we must cater for the majority, whilst ensuring they cannot impinge upon the minority's predetermined rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman In most lines of work, promotions add responsibility, however, this is acceptable because the rewards for bearing the added responsibility is well worth it, plus it opens up further potential promotions, with the promise of providing a better life. But what if your only reward were simply to be able to say "I was promoted, yay." Then all you would get would be added responsibility. No improvement in quality of life at all to award me for my notably superior efforts. Answer: why would I want to get promoted? Self-respect, peer respect. In addition, in most primary jobs promotion is a very, very good thing. I, as a Socialist, consider many secondary industries parasitical. The reward for promotion, generally, is a more intellectually stimulating, but physically easier, role.
Anarkos on 11/4/2002 at 09:07
By the way, before you tell me that my name is about Anarchy, it's not. It is [a form of ancient...] Greek, and translates, roughly, to "Chaos". If you ever see me playing a game, you will quickly realise why I call myself why gaming/at gaming related boards; my play style is completely crazed.
Dragonclaw on 11/4/2002 at 17:27
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I feel murder is a "wrong law", and as such don't feel bad if I break it. Since that's perfectly natural for everyone (to feel that some laws are good and some are bad), what are you going to do about it?
You got me wrong, Chill.
I extra put it this way, I didn't say "What you think of as wrong" but I said there are laws that are wrong.
Of course, the definition of which are wrong, and which are right is something probably noone can know to the last extent...
But mainly I think we can narrow it down the human rights, and what expends from them. Now those laws are probably all "right".
I think you will agree, that some of the laws, for example, in former Afghanistan (Woman cannot go out as they want, and not dress as they want, much, much more) are certainly not good. So, if I broke them, should I feel bad, or not?
And well, when you're from the US, you should know about breaking laws and that this can sometimes be right. (Independence War, I doubt you will see that as wrong...)
CHILLman on 11/4/2002 at 21:31
Dragon:
Your examples are as extreme as mine was. Of course I agree that the Afghan law is out of line. It is outdated and discriminatory. However, this is just my opinion and I wasn't grown up in that culture.
Anarkos:
>Oh, I love this - did you read this thread before jumping in to play?<
I read most of this thread, but I admit, not all. The posts here became epic monsters to read (like this one will, probably ;)), it was very late, and I wanted to reply, but I also wanted to go to bed. :)
>Theft, like I have repeatedly said, was if I needed to steal to survive. It wouldn't be moral, it wouldn't be right, but, damn, I'd rather live<
This may be true and I may agree, but you claimed that it did not impinge on others' rights; it does. People have the right for their property not to be stolen - not even by someone who can't (?) get a job at Burger King.
>Vandalism is a tactic. It is a means for gaining [moral] rights of mine, of ours. It, likewise, does not impinge upon any right I accept.<
This is probably my biggest issue with all of your arguments. Rights you accept? Rights you accept?! You've got some nerve. Earlier in the thread, you claimed that you do not impose your views on others... what the hell do you think you're doing when you invent your own personally preferred standards and then act upon them, even if those affected by your actions (owner of property, for example) happen not to share your personally preferred standards? Whether you think you're advancing some self-righteous, benevolent cause is irrelevant entirely (like I said before, a mass murderer or child rapist can easily believe he is advancing some self-righteous, benevolent cause as well - the only reason you disagree is because such acts happen to cross your personally preferred standards; please, could you be any more blatantly hypocritical?)! The fact is, vandalism impinges on people's right to not have their property damaged / defaced. Period.
>Riot - like I said, what, four, five, times - I would not "riot" as you or I define it.<
I cannot help it if you don't know the definition of the word or how to use it in the appropriate context. Regardless, yes, sometimes there is police brutality, relatively unprovoked. This, however, is not the norm. Most of the time, the police are provoked by a discontented crowd which gets out of control that largely outnumbers them, and begins to threaten their safety. You may not believe this, but likewise, I do not believe you, and there's little in the way of evidence to prove it either way.
>Self-respect, peer respect. In addition, in most primary jobs promotion is a very, very good thing. I, as a Socialist, consider many secondary industries parasitical. The reward for promotion, generally, is a more intellectually stimulating, but physically easier, role.<
Okay, perhaps this is a better question: why would I want to work at all? And don't say "it is fulfilling to do something where one feels needed" or some BS hippy rhetoric resembling it, because if that's all you've got, you're gonna have one swiftly collapsed country.
>We ask for a Law that represents the people. The highest law must be a code of personnal rights - as we have, but is poorly upheld - that no man can impinge upon. Then the other laws can be formed around these, and, with near-consensus, in addition to these. We cannot cater for everyone, but we must cater for the majority, whilst ensuring they cannot impinge upon the minority's predetermined rights.<
Guess what, sunshine? THE LAW ALREADY CATERS TO THE MAJORITY. If the law didn't cater to the majority, the people would call for a change to whatever they didn't like (as they are for legalizing recreational marijuana smoking, for example). YOU are the minority! And not by 49% or even 35%, but by something far closer to <1%! You think your views are at all popular? You think everyone wants to see your "Vandalism with a Heart"TM? You think everyone believes our laws are stupid and should be broken whenever it is personally convenient to do so? You think everyone wants and deserves economic parity? You think any of this can work with any amount of clarity or efficiency? You are deluding yourself to no forseeable end. Get your head out of the clouds. What you want simply isn't practical in this world. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, and it never will work.
Now go and graffiti "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" on a police car or something (preferably one with an officer inside - then you'd really be sending a message :p).
Anarkos on 12/4/2002 at 01:06
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I read most of this thread, but I admit, not all. The posts here became epic monsters to read (like this one will, probably ;)), it was very late, and I wanted to reply, but I also wanted to go to bed. :)In that case, don't be surprised if you fuck people off by going over old ground ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman This may be true and I may agree, but you claimed that it did not impinge on others' rights; it does. People have the right for their property not to be stolen - not even by someone who can't (?) get a job at Burger King.My arse I did - I said that impinges on no right I accept, but rather does on rights society accepts. I'll follow them, but not to the point where I contravene my own morality.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman This is probably my biggest issue with all of your arguments. Rights you accept? Rights you accept?! You've got some nerve. Earlier in the thread, you claimed that you do not impose your views on others... what the hell do you think you're doing when you invent your own personally preferred standards and then act upon them, even if those affected by your actions (owner of property, for example) happen not to share your personally preferred standards? Whether you think you're advancing some self-righteous, benevolent cause is irrelevant entirely (like I said before, a mass murderer or child rapist can easily believe he is advancing some self-righteous, benevolent cause as well - the only reason you disagree is because such acts happen to cross your personally preferred standards; please, could you be any more blatantly hypocritical?)! The fact is, vandalism impinges on people's right to not have their property damaged / defaced. Period.I will not impinge
directly upon another. I'm going to ignore the talk of "rights" and speak about what begets them. I will cause no hurt to another person. I will not injure or act against a human being. That is what my "rights" are based on. The differance between me and a murderer is that a murderer does not accept that a human's life is sacrosanct, ignores the base moral ideal of human rights. Property, however, is not a human right - unless you are a Randian...and if you are one of the aforementioned I intend to beat you to death with a logic textbook, as it's obviously the closest it'll get to anyone in Rand's cult of illogic :p
[NOTE: Rand attempted to base society on logic. She failed because she did not understand basic logic...her cultists consider her a Saint]
In short, I see human rights as sacrosanct, sacred. Another can directly injure you. I consider "property" rights a laughable notion; however, society accepts them, so I must, as you say, keep them in mind.
Ah, yes, and recall this "Perhaps it's immoral, but leaving our world to it's downward spiral allows worse. " I know that I'm doing things that many would consider "wrong", but I could not care less. History will judge the validity of our cause - and I see no way that it can find us "wrong". Either we succeed, or we plunge into the corporate-gotterdammerung collapse.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I cannot help it if you don't know the definition of the word or how to use it in the appropriate context. Regardless, yes, sometimes there is police brutality, relatively unprovoked. This, however, is not the norm. Most of the time, the police are provoked by a discontented crowd which gets out of control that largely outnumbers them, and begins to threaten their safety. You may not believe this, but likewise, I do not believe you, and there's little in the way of evidence to prove it either way.I have the evidence of my eyes. Now, do you propse to tell me that I do not know the meaning of "riot"? Don't be an arrogant jackass - of course I do. Are you proposing to tell me that I will attack and provoke the police? Are you proposing to tell me that I do this, despite the fact that I claim I do not? Really, that's a pointless argument. I may, and am likely to, be charged with "riot" at some time in my life simply for standing in a march that the law arbitarily decides to break up. I may defend myself - I'm only human, and I'd rather not get beaten to the ground - but I will never act to attack an officer of the Law or civilian.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Okay, perhaps this is a better question: why would I want to work at all? And don't say "it is fulfilling to do something where one feels needed" or some BS hippy rhetoric resembling it, because if that's all you've got, you're gonna have one swiftly collapsed country.Because if you don't work you will get no respect, and as you're in the minority, this will bite. Likely vigilantes and other unsavoury union-style groupings will "persuade" you to work. That's not "nice" or moral, but it'll work, and it is based on current human actions.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Guess what, sunshine? THE LAW ALREADY CATERS TO THE MAJORITY. If the law didn't cater to the majority, the people would call for a change to whatever they didn't like (as they are for legalizing recreational marijuana smoking, for example).That is ridiculous. If I, say, surveyed the "people" on their opinion of Echelon, the vast majority would oppose it - if they knew of its existence [it does exist; the EU and the NZ parliament have admitted this, leaving the US and Austrailian states the only members of the ANZUS/UK group that runs it to keep it hidden. Of course, while it has been offficially admitted, this information has not been well dissemated]. The ideal of democracy is laughable if those voting are not given the opportunity to acquire all the facts. Barring the natural destruction of "state secrets", the media must also be given an impartial position to report from; the current massive mass media conglomerates have a chokehold on information - and make no mistake, they use it.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman YOU are the minority! And not by 49% or even 35%, but by something far closer to <1%! You think your views are at all popular? You think everyone wants to see your "Vandalism with a Heart"TM?Most prefer it to the previous, in my experience. And the only ideal of mine most would be averse to is my economics. My motivation for this few have argued - centralization of power through accumilation of wealth.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You think everyone believes our laws are stupid and should be broken whenever it is personally convenient to do so?No, I think everyone wants to control their own destiny. I think everyone wants truth. Everyone wants accountability. Everyone wants justice. I don't break laws for conveniance - I break laws for the advancement of a moral law. And by moral law I mean a law that every human it overlooks has been equally granted influence upon. We do not have this, to argue that is to admit ignorance, nay, idiocy.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You think everyone wants and deserves economic parity? You think any of this can work with any amount of clarity or efficiency?Not yet, so I don't force a revolution, I air my view. Give me 40 years, and ask again. If I am right, if I am successful, they will. My goals now are to bring the reality to the people, to open my views to the mass.
I don't aim for revolution, no revolution is born from a minority discontent. It can be one by a minority, but only the majority can create a revolutionary society. Everyy "revolution", be it scientific, social, racial, economic, is created when the majority becomes involved. When the majority leaves apathy, for whatever reason, a revolution is occurring. Spainish, Russian, Computational, French, Indusatrial - all from the interaction of a catilyst and the mass. When we have the mass thinking alike, hating alike, wanting alike, desiring alike, for however short a period, we have revolution. So, we must unite the masses, destroy the apathy.
And it can work. You are an arrogant fool. Your questions are, generally, ignorant and pointless. You are a creation of classical propaganda. Your questions give away your nation; your questions are the pathetic remnants of American Cold War propaganda.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You are deluding yourself to no forseeable end. Get your head out of the clouds. What you want simply isn't practical in this world. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, and it never will work.It has never been tried, on a national scale. Never. And when Libertarian Socialism has been tried, it has succeeded admirably. You are talking out of ignorance and predjudice. Cease talking down to me. Cease assuming your churlish mindset is the only one. Lose the arrogance typical of your nation, lose your crude and rude opinions, and open your mind to new ideas. Try it, I'll give you a fucking cookie!
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Now go and graffiti "DOWN WITH THE MAN!" on a police car or something (preferably one with an officer inside - then you'd really be sending a message :p). Close, let's describe the modes of graffiti I recognise as acceptable. It must be neat, prefaribly stenciled. Obscenities should not be used. It should raise a message that demands the viewer question something. "DOWN WITH THE MAN", for all it's wonders, lacks all that.
Although spraypainting a policeman green has a certain apopeal :laff:
ICEBreaker on 12/4/2002 at 06:27
This is for both Anakos and CHILLman
Quote:
In short, I see human rights as sacrosanct, sacred. Another can directly injure you. I consider "property" rights a laughable notion; however, society accepts them, so I must, as you say, keep them in mind. Basically according to Anarkos, his morality is the right one (not ours) and so he thinks he has the right to infringe on our property when he feels it is right. And if owner try to protect his property by physical means, according to Anakos, it is justifiable to just pull out the "self defence" trump card and cause harm to the owner. Similar scenario applies to his justification of riots. I gave up replying to Anarkos on the issues of riot because he insists that it is the police who start the riots. I have no sympathy for people who knowingly break the law, then when instructed by the police to leave, refuses to. When the police try to remove them by force, they pull out the "self defence" crap and then starts a righteous riot.
Because if you don't work you will get no respect, and as you're in the minority, this will bite. Likely vigilantes and other unsavoury union-style groupings will "persuade" you to work. That's not "nice" or moral, but it'll work, and it is based on current human actions.I think I prefer how the current system works, thank you. I do not want to join your society Anarkos. If I am lazy I pay for it by being poor. That is nicer than being beaten up (physically or psychologically) by vigilantes. Basically instead of the government enforcing the rules, you want the common people to. A certain country in the world has tried this method before and it was had terrible consequences. They absolutely hated those eras of oppression by the common men! The worst oppression is one when you fear even your own children in case they report you to the "neighbourhood watch". In the end even the government realised it was the wrong thing to do, and now rule by the traditional methods. Nowadays most common people in the country, although lacking western freedom, live unoppressed capitalistic lives. A huge change from earlier decades.
