Anarkos on 12/4/2002 at 08:05
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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.Which bit of your property have I claimed the rights to? None, what I have said is that no ones human rights should ever be ellipsed by another "property" rights. You people - especially you ICE - keep pulling ideas about what I will and will not do out of what appears to be some bodily orifice.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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.
That's a fucking lie. Where do you get this? I've said God knows how many times over that I do not impinge directly upon property rights, as society accepts them, even if I do not. I'm yet to see anyone explain how one "potential-property rights", and the only thing that I have admitted to, barring vandalism, is piracy. The vandalism, I admit, is an immoral act. However, I see it as a lesser immorality than apathy.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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.You fucking idiot. :laff: Right, you're talking out of your arse. Cease this. I may be charged with riot for carrying actions which I know are legal. I would not "riot" as we define it, but I would be charged with. You, you idiot, appear to be trying to tell me that I attack the police. Others might [not getting into THAT furball with you again...], but I do not. However, I'm breaking the "law" [which one, by the way?] and resisting arrest [evidently, reading your rights and even speaking have recently been removed from the arrest procedure. Apparently looking in your vague direction is now an arrest...], disobeying the police, you are instructing me with their psychic powers. I never knew I could break so many laws by standing still...
The riot starts, in general, when a crowd does not disperse as ordered. This is often because the police do not manage to give any allowance to the fact that when you've got a few hundred people "uh, go away" doesn't reach many of them... The police then move in to disperse the rioters - who, in general, are yet to do anything. Admittedly, there are always a few yobbos, but we tend to discourage this; "peace police" anyone?. I've not yet hit a cop, and I don't exactly run screaming in for a fight, but if I was ever attacked I would most certainly save my own arse - I'm not perfect, and I like this lump of flesh I'm in.
If we broke a law, if we were given due warning, if we attacked the police, if we, in general, did anything afterwards but run for cover - barring the militant Black Blocers - and cower from beatings, then, perhaps, your view would be right.
But it's not like that, you're speaking from ignorance. March with us, then tell me how evil I am. Until then, you don't have a foot to stand in your criticism. The media biases it towards the status quo, as it always does - although even then we get some PR coups; remember the May Day Police Riot in Long Beach, California, last year?
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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.These are not rules. I'm not suggesting a sign goes up that orders you to work, I'm just saying that if you don't most people around you will object. Your rights still exist, and the police still [should] defend them. Others, as is their right, can choose to shun you. A smaller group will, occassionally, take this more directly. They'll, then, be breaking the law. Even if a few cases of vigilantism occur, and if the attacks are, rightfully, punished, the motive for work exists. The main motive that would apply to most would be the universal desire for social acceptance. The [rare] threat of violence would only apply to the vast minority.
And always remember that I'm talking about the most democratic state that is possible. If the people don't like it, they can bring it down overnight.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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!Wonderful, and as always, in any debate, the idiots rail in fascism. Guess what? You're misusing your rectum again! You're taking your preconceptions, applying them to something wholly new, and pulling out something with vlue of fertiliser. How can you my system oppression? There is no state indoctrinating, there is no state with the power even to idoctrinate. There is only the will of the people. The media is free. The people are freer than ever before.
There is no oppression that does not exist in any social relationship. The forces I've spoken about exist today, but they're superceded by money. I propose the removal of this material motivator, allowing our social motivations to come to the fore and work, how they always have, but now without the over-shadow of money.
The law still guarantees your rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker 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. Oh, China, China. Cultural Revolution. Wonderful. Of course, that was different merely in scale from the violence inherant in all social interaction. Without Mao's rabble rousing, the Red Guard would not gone on their rampage, but the bullies, the violent little bastards would still exist, they always do. You're being an idiot again, sonny, by over-simplifying. Do you comprehend my point here?
Anarkos on 12/4/2002 at 23:36
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Uh oh... careful! You're walking on VERY thin ice here.
Besides me thinking property is one of the human rights, which comes later, you still leave yourself open here. First, it depends on which rioghts you accept, you said those were the human rights. Now, exactly what is a human right?
For example:
Right to live? OK.
Right to own property? You say it's not, I say it is. First problem.
Right of free expression of your opinions? While you take it in your defense, I doubt you would grant it to everyone. And, take it, when you're spraying over billboards and banners (whatever the proper term is), you obviously hurt the rights of others, as they are not able to express their opinion (even commercials can be counted as expressing opinions mostly)You see, this has very little meaning. You see, the Rights I do not accept I still should abide by. I can't claim I always do, and I concede that these acts may be immoral.
I hurt a right, yes, that is an act society considers immoral. It is a tactic I advocate for a moral end.
See, that's a right society accepts, but I don't. So, I'll contravene it if I need to in order to avoid worse.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Again here, it's dangerous to let history judge.
"History is written by the winners" (I think by Churchill, but I'm not sure)
With the same argumentation, you can stop discussion about everything, and especially the worse episodes of history. No need to give examples, I think.
I'm not saying I'm right there; of course, I think I am, but I can't very well prove it. Rather I'm saying that it will be shown whether or not I'm right only in retrospective.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw On another thing: Why do you think there has to be a collapse in the corporate-thing (or Goetterdaemmerung, as you like to call it)?
Corporates have been since men started to trade (which has been a while by now), and monopols the same. Still there are minor companies, still there is economy, still humans are not entirely owned. So why should it end suddenly?
(I know similar things can be said about other things in history, which suddenly collapsed, but I'd like to hear a reason here)All social systems come to an end. Capitalism must also.
I predict that this will be catastrophic if left to its own devices. As the society becomes monetarily polarized, as the first world/third world gap grows, as it currently is, the sides become fixed.
A wonderful yardstick to apply to anything is that of extremism. When a society becomes split into extremist groups, we can see that it's collapse is likely to be soon and violent.
We're finding that, in many nations, notably those that have gone through with the free trade/privatization idiocies, the link between corporate and state are growing. Likewise, the non-corporate jobs are becoming marginalised.
In short, the trend towards a univarsally polarised, extremist society appears to be beginning.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw "As you're in the minority"? Are you really that sure that it will be the minority?
Look, we already have a "light version" of that with social aid, and there are people that enjoy not working and getting paid. And you know what? They also have a community, and they don't pay respect to people who work.A very small part of those on wellfare use it due to laziness, that is a common bourgeois misconception.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw You're right, they use it
A big part of those conglomerates are owned (at least here in germany) by the Socialists. Surprised?No, every Right Winger claims that. The Left Wingers tend to then sit around mutterring about how they aren't like us either...in short, EVERYONE hates the media. Everyone thinks it's biased against them.
I'm going to do something I hate; use a Marxist slur. If, if, they are, then they're hypocrites and should be burned at the steak house (c'mon, we gotta move with the times, who even knoews what a "stake" is these days? :p). A Socialist controlling the media? A
rich Socialist?
By the way, In Austrailia, New Zealand and the US, only we Leftists can prove a factual link between the media and the Right Wing parties.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But with the same as you said, you can justify self-justice.
"He was a murder, and he got free, it was my duty to kill him!"
Which is why I, again, must state the differance is that I make a distinction about harming a person.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw The "reality" as you think of it, that is.
O'course, and the "reality" that I know is real, I'm ALWAYS RIGHT...everyone thinks their worldview is right. Everyone tries to persuade others to theirs...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Unfortunately, after I read your last posts, I have to tell you I have the same opinion about you. Your style shows almost no sign of respect. I had thought better of you than that, actually. Guess I was wrong. :erg:
Hey, I find this repitition irritating. I hate arrogance, and I can tell you I most certainly am not arrogant. However, when someone comes up to me, insults my ideology and generally acts like a twat, I get irritated...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Same to you.
Nyah, no, YOU suck! Not me!
Hehe...childishness = fun....CHILLman on 13/4/2002 at 00:58
Indeed. :erg: I at least
try not to personally insult and swear in droves at my opponents in serious debate, as it is difficult to have one when one / both sides continue to do so (my biggest insult was
"Sunshine" :p). But this is getting rediculous. These are just in Anarkos' last two posts to ICE and me... (I won't include the myriads of "arse" references, even though in Europe and Australia, I've heard from most that it is worse than "ass" ;))
"fuck"
"Don't be an arrogant jackass"
"to argue that is to admit ignorance, nay, idiocy."
"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."
"Lose the arrogance typical of your nation, lose your crude and rude opinions... Try it, I'll give you a fucking cookie!"And to ICE:
"You people - especially you ICE - keep pulling ideas about what I will and will not do out of what appears to be some bodily orifice."
"That's a fucking lie."
"You fucking idiot. :laff:"
"You, you idiot..."
"you're speaking from ignorance."
"You're misusing your rectum again!"
"You're being an idiot again"It seems in nearly every counterargument you have, Anarkos, you feel the need to tack on some sort of demeaning personal insult, in order to further self-justify your own ideology. Your progressively defensive nature not only weakens your arguments, but further narrows your perspective, making it more and more difficult to conduct a lively, civilized debate. Anyway, hopefully the awareness of this will change it and we can continue...
Anarkos:
>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.<
Ah, but you're wrong. "DOWN WITH THE MAN" is free of any and all obscenities, and it could certainly be neatly composed. :)
>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.<
You know what else might give away my nation? :idea:
The location field! And oh no, it appears I'm American. For shame. :p Everything else there is just more defensive rhetoric.
>It has never been tried, on a national scale. Never. And when Libertarian Socialism has been tried, it has succeeded admirably.<
Examples, please?
>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.<
Are you kidding? The media is notoriously liberal (aside from FOX, which does lean right a bit, and of course, AM radio - if you call that media ;)). And I think you'd be surprised to know that I took a couple tests a few days ago which both reported me as moderately liberal (perhaps you'd like to take these tests, or test their accuracy, if you don't believe me):
(
http://64.224.165.166/politicalcompass/)
(
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html)
The first one is much more thorough (took me 10-20 minutes to complete). But if you don't feel like taking a long test, go to the second one (very short, only 10 or so questions). Neither requires you to register with anything or give any information. I'll tell you the more detailed results later, if you want.
>Because if you don't work you will get no respect, and as you're in the minority, this will bite.<
As Dragon said, why would they be the minority? I think you'd be surprised at how many people would rather not work (
everyone, particularly in the poorer half of the income spectrum, aside from those you hate most - rich corporate execs with easy, cushy jobs :p).
>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.<
And as ICE said, I'd rather my laziness be punished by poverty than scars and bruises (how barbaric).
>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.<
Wow, this is impressive. Looks like you took it straight from the unused archives of
Deus Ex. :) Anyway, what you call
"apathy", I call
"content" and
"satisfaction". Being pleased with the overall status quo. What evidence do you have to dispute this, besides your own malcontent?
>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.<
Then, quite simply, you don't fully respect the rights of others. Why do you not just admit this, it being so obvious?
>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 biggest problem with your argument is that, while you don't respect what most others consider
their right (to own property which they bought with their own, hard-earned money, and not have it be defaced or arbitrarily taken away), you turn right around, draw your own line, and make up your own standards as to what rights people should have (to not be harmed by another). This, in itself, is hypocrisy.
>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.<
Like Dragon said again,
"'He was a murderer, and he got free, it was my duty to kill him!'" However, a much more pointed example to
you would be
"Yeah, I killed Congressman So-and-so. He was the largest advocate of and going to pass a bill for evil interests which sharply conflicted with my group's benevolent interests. Anyone else who does so should expect the same. Perhaps it's immoral, but leaving our world to its 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!" Don't you see, people can justify murder in the
exact same way that you justify defacing others' property. Both actions are presently illegal, yet you would only give rights to
yourself, not the murderer, even though he feels no less justified in his actions.
Anarkos on 13/4/2002 at 03:02
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Indeed. :erg: I at least try not to personally insult and swear in droves at my opponents in serious debate, as it is difficult to have one when one / both sides continue to do so (my biggest insult was "Sunshine" :p). But this is getting rediculous. These are just in Anarkos' last two posts to ICE and me... (I won't include the myriads of "arse" references, even though in Europe and Australia, I've heard from most that it is worse than "ass" ;))
It seems in nearly every counterargument you have, Anarkos, you feel the need to tack on some sort of demeaning personal insult, in order to further self-justify your own ideology. Your progressively defensive nature not only weakens your arguments, but further narrows your perspective, making it more and more difficult to conduct a lively, civilized debate. Anyway, hopefully the awareness of this will change it and we can continue...Ironically, I'm normally the one telling the other side to quit with the insults. My problem here is that I keep going other the same ground, and everything I say seemed to be being taken in the worst possible manner. Fuck it, I'm not perfect, I have a temper, and you succeeded in breaking the emotional detachment I try to keep in a debate...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Ah, but you're wrong. "DOWN WITH THE MAN" is free of any and all obscenities, and it could certainly be neatly composed. :)Loose wording is evil, I tell you, EVIL. What propaganda value would that have exactly?
Oh, by the way, this is a perfect study in how you can cause offence while being polite; you used no insults, however your argument was presented in an arrogant and condescending tone.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw You know what else might give away my nation? :idea:
The location field! And oh no, it appears I'm American. For shame. :p Everything else there is just more defensive rhetoric.
That's because you weren't presenting new arguments, or indeed really presenting arguments. You were raising classical American fallacies that I really find dull...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Examples, please?Barcelona, 1936. Anarchist state in the Ukraine between the fall of the Tsars and the Bolshevik consolidation. Factories remaining in Spain from the 30s revolutionery period until today...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Are you kidding? The media is notoriously liberal (aside from FOX, which does lean right a bit, and of course, AM radio - if you call that media ;)). And I think you'd be surprised to know that I took a couple tests a few days ago which both reported me as moderately liberal (perhaps you'd like to take these tests, or test their accuracy, if you don't believe me):Heh, that makes you a damn reformist. This is about when I'm supposed to set fire to your house for class treason and few other Marxist crimes. :laff: I won't, I'm no fanatic...
Y'see, EVERYONE thinks the media is notoriously what they aren't. The media, simply, advocates the status quo. If, however, you look at the funding connections, the media appears Conservative.
I guess then if you're a Liberal, you hang around to many Conservatives...they've indoctrinated you with their view of the media.
Done both tests, and they both put me in the insane Anarcho/Socialist range. I have to say the second one is from a Randian site though, and asks very pointed, leading questions. If it calls you a Liberal, it probably means that you're not very right wing - to a Randian, ol'George Bush is dangerously Socialist.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw The first one is much more thorough (took me 10-20 minutes to complete). But if you don't feel like taking a long test, go to the second one (very short, only 10 or so questions). Neither requires you to register with anything or give any information. I'll tell you the more detailed results later, if you want.I like that first test, although they plaguerised my idea dagnabbit [IE, I'd thought of that two axis-system on my own a few years before they did it, then they came up with the same idea...].
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw As Dragon said, why would they be the minority? I think you'd be surprised at how many people would rather not work (everyone, particularly in the poorer half of the income spectrum, aside from those you hate most - rich corporate execs with easy, cushy jobs :p).Basically, you're saying no one'd want to work. Then, if they waited, say, a week, they'd reaslise they were all hungry, heh. Now, as the idea here is based around a majority revolution to this system, I can assume that the majority want it. Otherwise, it won't have happened. And, with the Democratic state, if the majority ever does not want it, it will change.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And as ICE said, I'd rather my laziness be punished by poverty than scars and bruises (how barbaric).Like I said, that is the last resort. This threat exists today. The social pressures I talk of work now, but are supceded by the drive for cash. In addition, human nature is malleable. A revolutionery society would alter the focuses of admiration.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Wow, this is impressive. Looks like you took it straight from the unused archives of Deus Ex. :) Anyway, what you call "apathy", I call "content" and "satisfaction". Being pleased with the overall status quo. What evidence do you have to dispute this, besides your own malcontent?Well, while they rarely complain, if you rattle off the flaws you see in the system, most people complain. An old friend of mine, a Right Wing guy, once told me "I know they're doing wrong, but I can't be bothered opposing it, I'm fine, who cares?". Apathy, indeed, is content. They are content, the mass is content, the mass is apathic, the mass is ignorant.
But immoral is being done, and the worst is done to those who are not content, those who have no political power; those in Third World nations.
I do not care if people are happy here. I am not and those in other nations are not happy with how you, how we, gain our happinness.
Have you read 1984, or Farenheight 451? In both these dystopian fictions the masses were happy in ignorance.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Then, quite simply, you don't fully respect the rights of others. Why do you not just admit this, it being so obvious?
The biggest problem with your argument is that, while you don't respect what most others consider their right (to own property which they bought with their own, hard-earned money, and not have it be defaced or arbitrarily taken away), you turn right around, draw your own line, and make up your own standards as to what rights people should have (to not be harmed by another). This, in itself, is hypocrisy.Indeed. The point you misunderstand is that my "Rights" are universally considered the paramount ones. If I asked you what you'd prefer - me stealing your computer or shooting you - I know what you would choose.
In addition, the notion of Democratic Rights is rendered worthless if those who gain them have not had a free and equal chance to select them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Like Dragon said again, "'He was a murderer, and he got free, it was my duty to kill him!'" However, a much more pointed example to you would be "Yeah, I killed Congressman So-and-so. He was the largest advocate of and going to pass a bill for evil interests which sharply conflicted with my group's benevolent interests. Anyone else who does so should expect the same. Perhaps it's immoral, but leaving our world to its 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!" Don't you see, people can justify murder in the exact same way that you justify defacing others' property. Both actions are presently illegal, yet you would only give rights to yourself, not the murderer, even though he feels no less justified in his actions. Except, I draw a line. I limit my behaviour, I do not impinge upon another's rights to that extent. The differance is primarily one of scale.
I suppose I could also say that we live in a time where immorality, by society's accepted definition, is everywhere. I could state that those whose possesions I deface have gained them immorally.
But I don't like that argument, as I start sounding like a crazed Christian fanatic...
ICEBreaker on 13/4/2002 at 04:16
Spoken like a true anarchist, easily worked up, no sophistication, and using obscenities as his primary form of expression. I think I hear a whiny little voice saying that he is not an anarchist but an Anarcho-Democratic-Socialist. Stop whining!
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos Which bit of your property have I claimed the rights to? None, what I have said is that no ones human rights should ever be ellipsed by another "property" rights. You people - especially you ICE - keep pulling ideas about what I will and will not do out of what appears to be some bodily orifice.You seem to have forgotten that your silly little marches incur on private property. You also seem to have forgotten that you stated your disregard of property rights and intellectual rights in previous posts.
That's a fucking lie. Where do you get this? I've said God knows how many times over that I do not impinge directly upon property rights, as society accepts them, even if I do not. I'm yet to see anyone explain how one "potential-property rights", and the only thing that I have admitted to, barring vandalism, is piracy. The vandalism, I admit, is an immoral act. However, I see it as a lesser immorality than apathy.I see you have once again pulled up the "necessary sacrifice" notion. Who knows how far you can carry that concept. Even if you yourself won't impinge on property rights, I do recall your statement of support for squatters. And again I remember why I gave up replying to you, because you insisted that some poor people are justified to steal and squat because otherwise they would starve to death or die in the cold. What rubbish! You blatantly ignored the fact that there are countless shelters and soup kitchens and the fact that in socialist Europe, we have state welfare. No point arguing with someone who on the surface claims to be reasonable, when in fact he will justify breaking the law with his own set of morals and model of the world.
You fucking idiot. :laff: Right, you're talking out of your arse. Cease this. I may be charged with riot for carrying actions which I know are legal. I would not "riot" as we define it, but I would be charged with. You, you idiot, appear to be trying to tell me that I attack the police. Others might [not getting into THAT furball with you again...], but I do not. However, I'm breaking the "law" [which one, by the way?] and resisting arrest [evidently, reading your rights and even speaking have recently been removed from the arrest procedure. Apparently looking in your vague direction is now an arrest...], disobeying the police, you are instructing me with their psychic powers. I never knew I could break so many laws by standing still... There is no need to copy and paste the exact same insult at the start of every paragraph, or do you have a special affinity with people's arses? Don't make out like you are a bystander, caught up in some turmoil. You along with your buddies know the possible consequences of each rally. If you chose to take that risk, then you have only yourself to blame. I never once claimed you would be the violent types, but it is clear from what we see in the news or on documentaries that there are a significant amount of militant bodies within these marches. It is they, not the police who start the riot. But then I forgot, I am not suppose to believe doctored media from evil news corporations, but instead believe you.
The riot starts, in general, when a crowd does not disperse as ordered. This is often because the police do not manage to give any allowance to the fact that when you've got a few hundred people "uh, go away" doesn't reach many of them... The police then move in to disperse the rioters - who, in general, are yet to do anything.You are speaking as if this is the first time there has been a march and people didn't know the true consequences. People know there will be a police presence to block their march. I truly doubt anyone including you, would march 30 minutes to a place, be met with a line of police and then decide that the march is over and it is time to go home. Plainly, the demonstrators would refuse to disperse. A lot of this is due to sheep mentality.
These are not rules. I'm not suggesting a sign goes up that orders you to work, I'm just saying that if you don't most people around you will object. Your rights still exist, and the police still [should] defend them. Others, as is their right, can choose to shun you. A smaller group will, occassionally, take this more directly. They'll, then, be breaking the law. Even if a few cases of vigilantism occur, and if the attacks are, rightfully, punished, the motive for work exists. The main motive that would apply to most would be the universal desire for social acceptance. The [rare] threat of violence would only apply to the vast minority.Everyone here prefers monetary incentives and poverty as a means of deterrent, then a society, which is constantly being judgemental filling your life with peer pressure. And just like now, where the class system exists, a similar system will also exist in your society. Groups of lazy people will accumulate slowly to form ghettos where the lazy can live off the state without having to be alone and shunned from society. You seemed to promote vigilantism before, but now have taken it back as it seemed a little extreme. The fact that you don't care about the minority who get hurt is interesting. After all your plans would only really benefit a minority of people, namely today's homeless and those right at the bottom of the economic ladder. In the end, everyone just looks out for themselves. The minority will always try to make themselves the majority, masquerading themselves with a righteous cause. The only good thing about your system is that the richest people today will still be the most respected people, while the poorest people will still be the ones at the bottom of the social ladder. In most cases, but of course not always, those who work hard gets rich, and those who did not stayed poor. Working hard does not equate to toiling in the sun for 16 hours a day. Working hard is working smart.
Wonderful, and as always, in any debate, the idiots rail in fascism. Guess what? You're misusing your rectum again! You're taking your preconceptions, applying them to something wholly new, and pulling out something with vlue of fertiliser. How can you my system oppression? There is no state indoctrinating, there is no state with the power even to idoctrinate. There is only the will of the people. The media is free. The people are freer than ever before.Really? Then who set the guidelines? Someone will have to "tell" the people some sort of guidelines. Or do we just listen to you? By the way, you can't read, or as you would say "you are talking out of a non-vocal orifice". Nowhere in my statement did I mention fascist parallels. Seems like you are the talking rubbish. I said "oppression by common men". You are working on the level of people's emotional welfare instead of monetary well-being. This is far worse. You want to make the world into even more of a popularity contest then it already is. No doubt discrimination will run rampant in your society. At the moment monetary rewards are directly accountable. You will have to justify why a white worker is paid twice as much as a black worker, or why a pretty secretary is getting more than an ugly one. In your system, what benchmark exists? A victim of discrimination can easily get no recognition for his work.
Do you comprehend my point here? No and no one does, nor wants to. Take your propaganda outside the Deus Ex forum.
Dragonclaw on 13/4/2002 at 13:37
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
You see, this has very little meaning. You see, the Rights I do not accept I still should abide by.
...
See, that's a right society accepts, but I don't. So, I'll contravene it if I need to in order to avoid worse.Well, then PLEASE tell me what rights you count as human rights, that's almost all I wanted with that.
And for that "to avoid worse", I said it before, that's a dangerous thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I'm not saying I'm right there; of course, I think I am, but I can't very well prove it. Rather I'm saying that it will be shown whether or not I'm right only in retrospective.
Yes, I know. But you see, I wanted to point out, that the same thing could have been said by, example, Hitler, Stalin, or whoever.
Not to mention what Chillman said, honestly I didn't link the murderer with this, but it seems quite fitting :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
All social systems come to an end. Capitalism must also.
Why do they have to? There are still regions without government at all, tribes in Africa, for example. There are still Monarchies. And those have been around for a very long time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
We're finding that, in many nations, notably those that have gone through with the free trade/privatization idiocies, the link between corporate and state are growing. Likewise, the non-corporate jobs are becoming marginalised.
In short, the trend towards a univarsally polarised, extremist society appears to be beginning.I don't see extremists there, but I think you're right with the corporate/government thing. Only problem: That's everywhere. Where money (or other "benefits") is, there is corrupution in the government. Same as in your country, just that it weren't monetary benefits.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
A very small part of those on wellfare use it due to laziness, that is a common bourgeois misconception.Interesting. Good you pointed that out.
So, I guess, the people I meet on the bus, fast foods and malls are the few exceptions?
I don't say you're wrong, they are (I hope) a minor part of those in wellfare. (not saying it's a very small part, I think it's a "major minor" part) But they are there, and, trust me, they don't care if society dislikes them or not, they dislike society as well. They would be the same in your country.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
No, every Right Winger claims that. The Left Wingers tend to then sit around mutterring about how they aren't like us either...in short, EVERYONE hates the media. Everyone thinks it's biased against them.Agreed wih the second. But it's a well-known secret, that in germany the SPD (social-democratic party of Germany) holds a big share of the newspapers.
"Deutsche Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft mbH in Hamburg" belongs to the SPD.
To this holding belong 28 Media companies.
And you want to tell me they're not biased in favour of the left?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
A Socialist controlling the media? A rich Socialist?
Exactly. Surprised?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
By the way, In Austrailia, New Zealand and the US, only we Leftists can prove a factual link between the media and the Right Wing parties.Then it's not prove, sorry. For being prove, EVERYONE must be able to do so.
But maybe I didn't hear the sarcasm out...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Hey, I find this repitition irritating. I hate arrogance, and I can tell you I most certainly am not arrogant. However, when someone comes up to me, insults my ideology and generally acts like a twat, I get irritated...Well, if you're so "most certainly" not arrogant, how come you talk down to ICE and Chillman, and basically tell them their idiots without a clue? Care for an explanation?
Sure, you're "irritated", and I understand sometimes we leave the base of a good discussion, and enter the wide field of personal insults. But you obviously did the same to them, you insulted their/my/our (whatever fits) ideology the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Nyah, no, YOU suck! Not me!
What I tried to express was the following: Maybe you also need to look above your soupdish, and not act like your idea of socialism was the perfect solution to everything, and all else was useless. That you were the only one of us, who knew about marches, police and government violence and aggression, while we sit in our corners blindfolded, lied to yb the Media and not smart enough to detect it. Think about it for a moment.
I'll just stick in here the other reply...
By the way, Anarkos, you claimed me for posting that, which is wrong.
(Originally posted by Dragonclaw) I guess you didn't update your copy-paste memory ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
My problem here is that I keep going other the same ground, and everything I say seemed to be being taken in the worst possible manner. Yes, but you happen to act that way too, methinks...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Y'see, EVERYONE thinks the media is notoriously what they aren't. The media, simply, advocates the status quo. If, however, you look at the funding connections, the media appears Conservative.
I guess then if you're a Liberal, you hang around to many Conservatives...they've indoctrinated you with their view of the media. As stated above, you're wrong sometimes. Maybe you hang around with too many left-wing anarcho-thingy-thingies? (whatever you or they want to call themselves)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Done both tests, and they both put me in the insane Anarcho/Socialist range.Centrist on the ten q one...
The other one, let's see... 0.75 and -2.62 So also pretty centric ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Basically, you're saying no one'd want to work. Then, if they waited, say, a week, they'd reaslise they were all hungry, heh. Then some would start to work again, to give themselves some goods. Those goods are divided among the population. Therefor, many wouldn't work.
The working either live with this (unsocial, unfair), emigrate (Leaving the country in the same probs, just without people working, and this would eventually also lead to 3.), or a civil war would start. Doesn't sound social to me, actually.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Now, as the idea here is based around a majority revolution to this system, I can assume that the majority want it. Otherwise, it won't have happened. And, with the Democratic state, if the majority ever does not want it, it will change.
Like today, with the democratic state?
Face it: when there's democracy in it's purest, it doesn't matter what kind of state or economy you got. If we had perfect democracy right now, with capitalism, people would solve their problems themselves. No need for socialism or getting rid of money.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Like I said, that is the last resort. This threat exists today. The social pressures I talk of work now, but are supceded by the drive for cash. In addition, human nature is malleable. A revolutionery society would alter the focuses of admiration.
Really?
Would it not start everything over, people looking for pretty stones that they got, but others don't?
And where did you get that "human nature is malleable"-thing from? Got any evidence for that?
human nature can be suppressed, but not changed. (Else it wouldn't be nature, btw)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Apathy, indeed, is content. They are content, the mass is content, the mass is apathic, the mass is ignorant.
Agreed, apathy is often caused by contentment.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But immoral is being done, and the worst is done to those who are not content, those who have no political power; those in Third World nations.
Again, it may not sound nice, but: For a big part that's their own fault. You cannot expect a country to develop political and economical power, while there is war after war.
And the bad is not done by the first and second world countries alone, most is done by the dictatorship leaders of those countries.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I do not care if people are happy here. I am not and those in other nations are not happy with how you, how we, gain our happinness.
Aren't they? You may not be happy, as you think we abuse them. They may think the same, but that can also for a big part be due to liking the victim role. Not to be rassistic, but look at blacks in the US. Many of them seem quite happy in their "the white man uses us, we have no chance to do anything"-role.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Have you read 1984, or Farenheight 451? In both these dystopian fictions the masses were happy in ignorance.
In 1984, the people are not exactly happy. 'And in Fahrenheit 451, the people are not exactly bad off. They're just dumb.
But have you read animal farm? The masses do a revolution, and live in a happy social structure. Shortly. Then the pigs take over, and in the name of animalism (~socialism) rule the farm with terror and brutality. This describes pretty good what I expect from a socialist state, short or long term.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
In addition, the notion of Democratic Rights is rendered worthless if those who gain them have not had a free and equal chance to select them.
Hmm, right about the democratic rights. Unfortunately, as you wanted to point out earlier: The people don't always choose what is best for them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Except, I draw a line. I limit my behaviour, I do not impinge upon another's rights to that extent. The differance is primarily one of scale.
So, if I recall and sum up.
You basically say, you won't break the laws. But you will, if you think it's for a higher moral. But you won't break human right laws, which you haven't yet defined.
Only in defence of your human right laws.
Sounds a bit very squishy for me. Looks like the typical "I don't know yet, what I will have to justify later, so I'll keep them as general as possible"-set of rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I suppose I could also say that we live in a time where immorality, by society's accepted definition, is everywhere. I could state that those whose possesions I deface have gained them immorally.
Robin hood syndrome? Not everyone who owns something has achieved that immorally.
Of course, if you understand property as immoral, then yes. But then you cannot argument with that the way you try.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But I don't like that argument, as I start sounding like a crazed Christian fanatic... No, you may wish so, but you don't.
You sound more like a crazed socialist fanatic, loosing the real world, than a crazed Christian fanatic.
------------------
Edit: Fixed the "fat reply" thing on half of my post. Twice :rolleyes:
Anarkos on 15/4/2002 at 07:58
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Spoken like a true anarchist, easily worked up, no sophistication, and using obscenities as his primary form of expression. I think I hear a whiny little voice saying that he is not an anarchist but an Anarcho-Democratic-Socialist. Stop whining! That is unfair, unjustified and rude. Withdraw it and apologise. It is pure hypocricy to insult and belittle both myself and my ideology in reaction to my anger. In truth, I admit, the frustration that I unleashed here was mainly the result of alcohol. I do not normally drink [literally], but the rowing club had its end of season party, and I was challenged to a drinking contest, and as I'm of the opinion that drinking alcohol, like taking any drug, is a pointless and weak act, I accepted solely to show him the weakness of such a thing in measuring a man. I more than doubled his alcohol consumption, and by all accounts, including my memory, stayed under control; I am a big man, physically, and due to this, and genes I've inheritted from my alcoholic father, have a great capacity for alcohol. Of course, the next day was not fun, and meant that I posted in anger.
This is no excuse. I acted stupidly, both in drinking and in attempting to argue while recoverring. I apologise for the insults.
In turn, you should, in the spirit of debate, apologise for the idiotic comments above. I do not whine, I do not bitch, and the claim that I do so could be taken with great offence. Cease the abuse, and I shall happily follow.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You seem to have forgotten that your silly little marches incur on private property. You also seem to have forgotten that you stated your disregard of property rights and intellectual rights in previous posts.Incorrect. I march only on public roading, public property. Secondly, I stated that I do not consider them valid; but I must remember that society does not agree with me, and thus temper my actions.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I see you have once again pulled up the "necessary sacrifice" notion. Who knows how far you can carry that concept. Even if you yourself won't impinge on property rights, I do recall your statement of support for squatters. Indeed. I'll not do it myself, but I consoider it their right. I don't need nor desire to do so. Here we have a case where my morality and society's morality are in direct opposition; I follow my morality, and thus morally stand behind the squatters. But, I'll not do it myself, as it contravenes society's, and gains my cause no advancement whatsoever. It is a pointless act for me, and a socially unnacceptable one.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And again I remember why I gave up replying to you, because you insisted that some poor people are justified to steal and squat because otherwise they would starve to death or die in the cold. What rubbish! You blatantly ignored the fact that there are countless shelters and soup kitchens and the fact that in socialist Europe, we have state welfare. No point arguing with someone who on the surface claims to be reasonable, when in fact he will justify breaking the law with his own set of morals and model of the world.Of course I do; I could quote Malcolm X, I could quote Gandhi, I could quote Tolstoy, I could quote King, I could quote Collins, I could quote Jefferson, I could quote Washington, I could quote de Valera in support of the breaking of immoral laws. No social revolution will be legal.
And my worldview I right, I believe this totally. Every day it is confirmed by what I see. The measures we take for the poor here seem insufficient; the measures we take in the Third World are nigh on non-existent.
I justify my actions by my logic, my morality, my thought. If a teacher, a giver of knowledge, corrects me, I will be corrected, and I will attempt to undo any wrongs I have in the past. I am open minded, fully.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker There is no need to copy and paste the exact same insult at the start of every paragraph, or do you have a special affinity with people's arses?
Mature. Don't be a hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Don't make out like you are a bystander, caught up in some turmoil. You along with your buddies know the possible consequences of each rally. If you chose to take that risk, then you have only yourself to blame.But am I acting immorally? I'm exercising my Right to Protest, an extension of Free Speech combined with Free Assembly. The risk I take, I accept. In my eyes, I cannot see a fair justification for the arbitary attacks upon us. We are not here arguing practility, but morality. An innocent may be caught up in an immoral situation; he, himself, has done no wrong, but he is often to blame for his punishment; he acted morally, however.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I never once claimed you would be the violent types, but it is clear from what we see in the news or on documentaries that there are a significant amount of militant bodies within these marches. It is they, not the police who start the riot. But then I forgot, I am not suppose to believe doctored media from evil news corporations, but instead believe you.Of course, this is first hand information. The Black Bloc is a militant group, yet never an aggressor.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You are speaking as if this is the first time there has been a march and people didn't know the true consequences. People know there will be a police presence to block their march. I truly doubt anyone including you, would march 30 minutes to a place, be met with a line of police and then decide that the march is over and it is time to go home. Plainly, the demonstrators would refuse to disperse. A lot of this is due to sheep mentality.It depends. You see, marches are a show of opinion. A mass marching shows the existence of an opinion. Dispersion, rapid as it may be, does in no way lower the sign of discontent.
However, it has less power, less notice. Civil disobediance, following Gandhi's style, is part of any Civil Rights movement. We are to blame for giving a motive, but the attacks upon peaceful marches are immoral.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Everyone here prefers monetary incentives and poverty as a means of deterrent, then a society, which is constantly being judgemental filling your life with peer pressure. And just like now, where the class system exists, a similar system will also exist in your society.No, no, no, it will not! That is the beauty of it! Laziness will a pass from a generation to the next - and, as I've said, I don't believe it will continue.
And, again, you raise that I am the minority. Before my system is created, I must it the majority. I must gain popular support for it to become a Democratic Socialism. Do you understand? All I do now is rearguard action and PR. Maybe in 30, 40, 50 years, we will have converted the mass. Perhaps not.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Groups of lazy people will accumulate slowly to form ghettos where the lazy can live off the state without having to be alone and shunned from society.
I disagree, I do not believe that this will occur. But if it does, and if my Socialism fails, the Democratic process will adapt it. If the people choose Capitalism, I will return to speaking, to screaming my ideals from the rooftops. I, and my system, accept that we will fail if the people do not desire such. That is the most important thing - the people are free to tell me, to tell Socialism, to go.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You seemed to promote vigilantism before, but now have taken it back as it seemed a little extreme. The fact that you don't care about the minority who get hurt is interesting. I do care, but that is the way of the world. I don't believe this is utopia, God no! But, I do believe it is an improvement, and that it opens the way for further. Perhaps, it will lead to, God forbid, the "moral" Capitalism of Rand's vision. But whatever it leads to, will be the choice of the people, not the elite. That has never been the case before.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker After all your plans would only really benefit a minority of people, namely today's homeless and those right at the bottom of the economic ladder.No, no, it would benefit the vast majority. The Third World. If America ceases its economic colonialism in Asia and Africa, the world will be improved for the vast, vast majority.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker In the end, everyone just looks out for themselves. The minority will always try to make themselves the majority, masquerading themselves with a righteous cause. The only good thing about your system is that the richest people today will still be the most respected people, while the poorest people will still be the ones at the bottom of the social ladder. In most cases, but of course not always, those who work hard gets rich, and those who did not stayed poor. Working hard does not equate to toiling in the sun for 16 hours a day. Working hard is working smart.I would love a Capitalist system where that whollly true. Where we all were judged only by our abilities and efforts. Where we all had the same chances; but it is impossible. And, likewise, Democracy seems untennable when facing the nemisis of Corporatism. What counts for more today, my vote, or his dollars? The dollars! They win the votes, they produce the power.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Really? Then who set the guidelines? Someone will have to "tell" the people some sort of guidelines. Or do we just listen to you?The voter, the people tell the state directly what they want. Direct Democracy - a referendum for any issue deemed worthy. A state that can fall like a feather. If the people don't like the actions of the state, it is out.
Democracy, freedom, is more important to me than Socialism. I see Socialism as needed for our continued freedom from Corporatism.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker By the way, you can't read, or as you would say "you are talking out of a non-vocal orifice". I'm so sorry, I'm a New Zealander, and I use, uh, "blokish" language when I'm being informal. And don't follow that lead, for God's sake!
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Nowhere in my statement did I mention fascist parallels. Seems like you are the talking rubbish. I assumed that you spoke of China or Germany; both Conservative Capitalist states; classical Faxcsism. If you speak of the USSR, a history lesson might be advisable, although I'm not the expert to give it.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I said "oppression by common men".Which parallels with Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Hitler's purges exactly. The common worked into a fury at a scapegoat. Oppression of the common man, by the common man.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You are working on the level of people's emotional welfare instead of monetary well-being. This is far worse. You want to make the world into even more of a popularity contest then it already is. No doubt discrimination will run rampant in your society. At the moment monetary rewards are directly accountable. You will have to justify why a white worker is paid twice as much as a black worker, or why a pretty secretary is getting more than an ugly one. In your system, what benchmark exists? A victim of discrimination can easily get no recognition for his work.How better to run society? I've thought long and hard on this. We must balance the weakness of the few with the weakness of the many. I consider the many a better ruler...
In addition, we will lack the poson of the Corporate media telling us what to think. For the first time since its inception, mass media will be truly free.
And clarify your discrimination point, it seems interesting, but poorly worded.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker No and no one does, nor wants to. Take your propaganda outside the Deus Ex forum. Then don't argue with me! Say, sure, believe what you will, it is your life to waste. I've said my piece, and I'll merely reply now when challenged on it. I deserve the right to defend my ideology from criticism, do I not?
Anarkos on 15/4/2002 at 09:30
Dragon - I'll reply when I get time; I'm pretty busy at present.
Dragonclaw on 15/4/2002 at 12:29
No prob, again: I'm in no hurry here.
