Thread: Anarchy

Attempts to view the Ego as a corruptive force are pretty silly TBH. I agree with Max Stirner's general view of the egotistical nature of man.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I realize that this is just a reaction to a poorly run government, but it is this very mentality that lead to the government we have now. All you are proposing is that we pass off responsibility for our own lives to yet another set of governors. Essentially what you are describing is a modern day version of every government ever created by people to control themselves. "We'll elect people so they have to represent us and their will be laws so they can't do anything that we don't agree with". I assume your idea comes from the belief that robots can't be corrupted, but all you are doing is putting the power in the hands of those that program them.

That's true, but im no societal designer so obviously my society would have been filled with flaws lol.

I just wish that misery, suffering, pain, anger, conflict and war would be under control and minimal at best.

Why can't we put aside greed and class and race and just unite, unite as a human race NOT as a one world government/one world nation

As you can see, we will probably not unite in the 21'st or 22nd century, look at us

look at what were doing in this very thread, arguing over 'ideas' and politics, we cannot even get along on a forum thread, how can we all get along in physical form, in reality?

How can the human race stop dividing and unite if we can't even peacefully disagree and agree with each other?

Originally Posted by guerilla

look at what were doing in this very thread, arguing over 'ideas' and politics, we cannot even get along on a forum thread, how can we all get along in physical form, in reality?

Because the internet really doesn't have any mannerisms. We can say anything and get away with it without being fearful of the consequences.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because the internet really doesn't have any mannerisms. We can say anything and get away with it without being fearful of the consequences.

Plus, you can't tell whether someone is being pedantic, aggressive, modest or helpful. This leads most debates towards numerous remarks which can be seen as snide.

EVERYONE STOP!!!!!!

What is the point? Why in every thread where someone tosses an idea out there, must there be rude ignorant statements that serve only to bash and insult and harm other people? Is it necessary? Lets start there. Answer the goddamn question. Is all of that necessary?

No, it isn't. And if you can find a justifyable reason why it is, unlike the many of you, I will actually be respectful of what you have to say. SKA is right, a shit ton of our problems come from UNCONSCIOUSNESS. Ego is a function of consciousness, but it is NOT consciousness. It, in this technologically evolving world, has become more obsolete than anything else.

I created this thread as a rant against all of the shit that is absolutely atrocious in this world. I would hope that people would share there ideas and views in a mature manner. Why is it that the people of this community always feel the need to say "I'm right, and you're wrong, you're a lowlife, worthless fuck who's opinion is garbage." Obviously not word for word, but that is the attitude and intent sent with all of these posts.

I have been guilty of it too in the past. You'll notice if you read my posts, that that has diminished some. Much of this hostility is unprompted and needs to STOP NOW. How about some solutions? How about some productive input without all of the shit?

Now, with that said,

Here is my problem. Anarchy, to a degree, could be the answer to most human suffering. It doesn't matter if it's a socialist, capitalist, or communist nation, they all will end up slowly into facist, dictatorships. I don't give a fuck what the constitution and bill of rights say, the truth is, we are bit by bit losing all of our rights, because we've been mindfucked into believing in the massive threat of "terrorists," who are ironically sitting in their lawn chairs sipping lemonade allowing the entire thing to unfold.

Fact of the matter is, a monetary system of ANY kind that involves a privatized central bank, like every country in western civilization, will not be a democracy. Especially with regulations being passed in supreme court to remove the contribution cap of major corporations to politicians campaign funds, there cannot be true democracy, and if you beleive that there can, you either don't understand how fractional reserve banking works, or you have been deeply and tragically deceived.

Through media and politics, the rich owners of corporations, and the central banks very carefully manipulate everyone. And no, this is not 1984. That would suggest that we are smart enough to resist. In 1984 the people were forced into that reality. We are literally begging the government for it. "Oh government, protect us from the terrorists!"

"Alright, citizen, here, we'll pass several acts to systematically prevent terrorism by stripping you of your rights to due process, rights to carry a firearm, and we'll also eliminate the tenth ammendment and suspend habeus corpus and posse comitatus completely, and slowly institute martial law so that you'll be safe from the terrorists."

In a centralized monetary system, there can only ever be greed and corruption.

On top of that, in ANY monetary system, there must at least be corruption. Beause big corporations will do anything for profit. So what is profit? Profit is a result of a lack of abundance. If I told you tomorrow that there are 600 trillion readily available cars in the country, they would be worth very little because there are so many of them, and they are easy to get. If there was a shit ton of oil, an endless supply of it, and it could be found in your backyard, then it would be worthless.

The reality is, profit is created through scarcity, and availability of products is easily controlled by corporations who hold patents on insanely advanced technology. The maglev trains in Japan that use magnetic fields to move 350 miles per hour? That technology is about 25 years OUT OF DATE! There exists technology that has been CONSTRUCTED ALREADY to create maglev trains that can travel in excess of 4,000 miles per hour safely.

There exists an electric car that can hold a battery charge that will allow it to be able to run travelling 100 miles per hour for DAYS without losing it's charge. But who owns the patent for that technology? The same dicks (pun intended) that own Haliburton. Electric cars would put them out of business, we'd have very little need for oil.

Did you know that the technology to run a car off of WATER exists? Separating the molecules in water can make it burn, and burn cleanly. What fumes are released back into the atmosphere? H2O.

My point is, it is because of MONEY that we are destroying the planet. These assholes would rather cause the apocalypse than give up their powerful grip over the world, when currently the technology ALREADY EXISTS to use clean energy.

Government is possible without corruption. A monetary system is NOT. My view of anarchy is, abolish central banks. Abolish money altogether. A government of the people CAN exist. But right now, even politicians with GOOD intentions (as rare as they are) can be twisted into doing horrible things, even unknowingly. As long as there is money, mathematically, there must also be debt. The two cannot exist without one another. Poverty, debt, corruption, loss of liberty, loss of democracy.

Your rant belies your feelings on ecologism. I would say thay you're a dark green libertarian/anarchist who opposes capitalism on several basis, one of which being the vary valid claim that it sucks up all resources to fuel its growth. Profits before people, always.

Most people are unaware of the planet's critical status. The human race literally faces extinction.

In my opinion, your last sentence is the solution to the one previous. If humanity dies out then the planet will heal. Humanity has so much potential but its failing, the sooner we fuck off, the quicker this beautiful planet can begin to regenerate and the natural world can re assert itself in vast areas where it has had to recede. Let us pray that this day arrives sooner rather than later, no?

I don't know about you, imran, but it is my natural human instinct to care about my survival and the survival of humanity.

If humanity dies out, yes the earth will heal. We just won't be around to experience it, so in my opinion, that is pointless. We don't have to go extinct to co-exist with the natural order of things. Look at some of Juora's posts. (I hope I spelled that right)

Like I said, the technology currently exists to live harmoniously with nature. We have the technology to produce twice as much energy as we as a planet currently consume WITHOUT poisoning the atmosphere.

The explanation for why we do not, lies in the corruption of the centralized monetary system. Not even centralized, just money in general is the grounds for corruption and destruction of the world. As long as there is money, we will never be free from it.

Exactly, you've almost said exactly what I said. We have the capability, the potential but we shall never achieve that potential. And I'm not talking just about energy and all that, we destroy this planet in more ways than those. Even our very existence is a problem. The largest and most serious problem facing humanity is one that isn't too often talked about; overpopulation. We breed and breed, and keep multiplying, moving across vast areas of lands destroying the natural environment and forcing the wildlife to disappear, stripping the land of its natural resources.
And I also think you overestimate humanity. We are a cancer. We wont disappear in my life time, but when we do, it will be for the greater good.

Perhaps.. we could do like China and require a license to allow reproduction. Heh. If everyone limited the amount of children we were allowed to have, I think that would help. Either way, I think technology can solve a lot of problems we're currently facing. These evil bastards would rather literally destroy the world than give up their precious "power."

I don't plan on dying any time soon.

Originally Posted by imran_p

And I also think you overestimate humanity. We are a cancer. We wont disappear in my life time, but when we do, it will be for the greater good.

It always seems that the one's who think that their life is cancerous aren't actually the one's coupling theory with practice. Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have. Or maybe it could be that you don't really think humans are cancerous.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It always seems that the one's who think that their life is cancerous aren't actually the one's coupling theory with practice. Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have. Or maybe it could be that you don't really think humans are cancerous.

You ever so conveniently forgot to mention the most viable explanation: simple observation.

Collectively, humans do act like a virus to the planet. Making this observation says absolutely nothing about ones personality or intent.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It always seems that the one's who think that their life is cancerous aren't actually the one's coupling theory with practice. Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have. Or maybe it could be that you don't really think humans are cancerous.

You seem to enjoy conflict rather than debate mate. I don't particularly understand the point your making but I'll do my best to get across what I was trying to say. I never said my life, individually was cancerous, it was an observation, that collectively, as a species we have a negative impact on the earth. You disagree?

I, like everybody else, is a living survival kit, we all are, such is the nature of life. So no, I don't want to die, I don't want other people to die; I just believe that the eventual, almost inevitable extinction of humanity will not be such a bad thing, as life, in all its diversity will be given the chance to flourish again. The huge spaces that we occupy, and build cities on, shall be returned to nature. The extinction of other forms of life will hopefully slow down from its current alarming rate. Please explain to me how you think what I said means that I like inflicting cancerous harm on the earth, or that I have a ghoulish desire to see other people die. I think your a person who knows no other way to discuss than to be confrontational and to be almost always bordering on the offensive, please prove me wrong by replying with a thought out reply to the point of humans having a negative impact on the Earth, as opposed to more personal "attacks," for want of a better word.

Originally Posted by SKA

Hi laughing man,
Please stop twisting my words.

This

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

You ever so conveniently forgot to mention the most viable explanation: simple observation.

Collectively, humans do act like a virus to the planet. Making this observation says absolutely nothing about ones personality or intent.

Humans have purposeful behavior due to reason. You merely think that since humans can conquer nature better then any other species, that somehow makes man virus-like. It's a rather shallow observation.

Originally Posted by imran_p

You seem to enjoy conflict rather than debate mate.

If there wasn't conflict in debate then there wouldn't be debate.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I don't particularly understand the point your making but I'll do my best to get across what I was trying to say. I never said my life, individually was cancerous, it was an observation, that collectively, as a species we have a negative impact on the earth. You disagree?

Why are you not cancerous but the ambiguous masses cancerous?

Originally Posted by imran_p

I, like everybody else, is a living survival kit, we all are, such is the nature of life. So no, I don't want to die, I don't want other people to die; I just believe that the eventual, almost inevitable extinction of humanity will not be such a bad thing, as life, in all its diversity will be given the chance to flourish again.

So you don't want to die and you don't want people to die but it would be beneficial if the human race did die?

Originally Posted by imran_p

The huge spaces that we occupy, and build cities on, shall be returned to nature. The extinction of other forms of life will hopefully slow down from its current alarming rate. Please explain to me how you think what I said means that I like inflicting cancerous harm on the earth, or that I have a ghoulish desire to see other people die. I think your a person who knows no other way to discuss than to be confrontational and to be almost always bordering on the offensive, please prove me wrong by replying with a thought out reply to the point of humans having a negative impact on the Earth, as opposed to more personal "attacks," for want of a better word.

Firstly, your ghoulish desire comes from your recent statement that earth would be better if the human race didn't exist. The world lacks any value without humanity. What good is a sunrise if a human is not there to witness it? Lesser animals have no sense of appreciation, they have no values. Concerning you inflicting harm, it is a basic observation that since you consume on this planet you are thereby 'hurting' it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Humans have purposeful behavior due to reason.

Viruses have purposeful behaviour too. What is your point?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You merely think that since humans can conquer nature better then any other species, that somehow makes man virus-like.

Precisely. Conquering an area until all its resources are gone, spreading, and conquering the next area. You seem to understand the issue but you're unwilling to take the next small step in calling it virus-like behaviour.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's a rather shallow observation.

Observations are observations.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Viruses have purposeful behaviour too. What is your point?

Viruses have instinctual behavior, not purposeful behavior.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Precisely. Conquering an area until all its resources are gone, spreading, and conquering the next area. You seem to understand the issue but you're unwilling to take the next small step in calling it virus-like behaviour.

Nonsense. Do we cut down every tree we see? Do we mine every mountain? Obviously not. Where there is private property, there is a long-term interest in the capital resources.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Observations are observations.

Oh please, it is not profound to saying something that is incorrect and from the Matrix.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If there wasn't conflict in debate then there wouldn't be debate.



Why are you not cancerous but the ambiguous masses cancerous?



So you don't want to die and you don't want people to die but it would be beneficial if the human race did die?



Firstly, your ghoulish desire comes from your recent statement that earth would be better if the human race didn't exist. The world lacks any value without humanity. What good is a sunrise if a human is not there to witness it? Lesser animals have no sense of appreciation, they have no values. Concerning you inflicting harm, it is a basic observation that since you consume on this planet you are thereby 'hurting' it.

Individually humans are not such a large problem. What you implied in your initial response was that I enjoy destroying the earth somewhat because I don't kill myself. That's like claiming I want the extinction of all cows because i eat meat. Individually I am not destroying the earth, the collective we is destroying the planet.

And yes your summary of my position is correct. I don't wan't do die, I don't want other people to randomly start dying yet I believe the planet would benefit from our extinction. Why is this so mind boggling? I would assume that all three of the above are almost universally accepted.

Your justification for saying, " Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have." Is that I said that the Earth would regenerate and would benefit if humans didn't exist. I honestly don't understand your logic, if you were to do a poll a large number of people would agree that the Earth would benefit from a lack of humans; now i sincerely doubt that many, if any of these people would have a ghoulish desire to see other people killed, you are trying to pass off baseless assumptions as decent, logical argument.

And again with the point regarding your statement that, "I like my cancerous affect on the Earth", your justification for that statement is that I consume on this Earth. This does not follow logically. Everybody who travels via flight likes contributing to global warming?

Your arguments are poor and do not follow logically, you use my arguments as premises and make random claims which you then try and pass off as logically following conclusions.


Hmm I have to say though, your last point regarding the lack of aesthetic appreciation from other animals seems a completely more valid argument, worthy of discussion. Its a convincing argument, but the one problem with your argument is that life does not stagnate, evolution will continue, and maybe another species will evolve that has our heightened levels of self awareness, conciousness and aesthetic appreciation, and maybe it will be far less destructive. Or maybe we could be that species with a complete shift in our cultures, modes of thinking, structures and institutions?

What do you think?

Originally Posted by imran_p

Individually humans are not such a large problem. What you implied in your initial response was that I enjoy destroying the earth somewhat because I don't kill myself. That's like claiming I want the extinction of all cows because i eat meat. Individually I am not destroying the earth, the collective we is destroying the planet.

Well you said you don't destroy it but WE do. Baring the fact that we includes yourself and others, why is it that you think the ambiguous masses are destroying the world but you specifically aren't? You never answered that.

Originally Posted by imran_p

And yes your summary of my position is correct. I don't wan't do die, I don't want other people to randomly start dying yet I believe the planet would benefit from our extinction. Why is this so mind boggling? I would assume that all three of the above are almost universally accepted.

It's incoherent to say that the world would be better off if we all died, you value the world being better off but then go onto say you don't value if everyone would just die. If you value the world being better off, and see it as being better off if everyone were to die then how can you not be for everyone dying?

Originally Posted by imran_p

Your justification for saying, " Either you like to inflict your cancerous harm on the earth or you just want other people to die to satisfy some ghoulish desire you have." Is that I said that the Earth would regenerate and would benefit if humans didn't exist. I honestly don't understand your logic, if you were to do a poll a large number of people would agree that the Earth would benefit from a lack of humans; now i sincerely doubt that many, if any of these people would have a ghoulish desire to see other people killed, you are trying to pass off baseless assumptions as decent, logical argument.'

Appealing to the majority is fallacious.

Originally Posted by imran_p

And again with the point regarding your statement that, "I like my cancerous affect on the Earth", your justification for that statement is that I consume on this Earth. This does not follow logically. Everybody who travels via flight likes contributing to global warming?

Yes. That is how it logically follows. You simply don't want to invert the looking glass onto yourself for it would show your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by imran_p

Hmm I have to say though, your last point regarding the lack of aesthetic appreciation from other animals seems a completely more valid argument, worthy of discussion. Its a convincing argument, but the one problem with your argument is that life does not stagnate, evolution will continue, and maybe another species will evolve that has our heightened levels of self awareness, conciousness and aesthetic appreciation, and maybe it will be far less destructive. Or maybe we could be that species with a complete shift in our cultures, modes of thinking, structures and institutions?

What do you think?

The future is unpredictable but I think it unlikely. That is speculation though. Concerning humans, I don't think we are a path to destruction. I think it is exaggerated sensationalism meant to conceal a certain ideology. I only have a mild interest in this climate debate. However, from what I have heard in recent months, we now have to worry about an ice age. It's ridiculous nonsense. I only see green technology through the eyes of a capitalist. It will allow from an increase in the standard of living and will open a new market of trade and exchange so I welcome it. Environmentalists are screwing it up with their legislative policies like subsidization and wanting to ban fossil fuels along with 'the Earth is dying!' motif.

Are you being serious? You completely avoided almost everything I said and came out with crap like this. "Appealing to the majority is fallacious. " The part of my message that you quoted contained much more than that appeal, I understand that it is a flaw in reasoning, however, the point still stands that it does not logically follow that those who believe that extinction of humanity would result in the regeneration of our planet have a ghoulish desire to see everybody killed. You dodge everything and just pull out flaws in the other persons reasoning whilst avoiding the points that are made. i have already answered that although it may be logical to wish that every human, including myself dies using the logic that the world would be better off, we are contending with natural survival instincts, and altruistic instincts that are all part of our evolution. I feel an affinity with the rest of humanity, and would never wish for everybody to die, logic does not always prevail.
I think debating with you is a waste of time, you finally revealed your agenda and reason for being in this discussion. I am not going to debate with somebody who has no opinions or beliefs of their own on most subjects except for an intense desire to prove other people wrong. I think its quite clear from the above that your reasoning is poor, and you mask this by twisting other peoples words and isolating small flaws in reasoning. I think its a shame that people like to do this thing where they quote the other persons argument and then go through and nit pick at everything the other person has said, one sentence at a time. Maybe it would be better if you just constructed a well thought out response. I think we shall have to agree to disagree, on almost everything. Ever.

Laughing man - If you look at the evidence, the eart really is at a critical state. The climate debate is far from over stated, it's massively understated. The reason? It's simply not profitable. Look up (a real, not in the realm of 9/11 bullshit) the conspiracy with esso, where it was discovered that they paid scientists to discredit claimte arguments that would force them to shut down their oil facilities. We could face extinction, it is a possibility.

But very unlikely. Humans are emotive creatures; rationale is something that must be taught or discovered, it is not innate. When a major environmental impact occurs the whole world will react emotively, with international demands for extremely radical changes in green policy. People are reactionary, it is an unfortunate truth.

Imran - On one front, I agree that laughing man trivializes debate with quintessential nit-picking, designed to evoke debate where none need exist. But then I remembered that you subscribe to new age leanings and my ad hominem alarm bell forbode me from siding with you.

Do all of you get this worked-up in debate? It's sort of embarrassing.

Note: This is one of my "dick-ish" posts but honestly, I keep seeing a few of you get upset whenever someone that disagrees with you speaks.