This thread:
Please behave or go away.
Topic: "Anarchists" rioting in London - page 6. (Read 21446 times)
This thread:
[removed offensive picture]
[removed offensive picture]
Now, lets see how "anarchist" handle it. Shall they become Censors, Pragmatic, Conservative, or be for a totally open system. Something tells me it might go like this, "While we appreciate your right for freedom of speech, such speech must be grouped into Threads in order to maintain some semblance of proper communications on subjects."
This has very little to do with anarchy. If this guy wants to post this kind of picture, he can. But somewhere else.
Just as nobody would blame you if you kick out of your house someone who craped on your sofa, nobody would blame the moderators of this forum to evict someone who post these kinds of pictures.
PS. as soon as I saw this picture, I immediately personnaly reported it with this comment: "useless offensive picture"
rothschild, can we please keep this board SFW? You are damaging Bitcoin’s reputation with stuff like this …
OK, that is a first that I have seen on this forum.
Now, lets see how "anarchist" handle it. Shall they become Censors, Pragmatic, Conservative, or be for a totally open system. Something tells me it might go like this, "While we appreciate your right for freedom of speech, such speech must be grouped into Threads in order to maintain some semblance of proper communications on subjects."
Your Post does not fall into this threads subject even remotely and must be moved into the Other Subject, under some other thread.
Now, lets see how "anarchist" handle it. Shall they become Censors, Pragmatic, Conservative, or be for a totally open system. Something tells me it might go like this, "While we appreciate your right for freedom of speech, such speech must be grouped into Threads in order to maintain some semblance of proper communications on subjects."
Your Post does not fall into this threads subject even remotely and must be moved into the Other Subject, under some other thread.
[removed offensive picture]
Quote
Wars are expensive. I doubt anyone would pay for them, either directly or through increased prices.
"Say Bob why did the price of your milk go up all of a sudden and what are all those guns for? I think I'll get my milk somewhere else"
moral of the story Bob goes out of buisiness before he can invade poland, true story bro
"Say Bob why did the price of your milk go up all of a sudden and what are all those guns for? I think I'll get my milk somewhere else"
moral of the story Bob goes out of buisiness before he can invade poland, true story bro
Wars have little to do with money and more to do with power and resources. Remember Non-intrinsic valued money is just a construct of thought, like Math, Theology, Infinity. Almost any theory or system can fit into a construct of abstract thought. Hence, Economic theories.
In reality, it is not the cost of Milk but the availability of milk. There are two types of Wars, Wars of Availability and Wars of Theology. Wars of Theology are a Loose/Loose war. No one can gain anything, so they quickly change into Wars of Availability( Power, resources, etc..)
In the past you could conquer a country and take its money, today if you conquer a country its money becomes worthless. So it is over resources.
Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.
The European 'anarchists' are not in favor of a stateless society. They are, largely, socialists. Intentional chaos is an intermediate stage outlined by Karl Marx, and in detail in Rules for Radicals. Karl Marx noted that the majority of any nation has a vested interest in the status quo, even if that same majority can recognize it's flaws. Thus, the status quo must be disrupted before any substantial change, in this case a socialist revolution, may be successful. Certainly they don't all believe that they are socialists, but all of those who are rioting are contributing to that end, whether they know it or not.
I think this statement is generally correct. Not Anarchist, but Socialists that are loosing some of their "perceived rights." But this is like an Alice Cooper song lyric, "When you Win, you Loose"
As I understand it, in an anarcho-capitalist society, coercion does exist. It's just that it is NOT legitimised.
It could, but with a few wars from times to times. Not unlike how the current world works, though.
"Say Bob why did the price of your milk go up all of a sudden and what are all those guns for? I think I'll get my milk somewhere else"
moral of the story Bob goes out of buisiness before he can invade poland, true story bro
Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.
The European 'anarchists' are not in favor of a stateless society. They are, largely, socialists. Intentional chaos is an intermediate stage outlined by Karl Marx, and in detail in Rules for Radicals. Karl Marx noted that the majority of any nation has a vested interest in the status quo, even if that same majority can recognize it's flaws. Thus, the status quo must be disrupted before any substantial change, in this case a socialist revolution, may be successful. Certainly they don't all believe that they are socialists, but all of those who are rioting are contributing to that end, whether they know it or not.
As I understand it, in an anarcho-capitalist society, coercion does exist. It's just that it is NOT legitimised.
It could, but with a few wars from times to times. Not unlike how the current world works, though.
As I understand it, in an anarcho-capitalist society, coercion does exist. It's just that it is NOT legitimised.
Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it.
What power are you talking about exactly. coercion couldn't work on a large scale in a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society
As I understand it, in an anarcho-capitalist society, coercion does exist. It's just that it is NOT legitimised.
But I confess my view on these topics are not clear.
Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it.
What power are you talking about exactly. coercion couldn't work on a large scale in a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society
economic coercion by those who have the wealth, there is nothing voluntarist about not having enough money to pay for your health.
Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it.
What power are you talking about exactly. coercion couldn't work on a large scale in a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society
anarchy =/= anomie, but fuck the government! C:
Chaos is part of anarchy as it is difficult to avoid a temporary chaotic period during the decline of an centralised regime.
But honnestly I still struggle to understand what anarchy is exactly.
If I try to define myself as a market anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, I'm afraid I have to admit I'm in favor of emperialism or fascism.
Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it. Such a person is different from a king, since he got his power only from his own merit, and anybody can take his power from him, if he's able to do so.
Still, I prefer this to a fake empire based on democracy, mass brain washing and social engineering.
But honnestly I still struggle to understand what anarchy is exactly.
If I try to define myself as a market anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, I'm afraid I have to admit I'm in favor of emperialism or fascism.
Truth is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the power is free to be taken, by anyone who can manage to take it and keep it. Such a person is different from a king, since he got his power only from his own merit, and anybody can take his power from him, if he's able to do so.
Still, I prefer this to a fake empire based on democracy, mass brain washing and social engineering.
Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.
If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.
It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.
If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.
It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.
Jump to: