See, it's "barbaric" when you resist giving your stuff to causes that cunticula wants, but it's not at all barbaric when armed men take you to a cage for resisting, or shoot you if you attempt to defend yourself from them.
Statism survives on upside-down ethics.
Topic: Apparently Stalin was good guy who killed no one... - page 2. (Read 6907 times)
Even without the border markers, it would be abundantly clear where North Korea sits on that peninsula...
I disagree. Without the border markers, it could quite easily be a number of fishing boats on a large body of water.
I loled.
If I had not picked a libertarian author
orwell was a socialist
Democratic Socialism: for when one fallacy just isn't enough!
Cunicula is like a Borat-style parody of statism. At this point, I just use him as a convenient source of bullshit to debunk.
If I had not picked a libertarian author
orwell was a socialist
Let's look at the context. It is from his essay on Gulliver's Travels.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_vs._Literature:_An_Examination_of_Gulliver's_Travels/0.html
Now what is yourmisinterpretation?
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_vs._Literature:_An_Examination_of_Gulliver's_Travels/0.html
Quote
Gulliver's master is somewhat unwilling to obey, but
the "exhortation" (a Houyhnhnm, we are told, is never COMPELLED to do
anything, he is merely "exhorted" or "advised") cannot be disregarded.
This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in
the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there
is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is
public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to
conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of
law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual
can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly
governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make
him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. The
Houyhnhnms, we are told, were unanimous on almost all subjects. The only
question they ever DISCUSSED was how to deal with the Yahoos. Otherwise
there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is
always either self-evident, or else it is undis-coverable and
unimportant. They had apparently no word for "opinion" in their language,
and in their conversations there was no "difference of sentiments". They
had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarian organization, the
stage when conformity has become so general that there is no need for a
police force.
the "exhortation" (a Houyhnhnm, we are told, is never COMPELLED to do
anything, he is merely "exhorted" or "advised") cannot be disregarded.
This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in
the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there
is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is
public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to
conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of
law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual
can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly
governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make
him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. The
Houyhnhnms, we are told, were unanimous on almost all subjects. The only
question they ever DISCUSSED was how to deal with the Yahoos. Otherwise
there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is
always either self-evident, or else it is undis-coverable and
unimportant. They had apparently no word for "opinion" in their language,
and in their conversations there was no "difference of sentiments". They
had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarian organization, the
stage when conformity has become so general that there is no need for a
police force.
Now what is your
That he, like yourself, had a flawed conception of Anarchy. Anarchy is, at it's core, a celebration of nonconformity. The only thing that is inviolate - the only "law" - is the non-aggression principle, which as I said, states unequivocally that it is not permitted to initiate the use force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. All else is permitted.
is entirely barbaric in its treatment of those that cannot fend for themselves.
I'm no ancap supporter but it's actually neutral in its treatment of such people. The premise is that it's not the job of government to take care of such things (or indeed anything I guess). It is the individuals who are capable of helping such people who are either "barbaric" (actually a subjective judgment) or not.
Intelligent people maintain multiple sets of contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
No, insane people do that. Orwell even coined a term for it: Doublethink.
This is the same Orwell who wrote the quote in my signature line you know. He was an intelligent person.
Quote
In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. - George Orwell
Non-aggression principle: Thou Shalt not use force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.
Behold the fruits of fundamentalism! You have lost the power to interpret text without greatly distorting it. If I had not picked a libertarian author, you would have offered a very different interpretation. What a sad state you are in. Not able to think independently any more.
Let's look at the context. It is from his essay on Gulliver's Travels.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_vs._Literature:_An_Examination_of_Gulliver's_Travels/0.html
Quote
Gulliver's master is somewhat unwilling to obey, but
the "exhortation" (a Houyhnhnm, we are told, is never COMPELLED to do
anything, he is merely "exhorted" or "advised") cannot be disregarded.
This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in
the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there
is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is
public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to
conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of
law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual
can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly
governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make
him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. The
Houyhnhnms, we are told, were unanimous on almost all subjects. The only
question they ever DISCUSSED was how to deal with the Yahoos. Otherwise
there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is
always either self-evident, or else it is undis-coverable and
unimportant. They had apparently no word for "opinion" in their language,
and in their conversations there was no "difference of sentiments". They
had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarian organization, the
stage when conformity has become so general that there is no need for a
police force.
the "exhortation" (a Houyhnhnm, we are told, is never COMPELLED to do
anything, he is merely "exhorted" or "advised") cannot be disregarded.
This illustrates very well the totalitarian tendency which is explicit in
the anarchist or pacifist vision of Society. In a Society in which there
is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is
public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to
conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of
law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual
can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly
governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make
him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. The
Houyhnhnms, we are told, were unanimous on almost all subjects. The only
question they ever DISCUSSED was how to deal with the Yahoos. Otherwise
there was no room for disagreement among them, because the truth is
always either self-evident, or else it is undis-coverable and
unimportant. They had apparently no word for "opinion" in their language,
and in their conversations there was no "difference of sentiments". They
had reached, in fact, the highest stage of totalitarian organization, the
stage when conformity has become so general that there is no need for a
police force.
Now what is your misinterpretation?
Intelligent people maintain multiple sets of contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
No, insane people do that. Orwell even coined a term for it: Doublethink.
This is the same Orwell who wrote the quote in my signature line you know. He was an intelligent person.
Quote
In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by "thou shalt not", the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by "love" or "reason", he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else. - George Orwell
Non-aggression principle: Thou Shalt not use force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.
Intelligent people maintain multiple sets of contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
No, insane people do that. Orwell even coined a term for it: Doublethink.
This is the same Orwell who wrote the quote in my signature line you know. He was an intelligent person. He understood subtlety and was not a fundamentalist.
i.e. He himself participated in doublethink and he would not have been ashamed to admit it.
Goooo AnCap!
If Somalia were AnCap, you'd have a point. But it's not, now is it?
Away from the cities (where state influence was the worst, and where violence is now the worst), Somalia is primarily Anarcho-communist. Oops! You just proved my point.
Check out this research: http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
LOL! I think you should write your asshat libertarian friend with the news that Somalia is AnCom. His paper will need to be rewritten with fresh fabricated data.
LoL indeed... Nowhere in that paper does he mention "capitalism," nor "AnCap." He uses the terms "statelessness" and "anarchy" several times, though.
So... your point was?
Intelligent people maintain multiple sets of contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
No, insane people do that. Orwell even coined a term for it: Doublethink.
and i still beg to differ. taxes for example are not oppression, as long as they do not threaten property existential for living or are being used as a excuse for other, arbitrarily applied measures like intimidation, harassment or inspections/surveillance.
So, it's cool, then, if I come and steal some of your money, as long as I don't take so much that you can't survive without it, and I'm using it to help my Grandma afford her surgery?my main criticism of ancap is completely unrelated btw, mainly that there is no meaningful transition from existing forms of government, it is inherently unstable and if ever achieved is entirely barbaric in its treatment of those that cannot fend for themselves.
The transition is simple, there's even a method to do so against State resistance: Agorism, though with the help of the State, the transition can be much more smooth. They need only give up their monopolies.As to it's inherent instability, That's just plain false. Unless you can point to proof of that?
And it's treatment of those who cannot fend for themselves is entirely dependent upon the people who make up the society. If the welfare of those who can't fend for themselves is valued, then charities that take care of them will thrive.
Goooo AnCap!
If Somalia were AnCap, you'd have a point. But it's not, now is it?
Away from the cities (where state influence was the worst, and where violence is now the worst), Somalia is primarily Anarcho-communist. Oops! You just proved my point.
It's fundamentalism that's moronic, independently of the flavor 
Amen! Thanks, I've been itching to use one of these...
Your logical fallacy is...
Um no. Fundamentalism is when you refuse to entertain the hypothesis that your beliefs are false. It is pretty obvious when people do this. It usually manifests itself through circular reasoning and logical leaps.
e.g. AnCap has never been tried and the state is evil,
therefore AnCap is the best possible system of organizationIntelligent people maintain multiple sets of contradictory beliefs simultaneously. I am a multicore processor. You are a pentium 4. You are a prisoner of your own fundamentalist architecture.
please, more videos refuting moronic worldviews....
I'm glad you've finally come to understand that communism is moronic.
It's a step in the right direction, at least.
i understand denying stalins atrocities is moronic.
the main flaw of communism however is that it tries to achieve its goals through oppression, while you claim that its goals ARE oppression.
and i still beg to differ. taxes for example are not oppression, as long as they do not threaten property existential for living or are being used as a excuse for other, arbitrarily applied measures like intimidation, harassment or inspections/surveillance.
my main criticism of ancap is completely unrelated btw, mainly that there is no meaningful transition from existing forms of government, it is inherently unstable and if ever achieved is entirely barbaric in its treatment of those that cannot fend for themselves.
as long as you dont address those issues, proving any other type of government unjust or inefficient is somewhat pointless.
Goooo AnCap!
If Somalia were AnCap, you'd have a point. But it's not, now is it?
Away from the cities (where state influence was the worst, and where violence is now the worst), Somalia is primarily Anarcho-communist. Oops! You just proved my point.
Check out this research: http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
LOL! I think you should write your asshat libertarian friend with the news that Somalia is AnCom. His paper will need to be rewritten with fresh fabricated data.
Even without the border markers, it would be abundantly clear where North Korea sits on that peninsula...
I disagree. Without the border markers, it could quite easily be a number of fishing boats on a large body of water.
The higher resolution image (warning: HUGE) shows the landmass plenty clearly, and even some of those fishing boats off the coast (which do, in fact, comprise most of NK's nighttime illumination).
Even without the border markers, it would be abundantly clear where North Korea sits on that peninsula...
I disagree. Without the border markers, it could quite easily be a number of fishing boats on a large body of water.
Goooo AnCap!
If Somalia were AnCap, you'd have a point. But it's not, now is it?
Away from the cities (where state influence was the worst, and where violence is now the worst), Somalia is primarily Anarcho-communist. Oops! You just proved my point.
It's fundamentalism that's moronic, independently of the flavor
Amen! Thanks, I've been itching to use one of these...
Your logical fallacy is...
It's fundamentalism that's moronic, independently of the flavor
Amen!
Even without the border markers, it would be abundantly clear where North Korea sits on that peninsula... Approximately the same land mass, roughly half the population, and less than a tenth of the illumination.
Goooo Communism!
http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/dn21352/1-satellites-help-track-pirate-loot-in-somalia.html
Goooo AnCap!
It's fundamentalism that's moronic, independently of the flavor
please, more videos refuting moronic worldviews....
I'm glad you've finally come to understand that communism is moronic.
It's a step in the right direction, at least.
Jump to: