1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 03, 2007, 06:09:51 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

No, Noam Chomsky probably is 'no punk.' But, he has spawned a manifest of retarded anarchist wannabes such as yourself, all of which have no idea how badly the fabrics of society would be fucked up if Anarchy were in place.

1. i don't particularly support many of Chomsky's positions. And I did not know who he was until a year ago. I have been an anarchist for much longer.
2. all these arguements of human nature fail. I am a part of the human race. I do not want to randomly kill people. You are a part of the human race, do you want to randomly kill people? Man could not possibly live as a social animal if he lived in a world of universal antagonism. Social life is made possible by our knowledge that most people most of the time are not going to hurt each other or steal from each other. Without that assurance all social life would come to a standstill and there would be no agency or organization of any kind that could bring peace and order out of such a situation.

Man is a social animal and for the most part he will live in cooperative, peaceful relations with his neighbors. It is in this fact of nature, and not some supposed magical power of government, that we discover the essential ingredient for understanding social stability. People by their nature get along with each other. Government doesn't bring them together or keep them together. People live social lives because it is to their advantage to do so. Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here.

2

The Lounge / Re: Worst troll

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:26:07 AM »

astronomy101

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:21:19 AM »

There is no compromise in the defense of the earth.

Why not?  You're obviously not going to be around to see it, either way.

Whoops, I left out a few key words.  I hate it when I do that.  Let me fix it...

"Why not?  You're obviously not going to be around to see the end of it all [the earth], either way.

Well, how Bush is going...

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:10:42 AM »

There is no compromise in the defense of the earth.

Why not?  You're obviously not going to be around to see it, either way.

Says you.
Remember spain 1936?
Student communes of France?
That is bullshit when people say nothing can happen in a short period of time.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:09:25 AM »

Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

Chomsky is a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Bible should be read in school. SO kids can see how fucked up that shit is.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:07:38 AM »

Do yourself a favor and join your nearest Libertarian Party.  It's a nice little compromise and you might get to feel like you're making a difference.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

-- Robert Anton Wilson

There is no compromise in the defense of the earth.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 11:05:54 AM »

Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

Chomsky is a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Even though he says he is an anarchist?

"PeaceWORKS: Dr. Chomsky, why do you call yourself a "libertarian anarchist" rather than a plain "anarchist"?

Noam Chomsky: The term I usually use is "libertarian socialist," which is fairly standard usage in the anarchist tradition. Anarchism covers a pretty broad range. One major sector in Europe regarded itself as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" has a different usage in the United States, which departs from the tradition. Here the term "libertarian" means anarcho- capitalist. "[1]

[1] http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9405-peaceworks.html

A liberatarian socialist is an anarchist.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 02, 2007, 05:49:57 AM »

I would describe myself as an anarchist, but in truth, anarchy is nothing but a pipe dream because of the very nature of mankind, which seems to be to fuck up everything we can.   

Indeedy. Anarchy in today's society would spell bad news. True anarchy, though, would be utopic.

~D-Draw

Same exact thing monarchs claimed democracy would do if implemented. "Democracy = anarchy"

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 11:06:42 AM »

hey//breaking shits pretty fun though 

Especially a neo-nazis face

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Trails

« on: May 01, 2007, 06:16:50 AM »

The FEers can't explain why this happens in the southern hemisphere.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 06:10:09 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

Where the hell is there order in the world now anyway?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 06:09:10 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 06:05:03 AM »

People will kill people regardless of it being viewed one way or another. Natural selection evolved.

"Whenever Anarchists attack present-day society, they touch on the fears and prejudices of average people who know that society is a jungle today and cannot visualise life without the safeguards needed in the jungle. When they hear of Anarchism they bring forward objections which are, in fact, criticisms of the present system they do not otherwise admit but think of as objections to a Free Society of the future.

They fear what is known in the Statist language as a "state of Anarchy" -- they think murder, rape, robbery, violent attack would ensue if there were no Government to prevent it. And yet we all know that Government cannot, certainly does not., prevent it. One has only to pick up the papers to learn that it flourishes though Government is strong, and also where Government is weak, and more so perhaps where there are numerous bodies competing as to which is the Government and Government is said to have broken down. "A state of Anarchy" nowhere exists -- in the sense there a society where there is no Government and not just a weak or divided Government.

The most a functioning Government can do is not prevention but punishment -- when it finds out, sometimes wrongly or not at all -- who the culprits are, its own methods of repressive action can cause far more damage than the original crimes -- the "cure" is worse than the disease.

"What would you do without a police force?" Society would never tolerate murder, whether it had a police force or not. The institutionalisation of a body to look after crime means that it not only "looks after" crime and nourishes crime, but that the rest of society is absolved from doing so. The reasoning is that a murder next door is the State's business, not mine! Responsibility for one's neighbour is reduced in an authoritarian society, in which the State is solely responsible for our behaviour. "

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 05:56:58 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 05:53:40 AM »

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

There is no proof of this.

Human socialology. Organization will end up forming, thus anarchy goes bye bye. Aka, chaos to order.

"Could an anarchistic society work? On the face of it, the answer to this question seems rather obvious. The state is, after all, a relatively new development in human history, and certain organs of the state, such as the police force, came into existence within the last 500 years. There are also clear precedents of successful anarchistic societies that have existed in the modern era: Revolutionary Spain in the 1930s, the Zapatista communes in modern Mexico, Freetown Christiania in Denmark, and the Israeli kibbutzim, to pick a few noteworthy examples. The real question, then, is not whether or not an anarchistic society could work, but whether or not authoritarian institutions would reemerge.

While authoritarians would almost certainly attempt to reestablish coercive institutions, it seems unlikely that they would succeed, as they could only do so by convincing a large number of people to knowingly and willingly submit to domination. Freed slaves do not typically renounce their freedom. However, it is also clear that as long as humanity exists, there will be struggles between individuals who wish to oppress and dominate other human beings, and individuals who wish to protect liberty. So long as those individuals who wish to protect liberty remain united, proactive, and vigilant, however, they will always be able to defeat an authoritarian elite."

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: May 01, 2007, 05:50:22 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:34:22 AM »

"Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

-- Edward Abbey

"If people eat their ballots, then that nut-case Stockwell Day will get in. Right-wingers aren't angst-ridden about voting. Don't we have to vote strategically, even if that means voting for the Liberals?"

"Having to decide between Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that's not a choice -- that's a threat. Our electoral system favors a two-party race, and we should reject it. We have to start working towards a democratic system that doesn't force people to vote for the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers). We can't keep jumping from election to election, voting for one moron because we're terrified that there's something worse. Now's the time to stop legitimizing this process and take a stand for fundamental, long-term change. It's more important to call attention to the farce of electoral politics than to split-hairs by choosing between Tweedledumb andTweedledee (or The Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts and the Doormouse for that matter)."

- The Edible Ballot Society

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:29:11 AM »

Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.

Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:26:33 AM »

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

Yeah! Looks credible to me! I think everyone you've been arguing with knows exactly what you're talking about. It's just implausible in society. It fucking sucks, sure, that we are not able to live freely without people ordering us around, but it's just how things work. People are assholes. The world spins.

~D-Draw

Yes, the site fucken sucks in appearance.
But its has links to sites that discuss anarchy.
Which is what I hope what people would look too.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:23:51 AM »

TRUE Anarchy cannot exist.

It is in our primitive nature as humans to interact and form organizations of some sort.
Maybe light anarchy, where there's a few people scattered on a remote, uninhabited island perhaps. But TRUE mass anarchy: No.

Who said anarchists don't believe in organization?

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Trails

« on: April 30, 2007, 05:21:33 AM »

Yes, this topic has been brought up. Never explained though.
Except one time one FEer said they couldn't replicate the results.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 27, 2007, 07:06:06 AM »

If aN anarchist is able to get money from the government and use it in anarchic ways, that is still anarchist.

No, that is a leech with mental illness. An anarchist wouldn't need currency from a government he or she does not recognize. That makes no literal sense. Thus, they would be not an anarchist, but an opportunist.

what is wrong with using free money from the government to open a coffee shop, is how an anarchist would think.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 27, 2007, 07:04:53 AM »

http://www.fuckauthority.org/

A good site to start educating yourself on anarchism.
I still don't think either people I have been arguing with no jack about anarchy because they bring up the most cliche questions.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 27, 2007, 06:56:41 AM »

If aN anarchist is able to get money from the government and use it in anarchic ways, that is still anarchist.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:27:11 PM »

What did that have to do with cake?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:25:32 PM »

This person wants to have their cake and eat it, too. 

Cakes alright.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:24:40 PM »

it's very hard to get away from using state services

so what, just because an anarchist mother has to use welfare to support her kids because she could never get anywhere in life because she was born poor does not mean she is not an anarchist.
i fail to see your reasoning here

Well anarchists are supposed to reject the state, right?
By using welfare she is not rejected the state.
The fact that she is poor has nothing to do with it.
[/quote]
the fact she is poor has a lot to do with it.
if she has no where else to turn because capitalism has one pay for everything even when one is dying, then yes it has a lot to do with it. Food Not Bombs usually doesn't serve everyday.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:21:07 PM »

The only true anarchist would be the person who lives in the alley, doesn't have a job, and fends for himself.

Diogenes the Cynic.  My hero.  Of course, I'll not live up to what he did...

Diogenes is my fav. nihilist. Onions...

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:20:02 PM »

anarchists are no different from yourself.
they have jobs
go to college
eat daily.
play swim fear die
To only different apparently is they don't like oppresive controls.
duh.

and don't want to pay taxes
don't want to do jury duty
say that using state services are wrong even though they use them...

they may or may not pay taxes. a lot of nonanarchists no pay taxes.
actually, many do go to juries
and who said they use state services, which is not necessarily against some anarchist philosophies.

You stated that:

anarchists are no different from yourself.
they have jobs
go to college
eat daily.
play swim fear die
To only different apparently is they don't like oppresive controls.
duh.

Which means your last post contradicts the above quote?

Anarchists as all human beings are not exactly like you. if that is what you mean. they all don't poop at the same time as you.

This further proves that you are an idiot and do not have an comprehension skills.
I would love to argue with someone about this, but not someone who has an IQ of 5.

i love talking to people who know nothing of anarchy except what they learned in their 9th grade am. cult. class.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Discussion on Anarchy

« on: April 26, 2007, 03:18:19 PM »

anarchists are no different from yourself.
they have jobs
go to college
eat daily.
play swim fear die
To only different apparently is they don't like oppresive controls.
duh.

and don't want to pay taxes
don't want to do jury duty
say that using state services are wrong even though they use them...

they may or may not pay taxes. a lot of nonanarchists no pay taxes.
actually, many do go to juries
and who said they use state services, which is not necessarily against some anarchist philosophies.

it's very hard to get away from using state services

so what, just because an anarchist mother has to use welfare to support her kids because she could never get anywhere in life because she was born poor does not mean she is not an anarchist.
i fail to see your reasoning here