[QUOTE=striker453;41337984]And look how slow innovation was during those times, compared to invention and innovation during the past 200 years.[/QUOTE]
While it is true economic interest helps push innovation and invention, you can't deny that it isn't necessary for technological development. You also have to keep in mind that technology builds upon itself. The speed of innovation and invention increases constantly.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41341688']University is a broken system not because it's hard but because it's not about education. When universities were founded they were done so as institutions where people who had the money and the [I]want[/I] to be educated would go and learn first hand through experiment and observation the knowledge and the trades that they wanted to. It was a location of concentrated knowledge. Just as today some would find no value in that and others would struggle to maintain what they learn. This is not the problem. The problems are as such:
1. University is not about passionate or self-improvement, nor even education. It's about degrees, passing standardized tests, and proving that you got out of it what is expected out of you. This is not education nor is it improvement, it's memorization. It takes away all of the participation in learning and leaves only the sterile shell of aptitude.
2. University is expected in an educated world, not because the individuals are expected to go off and better themselves or learn a trade but instead because of competition that devalues both a degree and the education itself: with no degree, you are doomed to the lower echelons of wages and salaries, to menial or difficult work. And individual who is not motivated by the material, want to be educated, or the trade, is instead unmotivated at all and loses the value of the education, because they are unable to retain it.
3. University is seen as [I]better[/I] than vocational schooling, trade schooling, observational training, apprenticing, or even self-teaching, even when these methods can be more effective, more enriching, or more productive than a university education. A university education grants you a degree that grants you increased wages and perhaps also the working knowledge of a trade. Because of scarcity, these degrees were at one point highly honorable, but because of their commonality today are worth little. An individual who is well-learned of a trade or field outside of university is given little of the same opportunity as a degree-holder, and yet although someone else may have a university degree that grants them little real working expertise, the former person is left out. Those who wish to obtain a degree should be free to, those who wish to pursue education by other means should be free to, and those who wish to pursue no education should be free to, at no detriment or benefit to them in their trade/field.
[/QUOTE]
University are still what you said it was, I still go into anatomy classes and get to see real bodies close up all the inside up close and personal, I as a accounting and stat student would still go through real world business accounts and analyse them for information on the business performance etc.
University isn't even all about standardized test, there is a huge portion of marks from practicals and reports for medical science. For business you are usually asked to analyse real world businesses and figures and make a statement about the state of the economy or the business, or even asked to organise a marketing plan for a random product. For engineering they may ask you to build a real world product by hand, do real world surveying, go to real mines in Australia and analyse the dirt sample. University is in no way a complete wrote learn place, if you think that you clearly never been to a university. Yes there is tests and you do have to memorise, but this is only for science and engineering where small details makes all the difference. How else would you go into a anatomy dissection if you don't even remember all the parts of the heart and most of the vessels that lead through the body? How else are you going to treat a person for a disease if you do not remember how the drug actually works in the body?
University is not expected of everyone if that was the case then we would have too many scientist and engineers but infacy there isn't enough of them in the world. Yes if more people study it then that means there is over supply which means to hire all of the graduates you would need to lower the pay for everyone it is a simple concept of the economy a supply and demand curve. University is a optional thing a person doesn't have to take it but it doesn't mean you are stuck in a hard difficult job, all jobs are hard and difficult at some point. Being a scientist isn't all lab all day pour everything into anything, there is a lot of hard calculation, a lot of fine tuning and a lot of failing and repeating for endless amounts of days.
A university has no obligation to spoon feed you and actively push you in any direction it is up to the student the doors are there the work experience is out there. Go to networking events get real world experience on top of your education, meet future employers, talk to PHD students and lecturers for research possibilities. Its an adult education it is up to you to make the most of those years. University is enriching for the people who are open to it and are willing and will actively participate in it.
My older brother is an anarchist, he showed me some things about "voluntaryism" which is basically the idea that everything that a person does should be done voluntarily, nothing being given without consequence such as taxes, etc., and a much more dynamic system of doing things. It doesn't sound like a bad system, but people are too lazy and we would all die in the first decade. Nice idea, poor execution.
i'm an anarcho-communism, but unfortunately I know deep in my heart, humans are too corrupt for a utopian state to exist, someone has to ruin it by desiring more power than other people.
Fuck yeah, Anarchist represent.
It's an ongoing journey to find out what I believe in and how us humans really should be living.
[QUOTE=striker453;41333568]A lot of doctors become doctors for the money I studied with medicine and Medical science students and I can say that a lot of them become a doctor as the wage pays well and its a secure job. A GP in Australia earns a good 6 figure sum, 125~400 per year. Yes there are jobs that pay more but not many most engineers here get payed around the same, business personal on average does not come close to a doctors wage, financial incentive has A LOT to do with the occupation people pick. This is why so many people major in Accounting and Finance as there is many jobs out there that pay well.
[/QUOTE]
then those people are absolute idiots. a job in financing or business will make the same money with less work and education required. if you become a doctor for the money you don't deserve to be a doctor, and you don't deserve money, because you are obviously very fucking stupid.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rorschach;41343982]My older brother is an anarchist, he showed me some things about "voluntaryism" which is basically the idea that everything that a person does should be done voluntarily, nothing being given without consequence such as taxes, etc., and a much more dynamic system of doing things. It doesn't sound like a bad system, but people are too lazy and we would all die in the first decade. Nice idea, poor execution.[/QUOTE]
what did humans do before we invented money? we survived thousands of years without wages we can survive more than a decade without paying taxes.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=striker453;41337984]And look how slow innovation was during those times, compared to invention and innovation during the past 200 years.[/QUOTE]
innovation wasn't slow then...people were inventing shit every day to help them figure out farming, art, music, etc.
you can't really compare early humanity to humanity in the last 200 years because the industrial revolution completely changed the face of technology. the industrial revolution is the biggest revolution we have had since the agricultural revolution.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344281]then those people are absolute idiots. a job in financing or business will make the same money with less work and education required. if you become a doctor for the money you don't deserve to be a doctor, and you don't deserve money, because you are obviously very fucking stupid.
[[/QUOTE]
How that person is probably smarter than the both of us there is nothing to say he isn't a good doctor nor a bad one why the quick judgement? Jobs in business does not mean less work a finance job is all hell or investment banking, high pay but again alot of work
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344281]
what did humans do before we invented money? we survived thousands of years without wages we can survive more than a decade without paying taxes.
[/QUOTE]
Before money there was gold and silver and people was payed in coins hence the term "gold standard"
taxes has been a part of society for thousands of years
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344281]
innovation wasn't slow then...people were inventing shit every day to help them figure out farming, art, music, etc.
you can't really compare early humanity to humanity in the last 200 years because the industrial revolution completely changed the face of technology. the industrial revolution is the biggest revolution we have had since the agricultural revolution.[/QUOTE]
Why can't I compare it was a statement, and you said the face of technology has changed dramatically in the last few hundred years because of the push for efficiency in factories by businesses and then further pushed by the information era
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344281]
innovation wasn't slow then...people were inventing shit every day to help them figure out farming, art, music, etc.
you can't really compare early humanity to humanity in the last 200 years because the industrial revolution completely changed the face of technology. the industrial revolution is the biggest revolution we have had since the agricultural revolution.[/QUOTE]
Innovation didn't really happen quickly in isolated communities. Progress only happened when everything was united through grand states that created trade and learning centers. These states maintained stability and upheld the law across vast stretches of land which allowed for people to share ideas and create prosperity through trade. Feudal Europe and North America had very little in the way of progress because of their decentralized nature.
The Industrial revolution didn't happen for no reason. The individual drive to achieve wealth through improved technology and beating out the competition is the reason we have everything we do today.
[QUOTE=striker453;41344610]How that person is probably smarter than the both of us there is nothing to say he isn't a good doctor nor a bad one why the quick judgement?[/quote]
i'm saying if money is the primary reason for the person trying for their m.d. then they are making a horrible judgement call. plus they probably won't be a very good doctor anyways. medicine requires a shitload of work for very shit pay until you become a resident which is several years after school.
[quote]Before money there was gold and silver and people was payed in coins hence the term "gold standard"
taxes has been a part of society for thousands of years[/quote]
and for the majority of human existence taxes haven't. i'm saying that humanity won't go extinct because we don't have to pay taxes. i would even wager that civilization wouldn't necessarily break down if the system was properly organized...sorta the point of anarchism in the first place...
[quote]Why can't I compare it was a statement, and you said the face of technology has changed dramatically in the last few hundred years because of the push for efficiency in factories by businesses and then further pushed by the information era[/QUOTE]
i'm saying that comparing the innovation of the 1600s with the 1800s isn't fair because the industrial revolution took place, and that changed the pacing of technology dramatically. it isn't like the industrial revolution was the birth of wages, profit, or private ownership. the ideas of efficiency and profit existed LONG before the 1800s, and you can see that an industrial revolution didn't happen in those time periods. the industrial revolution was a very special occurrence that completely changed humanity(some say for the worse).
you can't really attribute all innovation that has happened in the industrial era with capitalism. especially considering the soviets came up with some pretty neat inventions of their own and they weren't capitalist in the traditional sense you would think of. profit cannot be considered the only motivator for innovation.
and if profit is the only motivator for innovation, humanity doesn't need to, nor does it deserve to innovate. if the only way we can get off our asses to better humanity is because we can further the inequality between us and others, then we should seriously rethink the caves.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41344735]Innovation didn't really happen quickly in isolated communities. Progress only happened when everything was united through grand states that created trade and learning centers. These states maintained stability and upheld the law across vast stretches of land which allowed for people to share ideas and create prosperity through trade. Feudal Europe and North America had very little in the way of progress because of their decentralized nature.
The Industrial revolution didn't happen for no reason. The individual drive to achieve wealth through improved technology and beating out the competition is the reason we have everything we do today.[/QUOTE]
actually innovation did happen in "isolated communities". that was actually a major problem with innovation up until very recently with mass production. people in one town would have tools that had parts that couldn't be exchanged with parts from another town's tools. one town would use a certain measuring standard and a town a few hundred miles away would have another.
innovation was very "isolated" back in those days. towns, counties, kingdoms would invent their own methods and tools which didn't easily translate to another group's.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344756]i'm saying if money is the primary reason for the person trying for their m.d. then they are making a horrible judgement call. plus they probably won't be a very good doctor anyways. medicine requires a shitload of work for very shit pay until you become a resident which is several years after school.[/QUOTE]
Earning a starting wage of 60-80k in Australia is already ahead of the crowd, so I wouldn't call that a bad judgement. Medicine is not shit pay, you get overtime pay which can be quite significant and yes its hard but its not even the hardest around compared to an investment banker/financier. The one that actually work the hardest in the medical field is probably surgeons who do work almost endlessly but other than that doctors/GPs do not work as hard as you think.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344756]
and for the majority of human existence taxes haven't. i'm saying that humanity won't go extinct because we don't have to pay taxes. i would even wager that civilization wouldn't necessarily break down [b]if [/b]the system was properly organized...sorta the point of anarchism in the first place...[/QUOTE]
Without taxes how would the state pay for public infrastructure? but that is saying we would have a state but you want the complete dissolution of the state so how exactly would we organise ourselves?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344756]
i'm saying that comparing the innovation of the 1600s with the 1800s isn't fair because the industrial revolution took place, and that changed the pacing of technology dramatically. it isn't like the industrial revolution was the birth of wages, profit, or private ownership. the ideas of efficiency and profit existed LONG before the 1800s, and you can see that an industrial revolution didn't happen in those time periods. the industrial revolution was a very special occurrence that completely changed humanity(some say for the worse).
you can't really attribute all innovation that has happened in the industrial era with capitalism. especially considering the soviets came up with some pretty neat inventions of their own and they weren't capitalist in the traditional sense you would think of. profit cannot be considered the only motivator for innovation.
and if profit is the only motivator for innovation, humanity doesn't need to, nor does it deserve to innovate. if the only way we can get off our asses to better humanity is because we can further the inequality between us and others, then we should seriously rethink the caves.[/QUOTE]
Ok then what about the past 100 years? How many innovations in society and inventions was made during this small amount of time? How far did technology bloom in this small span? Profits and monetary drives innovation other than that it is the arms race and war which drove innovation and invention. Prime example was post WW2 where technology took off after the war effort.
[editline]7th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41344756]
actually innovation did happen in "isolated communities". that was actually a major problem with innovation up until very recently with mass production. people in one town would have tools that had parts that couldn't be exchanged with parts from another town's tools. one town would use a certain measuring standard and a town a few hundred miles away would have another.
innovation was very "isolated" back in those days. towns, counties, kingdoms would invent their own methods and tools which didn't easily translate to another group's.[/QUOTE]
If you read what he said it was that innovation didn't happen quickly in isolated communities, not that it didn't happen at all
[QUOTE=striker453;41344922]Earning a starting wage of 60-80k in Australia is already ahead of the crowd, so I wouldn't call that a bad judgement. Medicine is not shit pay, you get overtime pay which can be quite significant and yes its hard but its not even the hardest around compared to an investment banker/financier. The one that actually work the hardest in the medical field is probably surgeons who do work almost endlessly but other than that doctors/GPs do not work as hard as you think.[/quote]
gp's are not necessarily paid that great. i'm mostly talking about more specialized doctors. someone who works in er, or works in an icu, or a neurologist, etc.
and i wouldn't demean the medical profession by saying investment banking is harder work. investment banking might be tough, but it is nothing like constantly trying to save/prolong lives.
[quote]Without taxes how would the state pay for public infrastructure? but that is saying we would have a state but you want the complete dissolution of the state so how exactly would we organise ourselves?[/QUOTE]
if a road needs to be built, you ask people who know how to build roads to build one. find the nearest road-builder union and petition them to build a road. if your pipes are leaking call the plumber's union or collective and schedule an appointment with them.
[quote]Ok then what about the past 100 years? How many innovations in society and inventions was made during this small amount of time? How far did technology bloom in this small span? Profits and monetary drives innovation other than that it is the arms race and war which drove innovation and invention. Prime example was post WW2 where technology took off after the war effort.[/quote]
technology didn't take off post-ww2. technology took off in the 1800s. everything after that has been compounding knowledge and less redundancy due to better communication methods.
[quote]If you read what he said it was that innovation didn't happen quickly in isolated communities, not that it didn't happen at all[/QUOTE]
it often happened very quickly because the innovation was necessary to survival. the problem was that it was redundant. two towns might come up with very different machines or methods of doing the same thing. it doesn't look like quick innovation because two towns figured out how to do one thing, but it was still innovation since both had to create their own systems to sustain themselves.
nowadays we have phones, email, sms, etc. we can communicate our ideas very quickly so redundancy isn't as much of a problem. if the state disappeared we would still be able to innovate, and innovate very quickly because of the infrastructure already in place.
[QUOTE=zhakuno;41344065]i'm an anarcho-communism, but unfortunately I know deep in my heart, humans are too corrupt for a utopian state to exist, someone has to ruin it by desiring more power than other people.[/QUOTE]
People wanting power is not the problem, it's people giving up power to others that is. You cannot trade away your leverage and expect anything in return.
I'm mid ground with Anarcho-Capitalism and Minarchism.
For some reason people like to believe Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41290165]I'm probably like the only anarcho-capitalist here, but that's okay I guess.[/QUOTE]
Out of all ideas listed in the OP anarcho-capitalism seems the best to me.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41362778]I'm mid ground with Anarcho-Capitalism and Minarchism.
For some reason people like to believe Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't really exist. it's an oxymoron. anarchism means without authority/government and capitalism is a system of authority and government.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41365208]it doesn't really exist. it's an oxymoron. anarchism means without authority/government and capitalism is a system of authority and government.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much anything which is Anarcho-(enter political ideology) would also fall under that reasoning as well.
But... Anarcho-Capitalism's practice(or beliefs) have actually been attempted in the respects of privately funded militias and several shots at making free market economics where the basis of trade doesn't require fiat money, but currency(or bartered items) which is backed by it's material value.
One of my main criticisms for almost all anarchy systems is that they will always lead into some form of government or practice of leadership. For example with Anarcho-Capitalism, the creation of trade will ultimately lead to a governing body which would be forged in the interest of keeping checks and balances regarding trade. It could be as simple as a federation of tradehalls and guilds, and yet it would still hold sway in the regards to the practice of capitalism.
Trade of services and goods can be such a bitch at points :v:
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41366689]Pretty much anything which is Anarcho-(enter political ideology) would also fall under that reasoning as well.
But... Anarcho-Capitalism's practice(or beliefs) have actually been attempted in the respects of privately funded militias and several shots at making free market economics where the basis of trade doesn't require fiat money, but currency(or bartered items) which is backed by it's material value.
One of my main criticisms for almost all anarchy systems is that they will always lead into some form of government or practice of leadership. For example with Anarcho-Capitalism, the creation of trade will ultimately lead to a governing body which would be forged in the interest of keeping checks and balances regarding trade. It could be as simple as a federation of tradehalls and guilds, and yet it would still hold sway in the regards to the practice of capitalism.
Trade of services and goods can be such a bitch at points :v:[/QUOTE]
not really. part of almost all anarchist philosophies is voluntary association and mutual aid. capitalism is an ideology of class conflict and wage-slavery, which obviously runs contrary to basis of libertarianism.
and anarchism doesn't mean no "leadership" or even no "governance". it means no state, it means no forced authority. the idea is that no one holds any authority over you without your direct consent.
a civilization cannot work without any form of leadership. in the words of bakunin:
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others."
the thing is that any leadership should be chosen by the people directly.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41341688']
Can you explain how mutualism differs from collectivist anarchism, because I'm highly under-educated in that.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism.
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.
[/QUOTE]
Anarchism would not work due to human corruption and greed.
[QUOTE=Shadespawn;41369648]Anarchism would not work due to human corruption and greed.[/QUOTE]
Well do you consider yourself greedy and corrupt?
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
So many people say that anarchism won't work because of greed and corruption but really what creates greed and corruption?
I think it's capitalism that does that. Some believe that it's just human nature to be greedy, I think that's pure bullshit. There's been many cultures leading peaceful societies, only shit get's fucked when capitalism becomes integrated into it.
Even if the human species really were greedy solitary beings with a constant fight for survival and hoarding mentality, I think we're definitely past the point where we feel the need to fight to survive.
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
Meaning I think it's time to move forward and the mentality of capitalism is holding us back exponentially.
Of course we can't just make a rapid transition into anarchism right now because people still hold that mindset the capitalism provided. What we really need to do is connect with eachother, human to human. And a lot of this is being done, what with all the riots and human action. People are sick of this capitalistic paradigm.
So long as their are finite resources, capitalism or rather some form of it, shall always exist.
[QUOTE=theguydude;41370302]
So many people say that anarchism won't work because of greed and corruption but really what creates greed and corruption?
I think it's capitalism that does that. Some believe that it's just human nature to be greedy, I think that's pure bullshit. There's been many cultures leading peaceful societies, only shit get's fucked when capitalism becomes integrated into it.[/QUOTE]
Can you please point out a human culture without any greed or conflicts? Even isolated Amazonian, American and African tribes with no concept of ownership have had wars. Capitalism can't be the root of all greed and war since many societies without it have had greed/war without it.
[QUOTE=Shadespawn;41369648]Anarchism would not work due to human corruption and greed.[/QUOTE]
i think human corruption and greed is the reason anarchism needs to happen. we need systems where the corrupt and greedy aren't able to easily get into positions of power over others.
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41370815]Can you please point out a human culture without any greed or conflicts? Even isolated Amazonian, American and African tribes with no concept of ownership have had wars. Capitalism can't be the root of all greed and war since many societies without it have had greed/war without it.[/QUOTE]
it's not the root of all problems, it's the root of many of an industrial/post-industrial society's problems. anarchism isn't utopian. there will be struggle, there will be problems, it might not even work in a lot of areas.
i believe in anarchism because i believe in freedom. i believe in anarchism because i believe in the dignity and beauty of an individual. i believe in anarchism because i believe that in the thousands of years of having kings, politicians, popes, and bosses ruling over us, we finally have a philosophy that can begin to recognize liberty, beauty, and dignity.
it might sound overly romantic, but anarchism gives us the best shot at a world without wars, a world without massive inequality, and a world without people being servants to other people.
The dignity or beauty of an individual means absolutely jack shit on the grand scale of things.Freedom and liberty in its current form is what enables filthy, damaging people to harm innocents as long as it doesn't cross an arbitrary line. People don't deserve the freedom they have, why enable them more? The life of an individual has zero intrinsic value, all value given to them is born out of an arbitrary entitlement to things that they conjured up because of selfishness. We need to be controlled by a system born from our conscious, moral minds because we are too impulsive and stupid to control ourselves on an individual level. Whenever I hear freedom, or, say, with the NSA thing, "right to privacy", I think, "we don't deserve this, this enables us to do bad things, stop fighting for it."
It is weird, because I can't decide if something is better because it enables harm to people who do deserve it, or if it is worse because it enables harm to people who don't deserve it.
I'm not making an argument here, or even making a coherent rant, I just want to vent at anyone who has the audacity to look at people like liars and adulterers and harassers and abusers and say, "it is your freedom to do that, you have the right to do that and it is wrong if people prevent you from doing it, individual worthy of freedom and life."
Anarchist capitalism is ignoring 100+ years of anarchist ideology. It's equivalent to believing in Islam and because you believe Jesus existed at some point you call yourself a Christian. Rothbard brought anarchist capitalism to creation over 100 years after Bakunin and Proudhon were already writing about the necessity of the abolition of large-scale private property and collectivism in anarchist society. The only merit that anarchist-capitalism has as anything anarchist is its relation to the state, which is only a quarter at best of anarchist principles- you still need to meet the social, economic, and hierarchical organizational ground rules.
By the way, "libertarian" used to refer exclusively to anarchists and libertarian socialists, but then capitalists stole that word, too. Fuck you guys.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41372711]The dignity or beauty of an individual means absolutely jack shit on the grand scale of things.Freedom and liberty in its current form is what enables filthy, damaging people to harm innocents as long as it doesn't cross an arbitrary line. People don't deserve the freedom they have, why enable them more? The life of an individual has zero intrinsic value, all value given to them is born out of an arbitrary entitlement to things that they conjured up because of selfishness. We need to be controlled by a system born from our conscious, moral minds because we are too impulsive and stupid to control ourselves on an individual level. Whenever I hear freedom, or, say, with the NSA thing, "right to privacy", I think, "we don't deserve this, this enables us to do bad things, stop fighting for it."
It is weird, because I can't decide if something is better because it enables harm to people who do deserve it, or if it is worse because it enables harm to people who don't deserve it.
I'm not making an argument here, or even making a coherent rant, I just want to vent at anyone who has the audacity to look at people like liars and adulterers and harassers and abusers and say, "it is your freedom to do that, you have the right to do that and it is wrong if people prevent you from doing it, individual worthy of freedom and life."[/QUOTE]
you think that people don't deserve freedom because it enables them to do bad things. i believe that if you treat a human being like a caged animal, like a servant, or like they are bottom-rung, they will act that way.
in prison, a lot of otherwise grown and mature people end up acting like children simply because the prison system treats them as children. they have few responsibilities, few freedoms, and are constantly punished for not following sometimes seemingly arbitrary rules. in more "rehabilitative" systems like norway, you end up with less recidivism and a pretty safe prison environment by giving these prisoners more responsibilities and options.
freedom is essential to humanity. we need to be able to make our own choices. we need to be able to fuck up. we need to be able to hurt others, and apologize for it ourselves. we need to take responsibility for our actions. if we continue to be treated like we know nothing, like we are capable of nothing, we will know and do nothing.
it's a scary concept to just let go and let people begin to make their own choices, especially when you know plenty of people who will make choices you believe are poor. however, allowing other people to make poor choices is necessary for us as individuals and as a species to begin to understand the possibilities and beauties of life. we only have one, why should we force anyone else to suffer through it?
[editline]9th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41374495']Anarchist capitalism is ignoring 100+ years of anarchist ideology. It's equivalent to believing in Islam and because you believe Jesus existed at some point you call yourself a Christian. Rothbard brought anarchist capitalism to creation over 100 years after Bakunin and Proudhon were already writing about the necessity of the abolition of large-scale private property and collectivism in anarchist society. The only merit that anarchist-capitalism has as anything anarchist is its relation to the state, which is only a quarter at best of anarchist principles- you still need to meet the social, economic, and hierarchical organizational ground rules.
By the way, "libertarian" used to refer exclusively to anarchists and libertarian socialists, but then capitalists stole that word, too. Fuck you guys.[/QUOTE]
it does make it an interesting conversation piece whenever you tell someone in the usa you are a libertarian socialist though, since it sounds like an oxymoron to most people. gives an opportunity to explain the ideas of anarchism without the connotations and image that comes with the word "anarchism" and "anarchy". so i guess i gotta thank them for that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41372058]
it's not the root of all problems, it's the root of many of an industrial/post-industrial society's problems. anarchism isn't utopian. there will be struggle, there will be problems, it might not even work in a lot of areas. [/QUOTE]
Capitalism isn't utopian. there will be struggle, there will be problems, it might not even work in a lot of areas but it has been proven to create economic prosperity and unmatched innovation.
In an anarchistic society people would simply make grabs for power and establish new states, its human nature.
I had no idea there were so many anarchists on Facepunch. To be honest, I thought this thread was going to crash and burn.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41374620]
it does make it an interesting conversation piece whenever you tell someone in the usa you are a libertarian socialist though, since it sounds like an oxymoron to most people. gives an opportunity to explain the ideas of anarchism without the connotations and image that comes with the word "anarchism" and "anarchy". so i guess i gotta thank them for that.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wriQGI5NGOM[/media]
Another thing to note on my point regarding the amount of resources within a certain area. How would an anarchist society deal with another anarchist society regarding certain resources?
In my example I'd like to state we have two different groups:
You've got the Anarcho-1 and Anarcho-2. Anarcho-1 lives in an area which has been recently struck with an endemic of some sort, and because of this they goto Anarcho-2 and ask for help. Anarcho-2 which resides in a region that grows a certain plant is able to make medicine, but they'd require something that Anarcho-1 has plenty of. All though this is a trade of necessity, it's still a matter of trade. Now with everyone in Anarcho-1 getting back together, Anarcho-2 inquires about other resources they may have. Of course Anarcho-1 has some good resources, but by this point the season is slowly turning into autumn, and therefore every man and women will need to help their society to prepare for winter(namely foodstock). Anarcho-2 which doesn't really have to deal with such a situation, possibly do to them living in a climate which can grow food all year round, is confused. Even though they are sending political-thinkers to discuss the situation to see if they could help, Anarcho-1 is very tied on time and needs to get food [b]now[/b].
Of course as mentioned before, Anarcho-2 is within a climate which can substain food year round. Anarcho-1 is not.
Anarcho-2 mentions that if Anarcho-1 can trade some lumber to it, it'll continue to trade food with it until spring time.
This situation is what we'd probably expect for most things, but what would occur with resources of much higher value, and even in certain cases; how would societies collide for better areas to live? I don't expect certain schools of anarchism colliding well with other schools of anarchism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.