Female accused of sexual violence after world hails iconic photo of her kissing Italian riot officer - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43277875]literally none of that deals with the logical problems in anarchism that many of us users have brought up in other arguments.[/QUOTE] what logical problems? please list some of them.

i know i know "we have already said it before" humor me and list them that way i can address them using the text point by point.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277857]i'd suggest you read whatever interests you in this: [url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html[/url] anarchism requires a lot of explanation and i am not smart or articulate enough to write it all out myself. if you find anything contentious or lacking proper explanation you can pm me and i can do my best to explain it. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] i know damn well how dumb people can be. that's why i oppose giving dumb people guns and badges.[/QUOTE] Let me re-quote; "detail me what [B]your[/B] beliefs are and how you think your ideals would work in our current environment". I am not asking for a link to literature. I am wanting to see what your personal views are.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277886]what logical problems? please list some of them.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43277841]I think anarchism assumes that the contradiction between authority and freedom doesn't exist. What I mean by this is that anarchism requires everyone to cooperate for it to work. It requires that or else violence exists to solve it. So cooperation already assumes that everyone is past any sort of violent method of reprisal and everyone agrees with soemthing. This however seems to be an impossibility as no group really can group think itself into an agreeable and workable solution, someone will always take charge. There's no freedom there from an anarchist stand point. Authority and freedom require each other. Freedom gives you the freedom to hurt other people without reprisal. If everyone has this then there is no freedom, it is the authority of the powerful individual who is in charge. Authority exists to maintain a degree of freedom. We often see that as a negative view because the authority takes freedom away. While I agree this is bad, we need the authority and we need to keep the authority in check, and the authority needs to keep our freedoms in check because we will abuse each other. That much is clear. Anarchism would let the freedoms of some destroy the freedom of others. I don't see a logical way around this in anarchist theory.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277857]i know damn well how dumb people can be. that's why i oppose giving dumb people guns and badges.[/QUOTE] But you're totally fine with giving tons of people the authority to toss fireballs at other people if they are angry enough with no consequences whatsoever Ok what

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277857]i know damn well how dumb people can be. that's why i oppose giving dumb people guns and badges.[/QUOTE] If you're against dumb people being given guns and badges then you should be for our system that means that to obtain that badge and gun you need to spend years of training to prove that you're not violent and dumb, unlike in an anarchy when any dumbass with a gun can be an authority over other people without a gun.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277857]i know damn well how dumb people can be. that's why i oppose giving dumb people guns and badges.[/QUOTE] and what has given you the impression that nearly all cops are inherently abusive, dumb and triggerhappy? do you really, [I]really[/I] think all cops are out to get you, to humiliate you? you sure need to open your eyes a little, because you seem to live in a world where you and your commu-anarchist friends are the underdogs of the nation, the only ones who see the "truth", who dare to stand up against these [I]evil blue pigs[/I](via an internet forum). also, i oppose giving dumb people the tools required to start a fire, why were you fucking around with a molotov??

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43277857]i'd suggest you read whatever interests you in this: [url]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html[/url] anarchism requires a lot of explanation and i am not smart or articulate enough to write it all out myself. if you find anything contentious or lacking proper explanation you can pm me and i can do my best to explain it. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] i know damn well how dumb people can be. that's why i oppose giving dumb people guns and badges.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RetaDepa;43277896]Let me re-quote; "detail me what [B]your[/B] beliefs are and how you think your ideals would work in our current environment". I am not asking for a link to literature. I am wanting to see what your personal views are.[/QUOTE] Also I would like to clarify that I did not ignore your point about how you believe you are not smart or articulate enough to write it out yourself. I firmly believe that if you think you're not smart or articulate enough to write it out yourself, then that might speak as to why the ideals that you hold suffer from a lot of intrinsic problems. If this were the case then I would not argue for willful ignorance, but just the fact that maybe you haven't thought it through properly. However, you seem to argue your points with such ferocity and stubborness that I'm disinclined to believe the former. Someone who holds his beliefs with such high value surely knows the ins and outs well enough to not have doubts in what he says.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43276829]police don't use non-lethal stuff. they use "less-lethal". most of their methods are still deadly.[/QUOTE] A non-lethal weapon can still cause a fatality. The important thing though is that it's generally geared at causing non-permanent harm, discomfort and other things to force people to disperse. Water cannons have enough kinetic force to make someone fall on the ground and bash their heads in. Rubber bullets can potentially kill bones and if they were to hit your neck they might even kill you. Teargas can potentially suffocate a person. But all these things have the primary function of dispersing a crowd or forcing it to move a certain way. They are designed to minimise the actual injury. Pavement bricks, molotovs, homemade explosives and other things on the other hand are designed to maximise injury. Why do you think riot cops are armed as they are? Those things are an evolution from the stuff they are put against. If you never had these fairly dangerous things thrown against them, they might not have much more than just simple visors.

anarchists do not oppose authority though. they oppose illegitimate authority. the state is illegitimate because it derives power from its ability to monopolize force and use that force against the population. legitimate authority is voluntary and is seen as necessary by the people who obey it. for example, i will defer to the authority of a doctor regarding an illness. is that contradictory to anarchism? of course not! i voluntarily admit that the doctor is more knowledgeable in medicine than i am, and [i]give[/i] that doctor the authority to treat my illness because of that trust. so to follow that line of thinking, i might also give some authority to a worker's council or communal organization because i see a direct benefit from participation in such a structure. by collectivizing and specializing, humans are able to achieve much more than they would alone. therefore, it is beneficial for me to cooperate with the people around me. when the people around me are getting what they need, i can get what i need. this idea is illustrated by the motto of the ezln(which is also used as a general motto of mutual aid): "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" For everyone, everything. For us, nothing. the problem is when hierarchy or authority is established to the point where it doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not. when the structure legitimizes itself through enforcing its will and participation violently(like unvoluntary taxation, police, or laws) then it becomes a force that the anarchist opposes.

This is so charged with double standards i don't dare take a stance on it.

[QUOTE=RetaDepa;43277959]Also I would like to clarify that I did not ignore your point about how you believe you are not smart or articulate enough to write it out yourself. I firmly believe that if you think you're not smart or articulate enough to write it out yourself, then that might speak as to why the ideals that you hold suffer from a lot of intrinsic problems. If this were the case then I would not argue for willful ignorance, but just the fact that maybe you haven't thought it through properly. However, you seem to argue your points with such ferocity and stubborness that I'm disinclined to believe the former. Someone who holds his beliefs with such high value surely knows the ins and outs well enough to not have doubts in what he says.[/QUOTE] the problem is that some people are good writers. some people can clearly and beautifully articulate their ideas even if those ideas are bad. it isn't about the merit of an idea, it's about the skill of the person endorsing the idea. that's why i like to use other people's writing. i'm not a good writer, i tend to ramble and repeat myself. it makes the idea look bad even though really it's just the fault of the writer in effectively communicating the idea. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Simski;43277936]If you're against dumb people being given guns and badges then you should be for our system that means that to obtain that badge and gun you need to spend years of training to prove that you're not violent and dumb, unlike in an anarchy when any dumbass with a gun can be an authority over other people without a gun.[/QUOTE] no i say that the gun and badge should be abolished completely.

So what, you'd prefer civilization to go back to tribalism?

[QUOTE=Simski;43278068]So what, you'd prefer civilization to go back to tribalism?[/QUOTE] no.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278024]anarchists do not oppose authority though. they oppose illegitimate authority. the state is illegitimate because it derives power from its ability to monopolize force and use that force against the population. legitimate authority is voluntary and is seen as necessary by the people who obey it. for example, i will defer to the authority of a doctor regarding an illness. is that contradictory to anarchism? of course not! i voluntarily admit that the doctor is more knowledgeable in medicine than i am, and [i]give[/i] that doctor the authority to treat my illness because of that trust. so to follow that line of thinking, i might also give some authority to a worker's council or communal organization because i see a direct benefit from participation in such a structure. by collectivizing and specializing, humans are able to achieve much more than they would alone. therefore, it is beneficial for me to cooperate with the people around me. when the people around me are getting what they need, i can get what i need. this idea is illustrated by the motto of the ezln(which is also used as a general motto of mutual aid): "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" For everyone, everything. For us, nothing. the problem is when hierarchy or authority is established to the point where it doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not. when the structure legitimizes itself through enforcing its will and participation violently(like unvoluntary taxation, police, or laws) then it becomes a force that the anarchist opposes.[/QUOTE] The problem with this view is, that states received a semi monopoly on authority due to people granting it to them voluntarily. That's the beauty of democracy. The majority decided to grant them this authority voluntarily and the minority can't really protest it without pushing their own authority against the people who have voluntarily given said authority monopolisation. As such, the only real choice said minority has, is to move somewhere else where they themselves have the de facto monopoly, so that another group can't come over and enforce their own authority. \The reason why structures like these exist, is essentially, because in order for people to be able to actually cooperate on a larger basis, there usually needs someone to organise these things in such a way that everyone sees a benefit to to this. This for instance is why even the smallest villages have roads leading to them and maintained by someone. Because a larger hierarchical structure is guaranteeing that these smaller units don't suffer too much by being far too non-important.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278038]no i say that the gun and badge should be abolished completely.[/QUOTE] and who is going to be in charge of abolishing the guns and badges, and who is going to make sure that the people in charge of abolishing the guns and badges don't keep the guns and badges, and who is going to be in charge of these people not letting those people keep the guns and badges?

This was a fun thread to read.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278038]no i say that the gun and badge should be abolished completely.[/QUOTE] sticks and stones may break my bones, but it sure as hell wont stop me from committing a crime

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278038] no i say that the gun and badge should be abolished completely.[/QUOTE] i thought anarchism was about the transfer of power, not the complete abolition of power. guns ( and the associated power ) are certainly not going away anytime soon - the only thing you can hope to do is change who gets them

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278038]the problem is that some people are good writers. some people can clearly and beautifully articulate their ideas even if those ideas are bad. it isn't about the merit of an idea, it's about the skill of the person endorsing the idea. that's why i like to use other people's writing. i'm not a good writer, i tend to ramble and repeat myself. it makes the idea look bad even though really it's just the fault of the writer in effectively communicating the idea.[/QUOTE] Don't sell yourself short; nobody you've ever quoted used significantly less wishful thinking or substanceless pathos than you do.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43278102]i thought anarchism was about the transfer of power, not the complete abolition of power. guns ( and the associated power ) are certainly not going away anytime soon[/QUOTE] the point is alternative solutions to problems. the police structure is replaced by a different structure that serves the same purpose but uses minimal coercion. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;43278104]Don't sell yourself short; nobody you've ever quoted used significantly less wishful thinking or substanceless pathos than you do.[/QUOTE] can you name one political philosopher that isn't?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278166]the point is alternative solutions to problems. the police structure is replaced by a different structure that serves the same purpose but uses minimal coercion. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] can you name one political philosopher that isn't?[/QUOTE] and how does that function in a way different than the police? do criminals in an anarchist world just know they're supposed to be nice and cooperative?

[QUOTE=wraithcat;43278084]The problem with this view is, that states received a semi monopoly on authority due to people granting it to them voluntarily. That's the beauty of democracy. The majority decided to grant them this authority voluntarily and the minority can't really protest it without pushing their own authority against the people who have voluntarily given said authority monopolisation. As such, the only real choice said minority has, is to move somewhere else where they themselves have the de facto monopoly, so that another group can't come over and enforce their own authority. \The reason why structures like these exist, is essentially, because in order for people to be able to actually cooperate on a larger basis, there usually needs someone to organise these things in such a way that everyone sees a benefit to to this. This for instance is why even the smallest villages have roads leading to them and maintained by someone. Because a larger hierarchical structure is guaranteeing that these smaller units don't suffer too much by being far too non-important.[/QUOTE] so what am i supposed to do when i see this authority as illegitimate? i am not given a choice whether to participate or not. i am forced to participate due to accident of birth and if i don't participate i am locked in a cage.

[QUOTE=Simski;43278087]and who is going to be in charge of abolishing the guns and badges, and who is going to make sure that the people in charge of abolishing the guns and badges don't keep the guns and badges, and who is going to be in charge of these people not letting those people keep the guns and badges?[/QUOTE] (according to recent recaps of internet arguments) everyone would take part in collectively deciding responsibilities and power - if anyone disagrees than the notion is thrown out and tried again until everyone can agree. obviously this isn't very friendly for in terms of time or efficiency but obviously freedom is more important than making life-threatening time sensitive decisions whether the offending party takes part in voting is anyone's guess - they probably would, though, cause the restrictive alternative is oppressive to the offending party

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43278182]and how does that function in a way different than the police? do criminals in an anarchist world just know they're supposed to be nice and cooperative?[/QUOTE] i personally find restorative justice a preferable model to fulfill the function of a court without forcing anyone to do anything. i think a volunteer militia might be preferable(depending on how it is structured) as a means of serving public safety. the problem with police and courts is that they don't exist in the community. they are an outside entity applying force to communities. communities should be responsible for their own safety and rules, they shouldn't be force to accept the rule of someone else.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278197]so what am i supposed to do when i see this authority as illegitimate? i am not given a choice whether to participate or not. i am forced to participate due to accident of birth and if i don't participate i am locked in a cage.[/QUOTE] but if I didn't want to participate in your world and was born into it, what would my options be? To leave? into an anarchist world? Well I'm going to assume that there's no architecture to allow me to just up and leave easily, and start in a new area. It's no different in your world really.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278024]anarchists do not oppose authority though. they oppose illegitimate authority. the state is illegitimate because it derives power from its ability to monopolize force and use that force against the population. legitimate authority is voluntary and is seen as necessary by the people who obey it. for example, i will defer to the authority of a doctor regarding an illness. is that contradictory to anarchism? of course not! i voluntarily admit that the doctor is more knowledgeable in medicine than i am, and [i]give[/i] that doctor the authority to treat my illness because of that trust. so to follow that line of thinking, i might also give some authority to a worker's council or communal organization because i see a direct benefit from participation in such a structure. by collectivizing and specializing, humans are able to achieve much more than they would alone. therefore, it is beneficial for me to cooperate with the people around me. when the people around me are getting what they need, i can get what i need. this idea is illustrated by the motto of the ezln(which is also used as a general motto of mutual aid): "Para todos todo, para nosotros nada" For everyone, everything. For us, nothing. the problem is when hierarchy or authority is established to the point where it doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not. when the structure legitimizes itself through enforcing its will and participation violently(like unvoluntary taxation, police, or laws) then it becomes a force that the anarchist opposes.[/QUOTE] Everyone who is sane opposes illegitimate authority. Saying that the state is illegitimate because it uses authority and force against the population is a poor argument as what constitutes as illegitimate and legitimate use of force is determined democratically by votes. I will however understand that abuse of power does exist. In a perfect system, abuse of power would not exist but reality does not support a perfect system. Anarchy has its basis set in a perfect system, and thus cannot be fully realised in reality. There are too many variables that are uncontrollable. You also mentioned giving authority to a worker's council or communal organization. This is flawed, as if you give power to a group it gives them the ability to create their standards in which others need to adhere to in order to achieve a working group, which in turn creates social structures and hierarchical processes in order to maintain an intricate web of supply and demand. So what's it going to be? You can either accept that we live in an intrinsically imperfect world which has too many cultural, social and evolutionary roots to grant a possibility of anarchy being a stable system, or you can continue to argue in favour of your beliefs despite the fact that no successful social structure has worked on anarchic principles.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278217]i personally find restorative justice a preferable model to fulfill the function of a court without forcing anyone to do anything. i think a volunteer militia might be preferable(depending on how it is structured) as a means of serving public safety. the problem with police and courts is that they don't exist in the community. they are an outside entity applying force to communities. communities should be responsible for their own safety and rules, they shouldn't be force to accept the rule of someone else.[/QUOTE] I don't know bout you, but where I live, the police live too. There's quite a bit of civic pride in my crappy little town and I know part of that is that the cops are part of the community. this is fully and readily possible in democratic world.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43278197]so what am i supposed to do when i see this authority as illegitimate? i am not given a choice whether to participate or not. i am forced to participate due to accident of birth and if i don't participate i am locked in a cage.[/QUOTE] What you see as illegitimate and what is as a cultural whole determined to be illegitimate are two separate entities, and I believe that this is where we come to an impasse. All I am recieving from this is that you've had bad experiences in your life; bad enough to make you believe that this is how the current system works and that a change is needed. While I do believe that there are flaws in our current system, anarchy isn't the answer.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43278234]I don't know bout you, but where I live, the police live too. There's quite a bit of civic pride in my crappy little town and I know part of that is that the cops are part of the community. this is fully and readily possible in democratic world.[/QUOTE] this is possible in small towns, and sometimes police become a very beloved and integral part of communities they exist in. i have lived in both small towns and big cities and i can assure you that while this is possible in a small town it is not in a big city.