Anarchists Suck

[Directed]

I realized, I really hate anarchists. They go on and on about how only the elites rule in any other society, and anarchy is the only way for things to ever get better. 2 things: 1. They don't care about society, and are the epitome of selfish nihilism. and 2. They are whiny little bitches who don't realize in a real anarchy they'd be bitchslapped and made to serve me (or any other person over 95 lbs) because they are weak and stupid.

The more they go on in their pseudo-intellectual rants, the more I want to give them real anarchy and punch them in the face.

If you feel the same, give this little anarchist some -rep :spingo:
http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?p=506591#post506591

Wow, that felt good. Society has order again

[Bostonmess]

What is anarchy? Or rather what are people's ideas of anarchy?

[Directed]

a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Absence of government (means without a leader).
www.geocities.com/Area51/3400/

Genus: Political Theory Differentia: Government is unnecessary and evil Link: Article
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html

The condition of having no central or dominant authority. Often used to characterize the world order where no one government or state or institution (e.g., the UN) rules.
www.bothell.washington.edu/faculty/bkochis/bls362/glossary.htm

Anarchy exists when there is no form of government control over the people and they do as they please.
members.tripod.com/~tutor_me/book/glossary.htm

anarchy: 1: ~ democracy
www.nephridium.org/features/anarchy/dissertation/glossary.html

Absence of any form of political authority, political disorder and confusion. A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government.)
www.whitehall.k12.mi.us/curriculum/socialstudies/glossaryofterms.htm

Lawlessness; condition of no government or ruling power. S. 548.
https://www.mises.org/easier/A.asp

n. a lack of order; lawlessness
www.ingraphik.com/tti/articles/dictionary.asp

Google it. you'll see. Here are some links to get you started on how stupid a philosophy this is. Anarchy has never been successful ever in history.

[Benwah]

oh! I get it, so it's like most of america is right now, you are correct, it's not working very well.

[Thyrd]

My view of anarchy before reading your definitions was pretty much the same as the first one.

A state of lawlessness and chaos.

[Aardvark]

The problem with anarchists is they make heaps of noise, but no smoke, fire or explosions. If anarchists would go about violently deconstructing society with some semtex and thermite, then maybe I'd start to listen to them. Anyone who's willing to put their own lives on the line to destroy stuff with explosives has a point they believe in. Any less and they're wasting their own time and effort

[druckfugged]

If you feel the same, give this little anarchist some -rep :spingo:
http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?p=506591#post506591



If only you used your powers for good instead of evil...

[brotherkrusty]

Explosives and fire are old skool anarchy.

Today they are all hackers with their DOS attacks on pro globalisation companies like Nike and Gap, anarchy has finally hit high tech.

As it says in the Bible - The geek shall rule the world.

[Jimma]

I am against right wing administrations
Anarchists are against governments
Right wing administrations are governments
.: Anarchists are against right wing administrations
.: I am for Anarchists
.: I am against directed

[s3raph]

Anarchists are retarded. When anarchy actually happens within days it turns into feudalism. The weak gather under the strong for protection, and the strong form alliances and gather under even stronger groups for protection.

Plus all the retards who blow smoke about how good anarchy would be are too stupid to understand what an abscence of government would mean. No healthcare, no education, massive crime, no roads, no economy, absolute poverty. Fucking morons.

[Up_All_Night]

anarchy, kill a cat
shoot james brady in the back
raise an army of rabid rats
beat your neighbor with a bat

anarchy burger
hold the government
anarchy burger
hold the government

anarchy, go ape shit
let them know your sick of it
write your congressman,
tell him he sucks, your only in it for the bucks

anarchy burger
hold the government
anarchy burger
hold the government

you're all potential anarchy burgers
if you want to be free
order yourself an anarchy burger
(hold the government, please)

anarchy burger
hold the government

America stands for freedom
but if you think you're free
try walking into a deli
and urinating on the cheese

anarchy burger
hold the government
anarchy burger
hold the government

say fuck in front of your mom
fuck!
and
go to school nak

[StAUG]

"When anarchy actually happens within days it turns into feudalism."

Ah, for the blunt and correct view... I love it so.

[hooptieride]

I am an antichrist.

[Fuzzy Dice]

Anarchy is your sixth grade gym class playing dodgeball, forever and ever.

[Directed]

If only you used your powers for good instead of evil...

Now what exactly would be the fun in that?

Ironically, my post has helped the poor anarchist idiot get some user cp. If I hadn't said anything he'd still be at -1 lol. Ah zgeek, I love you so.

[asskickergod]

If you feel the same, give this little anarchist some -rep :spingo:
http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?p=506591#post506591


I thought that link would go to the war forum.

[beowulf437]

Personally I like anarchist, they have the best stuff and it's really easy to take it away from them.

How to be a true real and proper Anarchist(TM)
==============================================
1. To be an anarchist, you must be between the ages of 13 and 24.
2. You must also be a punk, this is very important. Because we all know
that the way you cut your hair, symbolises whether or not you are a
comformist.
3. On top of this, you must have rich parents. Preferably pulling in a
combined income of over $100,000. It doesn't matter whether this is
canadian or american, as you should be so rich that the difference is
simply pocket change.
4. You must buy new clothes, take scissors to them, and roll around in
dirt all day. This will provide you with a nice set of rags. Hopefully
with a pungent odour. This will now make you working class, while
solving the ideological question of whether mommy and daddy should pay
for your house.
5. If you are over 18, you should be in university. You will whine about
student loans, even if you don't have one. You will also look down
your nose at anyone who is not in university, and doesn't wear rags.
6. You will talk about 'life on the streets'. What you mean is hanging
out in the safest part of town where there are actually a few bars,
and a reasonable amount of pedestrian traffic.
7. Carrying a knife, preferably a little $2 blunt folding knife, with a
blade that is too dull to cut fruit, will impress all your friends.
8. You should complain about how people are always making comments about
your hairstyle being in danger of taking someone's eyes out. This is
especially important if you are over twenty.
9. It is necessary to listen to Propagandhi.
10. You will bray 'MacMurder' like a donkey in heat. However eating in
Subway, Tim Hortons, Burger King, and so on, will not provide any
ideological problems.
11. Of course, drug use is bound to impress. So you claim many times to
have consumed mescaline. It doesn't matter that the only major
synthetic mescaline source in the world got busted a year and a half
ago got busted. You had mescaline. Because the guy who sold it to you
said it was mescaline. If on closer scrutiny, the tales of your
experience might sound like acid, or (gasp) PCP, you will adamantly
maintain that it_was_mescaline_.
12. It is important to be knowledgable about drugs. Talking how acid will
form crystals in your spinal fluid, which break off when you bend your
back and give you flashbacks will impress your forteen year old
girlfriend. Not enough for her to shave though.
13. You will never smoke ordinary pot. It will always be 'pot laced with
PCP', 'pot laced with heroin', 'pot laced with cocaine', 'pot laced
with opium', 'pot laced with acid', 'pot laced with EZ-Lax'.
14. Whenever anyone talks about race, in no matter what context, you will
immediately jump up and yell 'Racist' continuously for a duration of
no less than four minutes. It is also irrelevant whether the speaker
is white or any other colour. However as all white people are racist,
they should be doubly shunned. Remember people are invisible, and we
have to pretend not to notice.
15. You will witter on incessantly about East Timor. Of course, you won't
know anything about it. Hell you won't even be able to find it on a
globe (even when you're not pretending to be stupid, because we know
an education is very middle class). it will provide a chance to be
righteously indignant, and deals with those oh-so-annoying pauses in
conversation/
16. Of course, it goes without saying, that all your political ideas will
be recycled punk lyrics. Anarchy to you will mean your dad giving you
even more money, while not telling you what to do, i.e. not
complaining about the fact that you're 24, yet you smell of dogshit,
and have glow in the dark hair.
17. You will constantly complain about being poor. Constantly. I mean,
after all you're wearing rags. You probably own a car. Daddy pays for
that too. But you won't drive it anywhere. Because the whole point of
the way you dress is to pretend that you live on the streets. Because
not only is being poor cool, it's also very anarchist.
18. You must own a pet rat, with a pink ribbon tied around its neck. This
is especially important in Alberta, Canada, the world's largest
rat-free land-mass. You can then snigger about how it no longer is the
world's largest rat-free landmass. How you, and you're rat, are
bringing the system to it's knees. And how unfair it is that the
establisment discriminates against disease-carrying rodents. This will
now accompany your braying chant about east timor. In time the two
will become confused. "save the disease-carrying rodents of east
timor. MAcMurder!". Whilst many people may look confused about this,
it is because they are uninformed television babies. Your punk friends
will all understand. After all, you said the magic word, 'east timor'.

19. The rat must have better personal hygeine that you do, because we all
know that being clean is bourgeois. Of course, to you, bourgeois is a
type of makeup. But you have a feeling that the working class don't
wash, while they're wearing their rags, and fondling their rats, so
neither must you.

20. Panhandling is always a good idea. After all, people owe you money.
You may have a bank card in your pocket. But hell, panhandling is so
anarchist, and so punk, you just have to do it.

[Directed]

Wow. Its like the encyclopedia of anarchy. I feel almost like I learned something.

[Bostonmess]

That first link you provided, Directed was originally my own definition of anarchy, it's what I thought it was when Johnny Rotten sang "I Wanna Be Anarchy." Then I heard someone elses definition of it, something like this: There's no law because there's no need for law, everyone knows right from wrong and they choose to follow their own morals, nothings written down to say what you can or can't do.

I know, it's not gonna work, because there's too many people who don't want it to, but I also know, I'm not offended by people who believe in such things. Why should I be? they're no harm to me. Like a Jehova's witness, I don't mind 'em, so long as they don't hassle me by knocking on my door they can believe what they want.

[Asmodeus]

interesting concept.

anarchy: a system of ideals or lack thereof created by intellectual but mentally shallow spoiled young people and adults that would effectively dismantle the very platform and systems that put themselves into the position to dream up such nonsense.
See nihilism.

What most who beleive in this kind of system fail to see is that in a system like that, they wouldn't survive past 6 months more than likely. As pointed out by someone earlier, feudalism would very quickly assert itself as a means of protection but also since humans are inherently a self organizing social group that is indoctrinated in that concept at birth by means of being in a family where a social order is immediately imposed.

Most ideas of anarchy are misdirected extremist views akin of old school republicanism whereas they want actually a radically reduced form of government and most of the infrastructure. Note that most all self professed anarchists are usaully closet sociopaths who are usually angry that they can't do whatever their Id wills them to and choose to express it in childlike fits of public display and attention seeking behavior. Also note that most of these so called anarchists don't work outside of a modern industrialized culture and usually a high density urban population.

hug an anarchist, it drives them apeshit.

[Directed]

If btrfly is an anarchist I'll hug her...

[Asmodeus]

geez you're twisted.

[dwarfthrower]

As a libertarian I despise government in all it's forms... However, as a realist, I see that a completely libertarian society would collapse within days, if not hours. Government is a neccessary evil. I'm more concerned with limiting it's power to interfere unduly with the affairs of it's citizens than with scrapping it altogether.

Anarchists should take a trip to the only nation currently without a recognized government and see how they get on... Somalia is quite nice this time of year.

[NavelCommander]

Unfortunately the term "anarchy" has been twisted around in modern culture to mean disorder. From www.anarchy.org: "The word anarchy origins from greek. The prefix an means negation of, as in anaerobe vs aerobe; and arch means superior, i.e. in contrast to subordinates, as in archbishop".

Thus its original meaning, and the meaning intended by anarchists, can be characterised as follows:
-a horizontal (non-heirarchical) organization of people;
-coordination on equal footing;
-co-operation without coercion;

What most of the world operates under at the moment is the opposite of anarchy:
-a vertical (heirarchical) organization of people;
-coordination on unequal footing;
-co-operation by coercion;
This includes Western faux democracy, capitalism, most religions, "communism" as practiced by China (in reality a tyranny), feudalism, and outright tyranny by military force.

[Asmodeus]

Thus it's original meaning, and the meaning intended by anarchists, can be characterised as follows:
-a horizontal (non-heirarchical) organization of people;
-coordination on equal footing;
-co-operation without coercion;


call me cynical, but that system seems to have even less chance of working due to human nature.

Tho like communism, it looks good on paper.

[Scumbag]

You do realise that if it wernt for the anarchists in the 1800's, we would still be working 12 hour days, 6 days a week ?


Hating people just because of the ideology they beleive in is just stupid. And this stupidity nearly caused a nuclear war.

[Asmodeus]

You do realise that if it wernt for the anarchists in the 1800's, we would still be working 12 hour days, 6 days a week ?

Hating people just because of the ideology they beleive in is just stupid. And this stupidity nearly caused a nuclear war.

you lie, george bush did that for us.

[Fuzzy Dice]

You do realise that if it wernt for the anarchists in the 1800's, we would still be working 12 hour days, 6 days a week ?
Hating people just because of the ideology they beleive in is just stupid. And this stupidity nearly caused a nuclear war.


I know that nuclear war in the 1800s is not what you meant, but i laughed anyway.

[NavelCommander]

/grins

Presumably human nature is the reason for the current disheartening state of affairs. However I'd say it's due to some inhuman traits of "human nature", greediness, power-hungryness, selfishness, even psychopathic; would you call George Bush (diagnosed a psychopath by several well-respected psychologists), Hitler, Sadam Hussein and Philip Knight (Nike CEO, famous for exploitation of 14 year olds in third-world countries) human or inhuman? ;)

(Note that these people are merely representatives of the arch (superiors) in anarchy, I'm in no way saying they're necessarily as bad as one another.)

Of course human nature currently precludes a non-chaotic organisation of people with no explicit organisational framework. However it doesn't preclude implementing a much fairer system than ones currently in place that incorporates ideas from anarchist theory. For example with current technology it wouldn't take much to implement a system where everyone has equal say, ie a true democracy where people can vote on issues affecting them rather than voting for representatives (aka rulers) who end up acting for their own benefit rather than that of the people they're supposed to be representing.

In short, I'm not saying anarchist theory in its purest form is practical or impractical, merely that it has some good ideas that could be incorporated into practical organisational structures for people.

[Asmodeus]

Of course human nature currently precludes a non-chaotic organisation of people with no explicit organisational framework. However it doesn't preclude implementing a much fairer system than ones currently in place that incorporates ideas from anarchist theory. For example with current technology it wouldn't take much to implement a system where everyone has equal say, ie a true democracy where people can vote on issues affecting them rather than voting for representatives (aka rulers) who end up acting for their own benefit rather than that of the people they're supposed to be representing.

True, tho it idea of a true democracy in this day and age is mostly a treeifying thought. We've raised too many generations of sheeple to have anything useful or even beneficial come out of them voting. You want scary, go to a state or county fair (not sure how well that translates to australia) and look around and realize "these people's votes will count as much as mine" ... for similiar effect, visit a department store.

Idealistic in the extreme. might have worked well in roms, but that was a different time and era. we are no longer a society that wishes to amass knowledge or anythign educational. we wish to amass comfort and deniability. nehter of which turns out to be productive, and is too tempting a bait for any enterprising person to capatalize on.

yes, i am debating just for the fuck of it.

[beowulf437]

If you get any three people together, one of them will take the role of a leader. It is programed into us, a part of our genetic nature, a survival mechanism. For an experiment get together with a couple of friends and pay close attention to how you interact. If you are all three male or mixed sex one person will make the most suggestions and talk the most and the others will agree with them. If all are female most likely a concensous will be arrived by the whole group and one person would be the 'spokesperson'. The larger and more varied the group the more complex the hierarchy. Also the larger the group the more complex the needs.

People don't inherently know right from wrong, and what might be 'right' for one group cold be considered 'wrong' by another. In some societies polygamy is considered normal but in others it is a punishable crime.

[NavelCommander]

If you get any three people together, one of them will take the role of a leader. It is programed into us, a part of our genetic nature, a survival mechanism.
It's also part of human nature to be greedy and selfish and (for males) to have sex with as many people as possible as soon as they (and the potential partner) reach puberty, yet people typically don't accept this as okay and so systems (not necessarily effective) are devised to try and prevent this. Why should we not strive for systems to counter the negative trait of people wanting to have power over others (and then typically misrepresenting their subordinates intentionally or unintentionally).

I suppose the problem with many proposed systems of organisation of people is that they don't take this kind of thing into account: the realities of people rather than the ideals.

This includes representative democracy which doesn't take into account that the representatives (who have more power than others) tend to become corrupt. In fact any system of heirarchy (where some have power over others) doesn't take this into account (assuming the system was intended to be fair in the first place).

People don't inherently know right from wrong, and what might be 'right' for one group cold be considered 'wrong' by another. In some societies polygamy is considered normal but in others it is a punishable crime.
Another thing that would need to be taken into account by a "fair" system of organisation of people, and which isn't taken into account by heirarchical systems (the leader decides right and wrong).

[dwarfthrower]

It's also part of human nature to be greedy and selfish and (for males) to have sex with as many people as possible as soon as they (and the potential partner) reach puberty, yet people typically don't accept this as okay and so systems (not necessarily effective) are devised to try and prevent this.

That people don't percieve these activities to be OK doesn't mean that they, in fact, _are_ not OK. Greed is what motivates people to work, to produce, to invent and to create. If I wasn't 'greedy' I wouldn't be working 12 hours a day in IT, I'd be scraping by doing casual landscaping work. Selfishness is a protective mechanism, it enables us to be around long enough for our offspring to have a good chance of surviving to maturity. Sex with as many consensual partners as you like is only frowned upon because of religious conditioning rather than any real basis.

Why should we not strive for systems to counter the negative trait of people wanting to have power over others (and then typically misrepresenting their subordinates intentionally or unintentionally).

Because wanting to have power over others is not, in itself, a bad thing. You're yet to explain why you think it is.

I suppose the problem with many proposed systems of organisation of people is that they don't take this kind of thing into account: the realities of people rather than the ideals.

This includes representative democracy which doesn't take into account that the representatives (who have more power than others) tend to become corrupt. In fact any system of heirarchy (where some have power over others) doesn't take this into account (assuming the system was intended to be fair in the first place).

Another thing that would need to be taken into account by a "fair" system of organisation of people, and which isn't taken into account by heirarchical systems (the leader decides right and wrong).

Care to describe how a "fair" and non-heirarchical system might work? It would seem to me that you are equating "equality" with "fairness"... Unfortunately, one of the other realities that you fail to mention is that people are not "equal", therefore "fairness" does not neccissarily equate to everybody having an "equal" share.

[NavelCommander]

True, tho it idea of a true democracy in this day and age is mostly a treeifying thought. We've raised too many generations of sheeple to have anything useful or even beneficial come out of them voting. You want scary, go to a state or county fair (not sure how well that translates to australia) and look around and realize "these people's votes will count as much as mine" ... for similiar effect, visit a department store.

Idealistic in the extreme. might have worked well in roms, but that was a different time and era. we are no longer a society that wishes to amass knowledge or anythign educational. we wish to amass comfort and deniability. nehter of which turns out to be productive, and is too tempting a bait for any enterprising person to capatalize on.
There are people in countries other than the U.S.A. ;) Some even who think that knowledge, education, integrity, etcetera is more important than BigMacs and Nikes.

Unfortunately your description of the typical American does seem to translate fairly well to Australia, the land of the lazy and becoming more like a little America everyday. Look at it this way, their votes count as much as anyone elses at the moment, moreover they believe all the propoganda they hear and are thus brainwashed into voting for people like Bush and Howard, who then go on to contradict their promises and propoganda, it couldn't get any worse ;).

[Asmodeus]

There are people in countries other than the U.S.A. ;) Some even who think that knowledge, education, integrity, etcetera is more important than BigMacs and Nikes.

Unfortunately your description of the typical American does seem to translate fairly well to Australia, the land of the lazy and becoming more like a little America everyday. Look at it this way, their votes count as much as anyone elses at the moment, moreover they believe all the propoganda they hear and are thus brainwashed into voting for people like Bush and Howard, who then go on to contradict their promises and propoganda, it couldn't get any worse ;).


I know, I've read the forums. most places aren't like tobago and similiar areas on this planet. any decently sized county on this planet seems to have most of the exact same problems in their own form. For the most part, I'm mostly hard pressed to find one that isn't

[NavelCommander]

That people don't percieve these activities to be OK doesn't mean that they, in fact, _are_ not OK. Greed is what motivates people to work, to produce, to invent and to create. If I wasn't 'greedy' I wouldn't be working 12 hours a day in IT, I'd be scraping by doing casual landscaping work. Selfishness is a protective mechanism, it enables us to be around long enough for our offspring to have a good chance of surviving to maturity. Sex with as many consensual partners as you like is only frowned upon because of religious conditioning rather than any real basis.
I wasn't passing judgement on any of these activities. But I can if you like:
-Greed: greed is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and thus in turn also the reason why many need to work 12 hours a day to survive. Also, if you think people only invent and create out of greed, then I pity you ;).
-Selfishness: if you step back and consider why it's apparantly necessary to be selfish to survive, you'll realise it's because others are selfish. You haven't explained why it's a good trait.
-Sex: I don't see sex with many people as a bad thing, once again I wasn't passing judgement on any of these :).

Because wanting to have power over others is not, in itself, a bad thing. You're yet to explain why you think it is.
True, I haven't explicitly explained why it tends to be a bad thing. It tends to be a bad thing because people with power over others tend to misrepresent those with less power. This comes about because those in power usually:
-act for their benefit, often in alliance with other people or groups (corruption);
-become disconnected from what those with less power want;
-act on idealistic principles in ways that don't translate to the current state of affairs;
-lack the ability to translate what those with less power want into appropriate actions.
The more power people have, the more likely one of these cases is to come into play.

Care to describe how a "fair" and non-heirarchical system might work? It would seem to me that you are equating "equality" with "fairness"... Unfortunately, one of the other realities that you fail to mention is that people are not "equal", therefore "fairness" does not neccissarily equate to everybody having an "equal" share.
I have in no way pretended to know how a fair non-heirarchical system might work in detail. I also don't pretend that everyone is "equal" in abilities (I assume this is what you meant). I don't see why in the general case people having differing levels of abilities in different things means they should have more or less say in issues affecting them.

P.S. Don't take this so personally (emotionally), it doesn't aid a rational discussion.

[Ash_Housewares]

If you get any three people together, one of them will take the role of a leader.

as far as i am aware, anarchism does not means that there are no leaders, rather that there are no entrenched leaders.

if you are the leader of a group because a leader is needed and you are best at is, that is fine.

anarchism just tries to prevent you being a leader when one is not needed, or because you have the most money, or because your dad was leader before you.

[dwarfthrower]

I wasn't passing judgement on any of these activities. But I can if you like:
-Greed: greed is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and thus in turn also the reason why many need to work 12 hours a day to survive. Also, if you think people only invent and create out of greed, then I pity you ;).
The reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has more to do with the fact that the rich keep making decisions that make them rich and the poor keep making choices that make them poor. No-one "needs" to work a 12 hour day to survive... Sure, you might need one to afford your McMansion and your Soccer-Mum 4wd and little Brianna and Brandon's private school fees, but that's not really "survival" is it?
-Selfishness: if you step back and consider why it's apparantly necessary to be selfish to survive, you'll realise it's because others are selfish. You haven't explained why it's a good trait.
I wasn't aware that I had said that it was a "good" trait... merely that perception didn't always equal fact. Selfishness, as I understand it is the quality where one values themselves more highly than others. It has an evolutionary basis, in that we all desire our DNA to be passed on into future generations. I don't strictly see it as a "good" thing any more than I would see breathing as being a good thing... it's just part and parcel of being a mammal.
-Sex: I don't see sex with many people as a bad thing, once again I wasn't passing judgement on any of these :).
I also don't recall accusing you of passing judgement, Merely clarifying my own position.
True, I haven't explicitly explained why it tends to be a bad thing. It tends to be a bad thing because people with power over others tend to misrepresent those with less power.
This comes about because those in power usually:
-act for their benefit, often in alliance with other people or groups (corruption);
-become disconnected from what those with less power want;
-act on idealistic principles in ways that don't translate to the current state of affairs;
-lack the ability to translate what those with less power want into appropriate actions.
The more power people have, the more likely one of these cases is to come into play.
Assuming of course that all of the people with less power want the exact same things. Misrepresentation arises out of a need for compromise. Aside from corruption, none of the things you have mentioned are actually wrong. Where you have any one person acting as a proxy for more than one other person, where those people have differences of opinions there would need to be compromise, either in the form of disconnection, ideals or mistranslation. If you and I and our prime minister are the only two citizens of a nation of three people and you want taxes left at 10% and I want them raised to 30% then wouldn't the government be misrepresenting both of us by raising taxes to 20%? But would that still be unfair?
I have in no way pretended to know how a fair non-heirarchical system might work in detail. I also don't pretend that everyone is "equal" in abilities (I assume this is what you meant). I don't see why in the general case people having differing levels of abilities in different things means they should have more or less say in issues affecting them.
Because issues affect unequal people to differing degrees. Legislation regarding offshore banking doesn't affect too many disability pensioners. Legislation regarding providing disabled access to government buildings doesn't affect too many high-flyers.
P.S. Don't take this so personally (emotionally), it doesn't aid a rational discussion.
You interpreted my dispassionate remarks as emotionally charged? Says more about your lack of rationality than mine I think ;)

[MisterFlibble]

Personally I like anarchist, they have the best stuff and it's really easy to take it away from them.

Umm... if the anarchist follows your rules, and the rules apply to all anarchists, then that makes the anarchist a conformist, so therefore no longer an anarchist.

Oh no, I think I've gone cross-eyed.

[Asmodeus]

Umm... if the anarchist follows your rules, and the rules apply to all anarchists, then that makes the anarchist a conformist, so therefore no longer an anarchist.

Oh no, I think I've gone cross-eyed.

and thus I think you finally found enlightenment.

[MisterFlibble]

and thus I think you finally found enlightenment.

So in reality, an anachist cannot exist, because it's impossible to be a non-conformist. You'll always fall into some group, which by definition means you're a conformist.

Bet that pisses off the "non-conformists".

[Asmodeus]

This should be fun. shall we?

I wasn't passing judgement on any of these activities. But I can if you like:
-Greed: greed is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and thus in turn also the reason why many need to work 12 hours a day to survive. Also, if you think people only invent and create out of greed, then I pity you ;).

People created things to do thing better. IE an actual hammer vs a rock. This was done to make their life easier so they could have more time off after meeting their quota quicker, or so they could produce more and thus earn more. If thats not greed, I'm not sure what greed is then.

Greed, wanting more. wanting more than you absolutely need to survive and guarding it against other that would take it. Do you save money for a rainy day instead of spreading all excess to everyone else? No, well thats greedy and just plain selfish.

The rich get richer becuase tehey can. they own a business as a for profit entity since that is their source of income. the poor can't get any poorer since poor is the bottom rung. The poor can only get richer since we keep shoveling dollars into their welfare funds out of guilt that not everyone can be as good as 'us'. Must be nice to have a low cost house, free insurance and food assistance when your poor (in america at least) when those supposedly above them have to fight and scrape and go without.

-Selfishness: if you step back and consider why it's apparantly necessary to be selfish to survive, you'll realise it's because others are selfish. You haven't explained why it's a good trait.

Selfish - goes with greed. see above exampe. If I were to walk up and take your car would you bitch? Yes? you selfish bastard, you weren't using it.

Selfish: chiefly concerned with onesself. Hmm, look out for number one. Sounds liek a base survival instinct to me, and a darn good one. I'm not giving up my poncho in a rain storm.

-Sex: I don't see sex with many people as a bad thing, once again I wasn't passing judgement on any of these :).

Of course not, you're a guy and this is one of your base instincts. BTW, I'll be over later to fuck your girlfriend. by your view, it should be ok.. or are you going to be selfish and greedy?

True, I haven't explicitly explained why it tends to be a bad thing. It tends to be a bad thing because people with power over others tend to misrepresent those with less power. This comes about because those in power usually:
-act for their benefit, often in alliance with other people or groups (corruption);
-become disconnected from what those with less power want;
-act on idealistic principles in ways that don't translate to the current state of affairs;
-lack the ability to translate what those with less power want into appropriate actions.
The more power people have, the more likely one of these cases is to come into play.

Sounds like an anarchist actually. What do those with less power want? they want money, freedom, protection and sex. those selfish greedy bastard fiends.

I have in no way pretended to know how a fair non-heirarchical system might work in detail. I also don't pretend that everyone is "equal" in abilities (I assume this is what you meant). I don't see why in the general case people having differing levels of abilities in different things means they should have more or less say in issues affecting them.

so did you say everyone should have an equal say or not? or are you the leader now and wanting to take a slice from the less abled for yourself?

So essentially you're argueing a philosphical point that has no basis since you don't even have a system yet that can achieve the goal you put forth? interesting.

Why does this smack of noddys theoretical radar device?

[Asmodeus]

So in reality, an anachist cannot exist, because it's impossible to be a non-conformist. You'll always fall into some group, which by definition means you're a conformist.

Bet that pisses off the "non-conformists".

it takes a lot to be a true non conformist and iconoclast. most people don't know how.

Be different! Be original! Just like me!

[MisterFlibble]

it takes a lot to be a true non conformist and iconoclast. most people don't know how.

Be different! Be original! Just like me!

haha... but if I'm being different and original, just like you, I'm conforming to your mode of thinking, thus I'm a conformist.

Edit: Now I feel like an arse, I wrote that before realising you were joking... *hangs head in shame* I really need sleep.

[NavelCommander]

So in reality, an anachist cannot exist, because it's impossible to be a non-conformist. You'll always fall into some group, which by definition means you're a conformist.

Bet that pisses off the "non-conformists".
Anarchists aren't by definition non-conformists :P.

[MisterFlibble]

Anarchists aren't by definition non-conformists :P.

True, but many of them say that they are non-conformists, which makes them conformists, even though they say they aren't.

[NavelCommander]

People created things to do thing better. IE an actual hammer vs a rock. This was done to make their life easier so they could have more time off after meeting their quota quicker, or so they could produce more and thus earn more. If thats not greed, I'm not sure what greed is then.
Artists don't create things because they're greedy, they create them for the love of creativity and expression. Scientists create theories because they want to understand. Creativity doesn't exist because of greed, but greed may cause creativity.

Greed, wanting more. wanting more than you absolutely need to survive and guarding it against other that would take it. Do you save money for a rainy day instead of spreading all excess to everyone else? No, well thats greedy and just plain selfish.
There are levels of greed, those in power tend to have an insatiable desire to have more and will explicitly exploit others to attain it. This is the kind of greed I meant.

The rich get richer becuase tehey can. they own a business as a for profit entity since that is their source of income. the poor can't get any poorer since poor is the bottom rung.
Those with extensive material wealth and hence power make decisions that enable them to become richer at the expense of those below them. They needn't do this, it's a decision they make, and it's based on greed.

Selfish - goes with greed. see above exampe. If I were to walk up and take your car would you bitch? Yes? you selfish bastard, you weren't using it.
The current culture and social climate doesn't make it viable for someone to give away their car unconditionally.

Of course not, you're a guy and this is one of your base instincts. BTW, I'll be over later to fuck your girlfriend. by your view, it should be ok.. or are you going to be selfish and greedy?
You assume I don't have an open relationship, you also assume that I own my girlfriend. What my girlfriend does is her concern, if I don't like it then we can resolve it or move on.

Sounds like an anarchist actually. What do those with less power want? they want money, freedom, protection and sex. those selfish greedy bastard fiends.
Speak for yourself :). Personally I want to live comfortably (good shelter, good food and drink, good friends), have freedoms insofar as those freedoms don't negatively impact on others, have protection from those who wish to exploit me, and of course have sex that is enjoyable for all parties.

so did you say everyone should have an equal say or not? or are you the leader now and wanting to take a slice from the less abled for yourself?
Yes, no, respectively.

So essentially you're argueing a philosphical point that has no basis since you don't even have a system yet that can achieve the goal you put forth? interesting.
No. The overall point I'm arguing is that the theory of anarchism has some good ideas and thus should not be dispatched without consideration, let alone ridiculed on generally incorrect assumptions.

[NavelCommander]

True, but many of them say that they are non-conformists, which makes them conformists, even though they say they aren't.
It's quite a lark, yes :).

[NavelCommander]

The reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has more to do with the fact that the rich keep making decisions that make them rich and the poor keep making choices that make them poor.
That's a half-truth :). The poor typically don't have the ability to become rich except through chance or genius. This is because the poor get poor education and are emotionally and financially manipulated into consenting to those in power.

No-one "needs" to work a 12 hour day to survive... Sure, you might need one to afford your McMansion and your Soccer-Mum 4wd and little Brianna and Brandon's private school fees, but that's not really "survival" is it?
There are many people who must work a 12 hour day, usually via several jobs, to survive, both inside and outside of the U.S.A.

I wasn't aware that I had said that it was a "good" trait... merely that perception didn't always equal fact. Selfishness, as I understand it is the quality where one values themselves more highly than others. It has an evolutionary basis, in that we all desire our DNA to be passed on into future generations. I don't strictly see it as a "good" thing any more than I would see breathing as being a good thing... it's just part and parcel of being a mammal.
A misunderstanding on my part, I thought you were arguing why the traits were good, or at least necessary. They certainly are part of being a mammal and evolutionary in nature. However, being human gives us the ability to cognitively determine the long term survival value (goodness or badness) of behaviours, it turns out that altruism is more beneficial for everyone as long as everyone practices it. So I'd argue that altruism is better than selfishness.

Assuming of course that all of the people with less power want the exact same things. Misrepresentation arises out of a need for compromise. Aside from corruption, none of the things you have mentioned are actually wrong. Where you have any one person acting as a proxy for more than one other person, where those people have differences of opinions there would need to be compromise, either in the form of disconnection, ideals or mistranslation. If you and I and our prime minister are the only two citizens of a nation of three people and you want taxes left at 10% and I want them raised to 30% then wouldn't the government be misrepresenting both of us by raising taxes to 20%? But would that still be unfair?
I find it hard to believe that the likes of George Bush and John Howard misrepresent their charges due to a need for compromise. Both are corrupt and typically serve the interests of the rich (I'll allow your industry to pollute if you donate $ to my party). By misrepresentation I mean that the wishes of the majority are ignored. Examples are going to war, pollution, funding for education which are decided on the leaders personal and political agenda rather than what the majority of the population have expressed. Another example is euthanasia, this has been decreed unacceptable based on the leaders whims rather than the explicit wishes of the majority of the population it affects.

Because issues affect unequal people to differing degrees. Legislation regarding offshore banking doesn't affect too many disability pensioners. Legislation regarding providing disabled access to government buildings doesn't affect too many high-flyers.
I said that I think everyone deserves an equal say in issues that affect them.

You interpreted my dispassionate remarks as emotionally charged? Says more about your lack of rationality than mine I think ;)
Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption, the tone of your comment "Care to describe how a "fair" and non-heirarchical system might work?" sounded emotionally charged. My apologies. :)

[dwarfthrower]

That's a half-truth :). The poor typically don't have the ability to become rich except through chance or genius.
Outside of working hard and making sensible decisions of course.

This is because the poor get poor education and are emotionally and financially manipulated into consenting to those in power.
You don't need a lot of education to make reasonably sensible decisions in life. I'm not sure that I accept the notion of being "emotionally and financially manipulated" into a consensual agreement. People make choices, if they give their consent to something, then obviously they have decided that that particular "something" is in their best interests. In the absence of force or fraud (ie removing one party's element of free will), then emotionally or financially "manipulating" someone into something is OK by me.

For example... Say I wanted you to give me your watch, I could:
Stab you in the back and take the watch off your wrist.
Put a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you didn't give it to me.
Lie, and tell you that I only want to look at it.

Or:
Tell you that if you don't give me the watch I'll double your rent.
Tell you that if you don't give me the watch I won't let you watch TV.
Tell you that if you don't give me the watch I won't love you anymore.

Or:
Tell you that if you give me the watch I will give you money.
Tell you that if you give me the watch I will take you skiing.
Tell you that if you give me the watch I will be your friend.

In all cases you ultimately make the decision whether or not to give me the watch (except perhaps in the very first instance)... only in the first three have I actually done anything wrong - removed the ability for you to make a rational decision.

There are many people who must work a 12 hour day, usually via several jobs, to survive, both inside and outside of the U.S.A.
"Must" - I disagree. "Choose to" definately. Just because someone makes a choice that they don't like, doesn't mean they haven't chose to all the same.


So I'd argue that altruism is better than selfishness.
I once posted a diatribe... not on here I don't think... regarding altruism... or more correctly, the opposite of altruism... in which I argued that altruism was , more often than not, counterproductive to it's stated aims. It may be the more admirable trait (again possibly harking back to religious values), yet often has a negative effect on society when adopted as a platform.

Altruistic structures like the minimum wage and social security actually serve to keep the poorer members of society from advancing their station in life. Effectively creating the poverty trap that the altruists then blame on poor education or government/corporate opression.

I find it hard to believe that the likes of George Bush and John Howard misrepresent their charges due to a need for compromise. Both are corrupt and typically serve the interests of the rich (I'll allow your industry to pollute if you donate $ to my party). By misrepresentation I mean that the wishes of the majority are ignored. Examples are going to war, pollution, funding for education which are decided on the leaders personal and political agenda rather than what the majority of the population have expressed. Another example is euthanasia, this has been decreed unacceptable based on the leaders whims rather than the explicit wishes of the majority of the population it affects.
I might be missing something, but both of those leaders were only recently re-elected with increased majorities. I find it hard to believe they could be misrepresenting their constituents to the degree you claim when the election results would disagree with that conclusion rather emphatically.


I said that I think everyone deserves an equal say in issues that affect them.
Sorry... bad analogy on my part. I agree that everyone should have a say... but if you've put $20,000.00 into a project and I've kicked in $200.00... why should I have an "equal" say in the direction of the project?

Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption, the tone of your comment "Care to describe how a "fair" and non-heirarchical system might work?" sounded emotionally charged. My apologies. :)
No worries... I rarely get emotional in real life, let alone on an internet forum. Vigorous certainly... but very rarely emotional :D

[Directed]

OK, Navel Commander, I am confused. I have not heard you argue for anarchy yet. you HAVE argued that you prefer anarchy, but anarchy by definition is summed up in this: No rules, every man for himself. That is why when there is a riot or mob action you here reports like "The situation here has degenerated into anarchy" Now about this so called Utopia where everybody will be happy and peacefully co-exist in total anarchy?.... I don't follow how that could possibly happen. Are you arguing that government restrains the true good of people, who without it would be nice and never hurt anyone?

This is why I go back to my original rant.

"They (anarchists) go on and on about how only the elites rule in any other society, and anarchy is the only way for things to ever get better. 2 things: 1. They don't care about society, and are the epitome of selfish nihilism. and 2. They are whiny little bitches who don't realize in a real anarchy they'd be bitchslapped and made to serve me (or any other person over 95 lbs) because they are weak and stupid.

The more they go on in their pseudo-intellectual rants, the more I want to give them real anarchy and punch them in the face."
:fu: :fu: :fu:
(is there anything the fu smiley isn't good for?)

[beowulf437]

People need food, clothing, and shelter. The last two especially if you live in a climate like mine (it snowed again last night). People want things, I want pork chops but I do not want to raise pigs. My sister raised pigs when she was first married and they stink, so she switched to cows. I am willing to pay for someone else to raise pigs.

Greed is a factor in creation as well as need, sex, and just plain curiosity. Tools were invented out of need, but if you were the guy who made the best tools don't you think that you would be so busy making tools for other people that you wouldn't have time for much else.

Organization in humans is natural. No single person can meet all of his own needs. Even in the most primitive peoples there is a hierarchy, and specialization, and rules. Believe it or not all societies try to have rules that are the most fair for the most people, because in the end all goverments rule by the consent of the ruled. Now from time to time goverments and societies make rules that are unfair or even harmful to segements of the population, but in most cases this is not from malice but from the desire of the majority. In cases where goverments no longer meet the needs or the desires of the majority the are usually quickly overturned. Look at the examples of eastern europe in just the last decade.

As society increases in size the need for hierarchy, rules, and specialization increases. I think the US really does have a good system of represenative democracy. National and state issues are decided by elected represenatives but local issues are decided by direct vote. People who say their vote doesn't count are screwing themselves. Sure one vote isn't going to decide who is president but a couple of votes may decide wether or not your community gets a new school or a road repaired. A couple of votes may also decide who your state and federal represenative is going to be.

[Asmodeus]

Artists don't create things because they're greedy, they create them for the love of creativity and expression. Scientists create theories because they want to understand. Creativity doesn't exist because of greed, but greed may cause creativity.

how romantic. call me a hard boiled cynic but while these may be a part of what drives them to be in those spots, you forget that they usually end up paying very well. couldn't be at all a reason then right?

The last sentence in your quote is a non sequitor and essentially a logical fallacy. greed and creativity are separate things and can and often do coexist. Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many of them jumping up and down about intellectual property and copyrights.

Yes, I am an artist, and I do it for the money.


There are levels of greed, those in power tend to have an insatiable desire to have more and will explicitly exploit others to attain it. This is the kind of greed I meant.

Now its levels of greed? Isn't that like trying to define levels of rape?

now, it seems you assume here that in order to make money after a certain amount you have to exploit people. I don't see it. There are some out there, and yet there seem to be just as many out there that are treating most of their employees like gold.

not all of those in power tend to have an insatiable desire either or are you now going to switch to levels of leadership.

Of course, the same arguement can be turned in reverse if you want to talk about unions and collective bargaining where you have a group o fpeople by consensus wanting to hold a company hostage laborwise until they get a mob rule various consessions. go work at some union grocery food stores and tell me who is exploiting who here.


Those with extensive material wealth and hence power make decisions that enable them to become richer at the expense of those below them. They needn't do this, it's a decision they make, and it's based on greed.

Again, not all and not even most. also remember that you seem to reduce all humans to robotic cattle. the sole power they have to supposedly exploit everyone is from those peoples willingness to be exploited. if they want to, why not?

Extensive material wealth doesn't always mean drowning in money either. Ho much does maintainence cost on their items. that costs. how much do they have to pull in to pay the bills, workers and utilities? that doesn't come out of this air. How much of that money gets plowed back into the company for improvements and expansion?

why should someone not benefit from the fruits of these labors becuase you're not getting a slice of that pie.

The current culture and social climate doesn't make it viable for someone to give away their car unconditionally.

Nope, not now, nor in an anarchist state. those rotten greedy selfish bastards and their human nature,

You assume I don't have an open relationship, you also assume that I own my girlfriend. What my girlfriend does is her concern, if I don't like it then we can resolve it or move on.

point taken tho its a raer occourance. same thing with human nature.

Speak for yourself :). Personally I want to live comfortably (good shelter, good food and drink, good friends), have freedoms insofar as those freedoms don't negatively impact on others, have protection from those who wish to exploit me, and of course have sex that is enjoyable for all parties.

romantic notion, but you'll need to toughen up to get it. i wish you well tho

Yes, no, respectively.

Then explain your contradiction

No. The overall point I'm arguing is that the theory of anarchism has some good ideas and thus should not be dispatched without consideration, let alone ridiculed on generally incorrect assumptions.

theory yes, practice no.

i ridicule them for the most part since the thoughts behind it are shallow at best and don't look deeper into anything besides an idealized human being that doesn't exist due to lack of instincts and is generally a philosphical notion brought up be people who feel repressed by something but don't actually want to do anything about it, just complain and try to make a system that suits them with little regard for any of the structures that let them even progress as far as they have.

allso, like beowulf has been mentioning... too much population to support that concept. might have worked to a degree in the old time wild american west, but not today. please try again when the population reduces to about 1/4 of what it is now.

[Bostonmess]

If you work a twelve hour day, in most situations I would call it hard work. You want to provide for your family, it's very understandable in my eyes. If you got the opportunity to rip someone off (charging them a huge amount) by doing something for them, I'd call that greed. Maybe you did someone's PC on the side and all it needed was a bit more RAM, yet you charged them for excessive labour and parts. That in my opinion is greed, in others, it's probably just opportunity.

It's possible for some people to be greedier than others, it's obviously a personal decision guided by your own morals.

Show me an artist who doesn't love his art, and I will show you a shit artist.

That's not to say that good artists aren't interested in money, I just don't believe that greed can inspire as greatly as love.

[Asmodeus]

That's not to say that good artists aren't interested in money, I just don't believe that greed can inspire as greatly as love.

explain bill gates then.

[beowulf437]

A mistake that most anarchist, socialist, and communist make is the true nature of cost. I saw a post from a guy on a board who worked as the night clerk at a motel. He was bitching that since the motel made $4000 a night he should be paid most of that since he was the one working at night. Fine. I asked if he paid any of the utilities for the motel. I asked if he cleaned the rooms or made up the beds. I asked if he did any of the repairs or building maintenance. I asked if he paid the taxes on the motel, purchased the land the motel sits on, or had the motel constructed. The answer was no to all of these. People don't realize the true nature of cost.

Here is a little something I posted about the cost of making movies.

http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?t=30376&page=3

Not all people become wealthy just out of greed either, some do because they are good at what they do and are not wasteful. I have a friend that told me a few years before he retired he was paying $5 million a year in taxes. Think about how much you would have to make to be paying that much in taxes. He drove a ten year old pickup truck and lived in a house he had built himself in 1947. Three months out of the year he would spend in Central America volunteering his time to build schools and clinics. He could have afforded to drive a Bently or live in a 60 room mansion but he didn't think things like that were important. The only reason he retired is he broke both his feet at work and figured he was getting to old to be climbing around on construction machinery (he was 73 at the time).

[Bostonmess]

explain bill gates then.

Ok, I reckon in a way what he's done is art. In my eyes, Bill Gates definitely had a love of what he was doing. I don't think he started writing his software because he thought it would one day make a huge amount of money, he might have hoped that that would happen but I believe originally he had a love, an interest for it. He got a kick out of what he did, he'll have been buzzing his tits off when something worked.

These days he's making so much money, he doesn't know what to do with it. I believe he'll be getting a big kick from making loads of money too now. I don't know how much he's involved in that process, whether he's still really involved in writing or whether he's sat back a bit and just let it almost run itself.

That's my opinion, maybe it's wrong, maybe all along he only intended to make money and he hated writing the code that solved problems.

What about you Asmo? You can't tell me you don't get a big kick from the sound of your guitar when it belts out a really good riff. You can't tell me the first thing you think is: "I'm in the money."

I listen to music because I love it, predominantly I believe most people make it because they like making it.

Look at all the manufactured shite out there? It can make millions, I can't blame someone for being in a crap boy/girl band, it's easy money, I'll hate them for the shite they churn out though. Play it from your heart, play from your balls, play it with truth. You can't go wrong, at least you'll enjoy it.

Rhetorical question: If you're only in it for the money (which I know you're not and I'm not accusing you of saying so), are you only making the most commercially accessible music? Or are you playing a style that you enjoy playing?

Look at all the great artists out there (and some shit ones :D), they've done it for the love of doing it.

[Directed]

All right all you poets, artists and arguers: Explain to me how anarchy helps anything good get done. I still say in the end I beat you up and take everything you own and have worked for, hang your art up in my house and listen to you whine about how you with there was a government to protect you.

I met an anarchist who wanted anarchy because Microsoft and big business was too powerful. I laughed so hard! In anarchy those would be the guys running the whole show. Because they would organize people and resources and might would make right.

[Asmodeus]

All right all you poets, artists and arguers: Explain to me how anarchy helps anything good get done. I still say in the end I beat you up and take everything you own and have worked for, hang your art up in my house and listen to you whine about how you with there was a government to protect you.

I met an anarchist who wanted anarchy because Microsoft and big business was too powerful. I laughed so hard! In anarchy those would be the guys running the whole show. Because they would organize people and resources and might would make right.

and thus you start to understand why the concept of it all is just plain silly.

then enters for those situations the old al capone quote:
You get better results with a nice word and a gun than just a nice word"

[Bostonmess]

All right all you poets, artists and arguers: Explain to me how anarchy helps anything good get done. I still say in the end I beat you up and take everything you own and have worked for, hang your art up in my house and listen to you whine about how you with there was a government to protect you.

That woudn't be very nice of you man. What have I done to you? :hippy:

You can still do all that with a government, it's not as though it doesn't happen now.

I think what you're getting at is it doesn't happen as much as it would if we lived in anarchy.

Maybe that's true, but does our culture of greed influence any of the crimes that are committed today?

[Asmodeus]

Ok, I reckon in a way what he's done is art. In my eyes, Bill Gates definitely had a love of what he was doing. I don't think he started writing his software because he thought it would one day make a huge amount of money, he might have hoped that that would happen but I believe originally he had a love, an interest for it. He got a kick out of what he did, he'll have been buzzing his tits off when something worked.

He was a programmer first then went into business later but still was a programmer. as a programmer as well, I can see the art and creativity in problem solving and what essentially boils down to solutions creation an dtool making.

What about you Asmo? You can't tell me you don't get a big kick from the sound of your guitar when it belts out a really good riff. You can't tell me the first thing you think is: "I'm in the money."

Ya and no actually. Wat I play reall yisn't in my top 3 choices for music styles, but its a good group to work with and a challenge to my technique. while i go "fuck yeah" at teh sound of a heavily distorted low B power chord echoing through a concert hall, I listen to the cd (availavle from www.empyreansky.com) and hear "ka-ching ka-ching".

Some artists might do it for teh challenge, tho I think most artists that are comissioned to make something do it for the money. They may love what they do, but they'll still charge out teh ass for it. look at teh price of much of the art out there and tell me the prices aren't greed based.


Rhetorical question: If you're only in it for the money (which I know you're not and I'm not accusing you of saying so), are you only making the most commercially accessible music? Or are you playing a style that you enjoy playing?

heh, see above post. some of the music gets me going, then again, i see parts i like in most kinds of music. Even garth brooks and snoop dog.

tell me "thunder Rolls" wouldn't make a cool death metal cover

[Bostonmess]

I listen to the cd (availavle from www.empyreansky.com) and hear "ka-ching ka-ching".

But first you must hear how good it sounds before you see the dollar signs. I get what you're saying, obviously many artists are influenced by money, it's just that originally when you/they started I don't think many did it for money.

Some artists might do it for teh challenge, tho I think most artists that are comissioned to make something do it for the money. They may love what they do, but they'll still charge out teh ass for it. look at teh price of much of the art out there and tell me the prices aren't greed based.

The ones that are commissioned are probably established and have therefore honed their craft. Yes, I bet that's a real buzz when you're making money from what you love.

Recently a bag of rubbish was thrown out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3604278.stm) of the Tate gallery. It was actually (supposedy) part of an art exhibit. No problem said the artist, I'll go knock up another one in two minutes.


heh, see above post. some of the music gets me going, then again, i see parts i like in most kinds of music. Even garth brooks and snoop dog.

tell me "thunder Rolls" wouldn't make a cool death metal cover

I don't really like either (aint heard much), but I wouldn't say they were untalented and I would definitely think they have a love for their craft. And for making money from it. ;)

I am just a lowly juggler, I used to be decent at it. I got like that because I enjoyed it so much I used to do it a lot. I never thought of it as a career opportunity until I became decent at doing it.

"Love it or leave it."

[Ash_Housewares]

anarchism != anarchy (see wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)).

anarchism is about the removal of unneccessary, imposed and entrenched power structures. it does not mean there will be no laws, it does not mean no private ownership and does not mean rule by force of arms any more than in democracy, socialism or any other ism (except despotism and facism i guess :D)

btw i am not a proponent of anarchism, it's just that the whole "anarchism == anarchy" thing is one of my pet hates

[beowulf437]

an·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


from dictionary.com

If you want to remove the entrenched power structure then I want to be in charge. I'm pretty sure I can get more than a few people to follow me and a good number of those have had military experience. I'm also sure I can obtain a number of arms even if I have to have them made. To quote a song lyric from the refreshments.

Everybody knows
That the world is full of stupid people
Well I got the pistol so I get the Pesos
Yeah and that seems fair

PS I had my granddaughter helping me

[Ash_Housewares]

again, anarchism is not anarchy

from merriam-webster

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

if you want to be in charge, you are welcome to try but you might find that people don't want to be a part of whatever it is you are in charge of.

anyway, the threat of control by force of arms is not a problem unique to anarchism. there is nothing intrinsic about socialism, democracy, etc that prevents somone trying to force themselves to be ruler.

as an aside, i don't think that a purely anarchistic society is feasible. but then again, i don't think that a purely socialist, capitalist, democratic, etc society is feasible either.

for a start, these are just political, economic or philosphical ideas, and for a society to function, it needs to address all, not just one, of these areas. secondly, i think that a good society would be able to borrow from these differing ideas, rather than blindly sticking to one of them.

thirdly, it's friday and it's nearly beer o'clock :D