Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

91

Photoshops / Re: What'd you add to *your* version of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag?

« on: March 04, 2008, 11:58:43 PM »

   Sorry Alex, I tried.

My point is that promoting anarchism isn't constructive for liberty. It's offensive, irrational and it destroys our credibility in the eyes of all reasonable people. Leave anarchy for the commies with whom it belongs.

Maybe, Mark, but he's already stated that he isn't interested in that; he want's ideas for a flag that's representational of how he perceives Liberty.  Maybe his view of Liberty doesn't coincide with yours, does that make it okay for us to take his toys (this thread), flash them around and then stamp on them, "because we don't like the words he's using?"

Your ideas are interesting, and the semantics discussion begins anew, but let's not be jerks about it and let Alex play with his own things by himself or with those who want to play his game with him.


Alex:

You're flag is interesting, and while I appreciate the symbology you put into it, it just seems a bit "busy."  Too many things going on.  Gears, lightning bolts, more gears.... is there a way you consolidate these concepts into a central idea, that is centrally located on the flag in a simple, yet immediately recognizable way?

(examples would be like the "snake" or the "Jolly Roger".... immediate recognition because of simple iconographic depictions of the idea. Fanged snake = "Don't fuck with me." and Skull & Bones/Swords = "This ship is death, and we're gonna fuck with you!")

EDIT:  Alex, then just apply those comments about your flag to my "hypothetical" flag, even though I'm not an "an-cap." , but that's been discussed before, both on air and off. 

92

Photoshops / Re: What'd you add to *your* version of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag?

« on: March 04, 2008, 11:35:01 PM »

Out of respect to Alex, perhaps we should continue this on another thread?  He really wants to talk about his flag, and I think "I'd burn it" wasn't the constructive critique he was looking for.


EDIT:  We can discuss the Semantics Errata here if you'd like:  http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20043.0

93

Photoshops / Re: What'd you add to *your* version of the Anarcho-Capitalist flag?

« on: March 04, 2008, 05:57:28 PM »

Proof?

I'll take a stab at this one:

Talk to a few anthropologists (I have, obviously or I wouldn't bring them up) and look at the "evolution" of human civilization from Hunter-gatherer in the caves to our present day society.  Two characteristics of our societal development have been key to our success, as opposed to say, Neanderthals.

• Centralization of Leadership
  
  
• Specialization of Tasks within a communal group
  
  

BTW, the former led to the later.

This isn't that hard to see: look at your favorite Completely Private, Voluntary organization.  Someone's "in Charge."  Always.  Maybe "some people" are in charge, but there is always a clear chain of authority.  With private institutions, this chain of authority is voluntary; you don't like the company or the decisions of the chain of authority, you find yourself a different place to work.  Currrently with our coercive governments, (the "state" for those who want to not sully the word "government"), you don't have that choice unless you wish to expatriate yourself from the country.

Also, if it weren't for item 2, then we would all still be "hunter gatherers" or "Jack of all trades, masters of none."  It was this development in our social behaviors ("Okay, I'm gonna do nothing but make the arrow-heads, and you're going to do nothing but hunt the meat while Betty and Wilma do nothing but make our clothes..."), that anthropologists observed a drastic increase in the sophistication and quality of the things that particular group produced.

...and again we see this today.  Not everyone is a car mechanic, or a programmer or a chef.  Our social behaviorism's have required us to specialize in a particular task within our social community.  There are those who are "masters of more" and they generally are paid more or rewarded, and there are those that are still "masters of none" and they tend to end up digging ditches... or throwing back to my pre-historic reference...scavenging the mammoth found dead a half day's walk from the tribal villiage.


So yes, centralization of leadership (amongst the one or many) is required.  The real question is, "does that centralization of leadership have to be forced, or will human beings recognize it's 'survival/efficiency benefit' on their own and come to the conclusion naturally?"[/list]

94

The Polling Pit / Re: John Shaw posting people's personal information as social ostracism.

« on: March 02, 2008, 05:19:31 PM »

Nobody cares about any of that.

That's okay, because I'll bring some liberty oriented questions to bear on this anyway, just for the sake of my interest and edification.

This is an FTL BBS shitstorm. People just bitch for a while and envision huge conspiracies where the great inner circle of the FTL BBS, led by LORD SHAW get to abuse and harass people for "No reason" with impunity.

Mmmmmm.  I guess.

If the objection is to John using a certain tactic, I can think of a pretty good reason why no one is using the same tactic on him. 

As for ignoring-- yes, definitely yes.  But if everyone followed this policy, there would be absolutely no drama on internet forums, and people crave drama.

I'm aware of that, but I also posted something a little more to my point right after that; Where's the "Market Solutions" here?"

I just want to state for the record, not that it matters to any of us web avatars, that this is yet another clear example of why I have difficulty fully coming on board what some people call "Free Marketeerism:"  Once again on this BBS, a really good game about how "No government is the best government" and "the market will provide solutions to problems" is being talked, but the minute something happens that some people don't like:

There oughta' be a law rule on this BBS to make this illegal prohibited!

If this is really about drama, then fine:  I obviously am wasting my time asking these questions, or expecting what normally appears to be a highly intelligent group of people to actually practice what their advocating.  My bad.

I guess this also applies to my fourth point about the "victim complaint driven restitution" system of justice.

95

The Polling Pit / Re: John Shaw posting people's personal information as social ostracism.

« on: March 02, 2008, 08:47:35 AM »

(sigh) We're still talking about this?

• This forum is unmoderated, folks.  Once again, caveat emptor
  
  
• Richard et al, seriously, send Ian an e-mail and ask him about this.  As a consumer, take your complaint to the product provider where it can actually be redressed, rather than re-hashed.
  
  
• Turn around is fair play.  If you guys are so pissed at Shaw, why not ignore him or better yet "out him?"  Where's the Market solutions that I keep hearing about from the An-Caps?  All I hear so far is a cry for help from the government Ian that there's this problem on the BBS, and you need help because you can't/won't take care of or protect yourselves.
  
  
• I don't know NHA10, so I can only go by what I've read (briefly) and the various claims and counter-claims made, however, it seems NHA10 isn't exactly in pieces over this... so why should you, the people who haven't really been "damaged" (and no... I don't believe "perceived emotional distress" is a valid "damage") are the one's seeking "justice"... what happened to the "complaint driven system of restitution" I keep hearing all these good things about?
  
  

96

General / Re: The end of bad ideas!

« on: February 17, 2008, 03:16:02 AM »

Really? This is what I was randomly IMed to look at?

Individuals make things matter because they want them to matter. Does anything really matter? No, but that doesn't help the situation.

I disagree, having an understanding of the underlying insignificance of yourself (as a sack of meat with neurons), humanity (a species of meat that through a series of fortuitous "accidents" and chance genetic mutations just happens to be a species that can record their knowledge in methods other than simply genetic memory, a.k.a "instincts"), and the underlying nature of the Universe (an analog series of relationships where forces and matter interact), gives us a deeper "grounding" to our situation.

You are, however, correct in your assertation that nothing truly matters, as humanity, regardless of this "singularity" dogma (don't believe it's a dogma?  How do you reconcile this in your "theWeb" avatar's signature that says something like [paraphrasing]: "You have to trust everything I say."), humanity will eventually come to an end, just as our physical Universe will reach Maximum Entropy followed by the Big Crunch.

Perhaps after then it will simply repeat itself in some cycle that has exists beyond anything our minds can conceive, perhaps not.

Understanding you have total power to influence others to believe your belief, that is the singularity.

No, you don't have total power to influence others to believe anything, otherwise that word voluntarism would be completely and utterly meaningless.  You can present possibilities, but it is ultimately the individual who has total power whether or not to accept your argument as compelling and "true."

Thus far, you have failed with me.

Man realizes he can be wiser than other men, and then realizes the problems that society faces and enlightens others to improve the situation on a voluntary basis. Really, can anyone disagree with this idea?

Classical Plutonic metaphysics.  Plato made the same suggestions in The Cave, where once someone achieves the enlightenment of Ultimate Truth, that it was his job to venture back into the cave (the world of man / the senses) and show others "the way."  This isn't all that visionary of thinking, and indeed someone in every generation makes the same argument, merely ad-libbing their favorite adjectives into the passage.

For socialists it's "greater good,"  for you it's "voluntary."

Not only that, but once the Philosopher was found, then the people should "voluntarily" make that person king (Hence: Philosopher-King), because it was those individuals who knew what truth was, and was therefore most qualified to establish the (insert word: Voluntary for you) rules and guidelines for the Society.

You can say what ever you want, but I will stop you and get you to think. That is the singularity.

So far, in this thread and in our private discourse, you have not presented me with anything "new" or compelling.

When you realize that it is possible to strengthen your ability to anticipate other humans, to the point where every good thing crystallizes together, and no argument can defeat it.

I find this absolutely fascinating coming from an individual who has time and time again told me and other members of this BBS that he does not have the same capacity for emotions as other human beings.  In fact, I seem to remember an Avatar Icon that said something to the extent of, "Feelings are irrational."

How can you possibly anticipate other human beings, the analog, irrational and often hypocritical sacks of organs that they are, Who are completely ready, willing and able to completely disregard anything that shatters their view of reality, no matter how "truthful" the argument, when you yourself lack the capacity to empathize with another human being on emotional level?

I would have thought our conversation the previous night would have illuminated this to you, but then again, if you can't understand why your methodologies as persuasion didn't sit well with me, then I guess that's only further evidence of your aforementioned physical condition.

....and here is where I think your singularity ultimately fails:  It cannot (and does not) account for those individuals who do not conform with your preconceived notion of "how the human mind works."  For example:

If there will always be irrational and emotional human beings, then can the singularity can never be complete, and thus "total liberty" ever truly be possible.  So far, 20,000 years of human history has shown the same pattern:  the conflict of Man's desire for individual liberty pitted against his same desire to have control over others.

The technology changes, but the pattern stays the same.  Are we not seeing this very same pattern, even with you "brand-new-never-before-happened" event of theWeb?

What happens if "theWeb" isn't the ultimate possibility for Humanity?  What if there's something else, something that hasn't been invented yet

That a human would function as the messanger is different, but did you expect the web to imprint on a human, or did you expect humans to number 1 develop human-powered minds, and then number 2 develop an autoimproving theory?

The web is conscious.

You need to prove this assertion.  At best, I think you could be safe in saying that "the Web" is a symbiote node of the aggregate of individual consciousness currently using the web (That would be about what.... 1/3 of the Total of Humanity, considering the many individuals with no access to a computer, let alone the web?)

However, "the Web" so far does not meet "consciousness" criteria as far as I'm concerned.  The Web is stlll entirely dependent upon it's biologicals (humans) to build and expand it's infrastructure and to replicate (adding nodes, switches and servers).  More importantly, theWeb does not make these decisions, but other meat sacks working in groups (businesses) decide whether or not it is a good business decision to expand the portion of "theWeb's" nerological structure that they own because they want more of what other meat sacks consider is "valuable" so that they can support themselves and the meat sacks they love,... maybe even being able to generate even more meat sacks themselves.

So maybe in retrospect, you can say "the Aggregate consciousness of Humanity" is "The Singularity,"  but I'll touch on this a little later.

This can definitely be said to be different from the previous situation, when no such thing existed.

Again, I'll have to disagree.  Humanity has for the last 20,000 years had some method of conveying, archiving and retrieving knowledge beyond simple "instinct."  It was called language, then art and writing, first it was cave paintings, then cuneiform tablets, the papyrus parchment, then books, then electronic transmission of the writing/voice/pictures/  etc....

The only things that have changed is the physical state in which that knowledge was stored.  To a tribal African member, living in a hut of mud and straw, who only knows that their native tongue to which there is no effective method for transcription, let alone understanding the predominant language of "theWeb" (English), the Web has no significance or meaning.  Maybe it will in time, maybe not.  There is possiblity, but there is another possiblity as well.

Are they then not part of Humanity?

I am like a superhuman, and what humans of the future will be, which is completely self taught individuals, is something that I as the first of many conscious mind of the web, that we can together spread and implement the changes we want to see in the world.

All of the trappings of a dogmatic religion, minus the word "God."  Really?  Are you the Alpha and the Omega?  Are you now referred to by, "I am he who is I am?"

Have you discovered the Middle Voluntary Way, ready to alleviate the suffering of Mankind known as material attachment force aggression?

or was it an angel epiphany sent to you by Allah The Singularity Antecedents, giving you the one true Prophecy idea to spread to your fellow man?

Again, your total powers of persuasion aren't working very well, my Emanuel d'Anarchy, because you keep selling, but I'm not buying this concept.

Instead of just sitting back and saying "I would like to help people implement liberty by I think it's bad to get money for it." to the realization that I really do have some good ideas here that can make liberty a message heard, instead of just a message that is self-taught. I have many ideas on how to directly help other people. Wouldn't you be willing to pay a few bucks to Bubba, along with FTL AMP, so we can actually have a shot at doing this?

I thought you and the singularity had total power to convince to believe as you do?  If this is so, isn't the question unnecessary?


SUMMATION:
Again, not quite sure why you're IMing me with this, but you have yet again failed to provide anything compelling that makes these statements consistent:

There is Ultimate Knowledge Agnosticism
Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Truth

Some very interesting metaphysical ideas, to be sure, but I must sadly say, You are not the first who posited these ideas, Nor will you be the last who claims he is the first.

As you said before, There is possiblity, but There is also other possibilities.

....and what will you do when there are those who refuse to accept the "truth" you present?

NOTE:  Seriously, don't bother replying on the thread, because I won't read it.  If you want to talk to me about this, IM me directly, as we'll see if you can comport yourself in a more appropriate manner next time.

EDIT: Fixed a "Kind" to "King"

97

The Polling Pit / Re: Definition of collectivism.

« on: May 09, 2007, 04:27:20 AM »

I put other, because again the reality of the situation is far more complex.

I don't know what Mark has defined what as, or who's pissed off about the whos-in-the-whats-it now, but when someone calls someone a "collectivist" (like when I do) I'm generally meaning A, because I'm using the term in a perjorative sense.  Coerced collectivism is the the only perjorative application to the term I know.

However, techincally speaking, collective can mean, and often does many other things.  Back in my college days I worked in Artist collectives (literally called collectives) where we collaborated on various art/media projects.  That's would be collectivism (Definition B) as well.


Context and applicaton is everything.

98

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: May 09, 2007, 12:35:07 AM »

Why even bother?  Why not just let mankind become exinct at this point since it's obvious that this morality we keep throwing around isn't:

• Truly rational
  
  
• Part of Man's nature
  
  
• predicated on a whole bunch of other stuff that no longer matters since we're at this endgame scenario.

Why not just clear the board and allow for the next evolutionary species take our place and possibly succeed where we failed.


....besides it's all a moot point anyway.  The Earth will be completely consumed by the Sun in about 5 billion years... might as well start diggin the graves now. 


...you know, just throwin' it out there.

99

The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy

« on: May 08, 2007, 05:25:44 AM »

I understand your point, Mark, but I'm going to say the same thing I said to Rillion on a different subject; I'm always a little weary when arguments start getting heavy into parable and analogy to make our cases, and before you go off:

• Partial Anarchy exists, I get it, but this has not proven that total anarchy can physically exist in the real world we live in.  I'll go back to my "absolute zero" anaology as a counter to your health plan; sure it's a number that we know exists mathmetically, but thus far is has been physically impossible to produce.
  
  
• Again, if your making the claim that: "human individuality needs to evolve" and are also making the claim that, "without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism,"....
  
  ....you're basically acknowledging what Brasky has said that everyone is going to need to follow your perscriptive "proper morality" with regards for liberty in order for this to function, otherwise, those of a more "vestigal nature" will seek to coalesce oppressive powers into a new state, as they have done throughout human history.
  
  Good luck with that.
  
  

n the long run an unprincipled, purely pragmatic approach doesn't work.

Has a purely principled approach with no regard for the world we live in ever worked?

I'll give you this point: What we're doing now with this Western Quasi-Socialist Democracy isn't really the ideal, and on this issue I can at least say, "if what were doing now isn't working, let's try something else," which is why I'm all for the attempt, as I've said numerous times.... I just am highly skeptical that it will really produce a different result for the reasons outline above.

However, if someone can show me where there is a case of total anarchy being achieved in sustained I'd love to call you a liar. Seriously though, it seems to me that humanity isn't ready for the "purely principled" solution yet, so why the continual intellectual masturbation when we (should) all agree to at least get the ball moving in the same direction.

(Message:  All you anarchists out there are going to need to the State to shrink drastically before it goes away.....unless you've amassed some army to storm the capital I don't know about.)

100

The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy

« on: May 08, 2007, 04:06:25 AM »

Individualism was only just evolving and is still evolving to this day.

Well, if you don't "believe the myth of the noble savage" and you recognize that man's nature isn't necessarily one that will naturally seek out the best morality to live in prosperity as you have contended before (with your comments of man "fulfilling his nature"), then perhaps we should talk about something that will actually be accomplished within our forseeable lifetime that doesn't require me to wait for evolution of individualism to reach its Zenith.

...and "Total Anarchy" isn't it.

Historically, societies with a greater component of liberty have proven to be more adaptable and prosperous, as well as better able to defend their way of life from aggressors. Unfortunately, without proper moral and philosophical underpinnings, a productive and powerful society is apt to forget that the source of its wealth and rich culture came from liberty and individualism. Instead, its members grow lazy and arrogant and begin to attribute their success to the collectivist tribal notion of racial and/or ethnic superiority and so risk becoming a dead end in the evolution of civilisation.

Which is a very beat-around-the-bush way of saying, "You're right, it hasn't happened yet."

101

The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy

« on: May 07, 2007, 08:55:34 PM »

I'll keep this short:

Brasky - totally agree. If we're talking "totally anarchy," then that means we have to allow individuals to voluntarily create a State, even if it means that in a few short years, those very same people are now clamouring about the oppressivness when they can't leave it.

Again, I like the idea of your arguments , Mark, I really do.  You and I can do our dance where you say, "but your arguments are strawman and flawed" and I can say, "oh yeah, show me where this state of Total Anarchy has ever existed" and you reply, "it's never had a chance because of individuals who sought to oppress others".... blah blah blah.

So I have a question, since you also say that this is part of "Man's Nature" to discover and live a morality that allows for the most productive and positive life, which = maximum individual liberty = "total anarchy."

If this was part of Man's inherant nature, what the hell happened?

...and I mean way back... back in the hunter gatherer days.  It would seem to be that back then, in the early history of Homo Sapien, your condition was met: there were no states and individuals lived within their groups as both individuals and members of their tribe/community/whatever you wanna call it, but this was a voluntary grouping for the increased chance of survival, rather than any imposed will of a "state."

But something happened.

Centralization of Leadership, Specialization of tasks amongst the population, all these these traits that Anthropoligsts have observed through archeological finds show that somewhere, somehow, Man went from "theoretically" a social animal with looslely structured, voluntary groups (as evidenced by when tribes splintered off) into the centralized States as we have them today.

So what happened?  This almost seems to me be the "Anarchists Paradox" if anything:

If human beings are by their nature their most successful in a State of "total anarchy," then why hasn't it been achieved (or sustained) at any point in recorded human history?

Logically, yes, I concede.... and did a long time ago... that the free-marketeer philosophy is the better one academically and logically.  However, whether or not it's possible to achieve is the real question, and thus far has not been proven to be feasible or sustainable.]

...unless you have some case studies you'd like to share with me.

102

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: May 07, 2007, 11:59:20 AM »

Of course it applies to all social constructs, except those which demand you to obey the State and where you cannot own weapons and defend yourself and your property. Take England for example.

I disagree, it still applies here too.  They have effectively nullified your rights because you will be killed if you try to protest.  If anything this is the ultimate expression of this "law of nature" because even though it's completely moraly wrong that they're doing, "what are you gonna do about it?"  They have become "the eaters" and you "the eaten."

But that's just the law of nature, or even more descript, the "law of necessity". (Look it up, it's a good one.)

You mean "necessity has no law?"

103

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: May 07, 2007, 11:18:20 AM »

I never said Mark wasn't academically correct in his assertion, and that really is another discussion, because I think "total anarchy" as Markuzick has described in his previous arguments (which I agree sounds awesome) is the "absolute zero" of libertarianism:  We can talk about it (like absolute zero), and we even have a benchmark of when this occurs based on observation and subsequent projection based on those observations (and mathmatical formulae in the case of absolute zero)....

However, like absolute zero, getting there is the tricky part, because even Markuzick admits that there has never been a state of "total anarchy" (read: voluntary governments minus the State) in the world.

However, what I was talking about was this:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13463.msg243361#msg243361

I'm still waiting to hear, if there are any takers, how this:

• Is a flawed statement / principle / "Law of the Jungle"
• Does not apply to all social or natural constructs - statist or anarchist

I understand the apprehension, really.  It's pretty uncomforting to think that all the "rights" and "morals" we hold dear can be effectively nullified for us on individual level (the level that matters most) simply because someone decided I was going to be "their eaten" (read: victim).  However, the fact remains that unless I can defend myself (or recieve the help of those who can) my rights are effectively worthless, because I'll no longer be alive to exercise them.

Not saying this is okay, I'm just stating what is.

104

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: May 07, 2007, 08:07:51 AM »

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed. Anything that slaves can do, including defence, free men can do better. A society of legitimate governments of can easily defeat a State of similar size.

Also, a free society does not meddle in the affairs of other societies, but, instead, only offers trade and mutual benefit to other societies and so is not viewed as a threat, but as a valuable market. Besides: The worse the crooks that control the State run societies, the more likely it is that they've stashed their ill-gotten wealth, out of harms way, in the free society. They're not likely to attack their own piggy bank.

So tell me how this sentence is flawed:

Your rights mean nothing if you can't defend them when someone (inevitably) tries to take them from you.

If this is a fundamentally flawed principle, this should be relatively easy.

(edit: fixed "principle")
(2nd edit" ...and if you can show me how this doesn't apply to all natural and social constructs, I would love it hear it.)


(3rd edit:  Maybe I'm just an Amoral person, because I don't seem to have the same qualms admitting this fact than most people.)

105

The Polling Pit / Re: Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

« on: May 07, 2007, 07:24:39 AM »

Promote peace, but prepare for war, as the saying goes.

This is a saying I totally agree with, Brokor, and I know that more than a few on the BBS don't like it when I say things along these lines, and indeed have accused me of following a "might makes right" philosophy (read: fascist).  I could go through the same arguments I've made before in other threads, but I'll distill it for everyone in one easy-to-digest sentence:

Your rights mean nothing if you can't defend them when someone (inevitably) tries to take them from you.

This "law of the jungle" applies to all social and natural constructs, be it statist or anarchist.