Philosophical anarchism

[Zazaban]

I believe you can only vote once on a poll here. Dunno why the results are what they are.

Shall I prove you wrong, or will you just trust me?

Well I can certainly only vote once. I guess it must be different for guests.

[Guest]

I believe you can only vote once on a poll here. Dunno why the results are what they are.

Shall I prove you wrong, or will you just trust me?

Well I can certainly only vote once. I guess it must be different for guests.

Of course members won't be able to vote multiple times, because their votes are logged.

[Guest]

I also proposed the option of basing it on human nature, a position which I also agree with.

(okay, I admit I also proposed it as a "fuck you" to all the communists who like to rant against the concept of human nature, but still)

Kropotkin believed in human nature. When I rant against it, I'm going against my main man. I can agree with his conclusions about the best ways to live as social animals, without agreeing with him on human nature.

Kropotkin was wrong about human nature, and so are you. Human nature is nonsense. To support it, you must show that my behavior is hard-coded. This immediately falls apart, since humans are not identically-behaving clones.

If you claim to only mean that propensities are hard-coded, while actually-expressed behaviors are learned, then you agree with me and should stop claiming to believe in human nature.

[Francois Tremblay]

Are you being an idiot? NO ONE claims that actually-expressed behaviours are hard-coded. Did you seriously believe that was the pro-human nature position?

Of course "propensities are hard-coded, while actually-expressed behaviors are learned." That's what the whole concept of the evolution of behaviour, emotions, etc is about. That's the reality of it!

If you put a bird in a cage with a button that he has to peck in order to be fed, he's gonna try pecking it and he's gonna be fed. Birds don't stumble on such buttons in nature: this is not hard-coded. But make the correlation more vague and the bird will develop superstitions, just like human beings do. They were not taught to be superstitious. There is no bird parent out there going "well, sometimes when I swirl around to the left five times, food magically appears."

If you deny that animals have natures (including humans) brought about by evolution, that means you have to believe EVERYTHING is learned (tabula rasa). But to me that's obvious nonsense. I've said this on the board before and I'll say it again: the communist rejection of human nature is anti-scientific at its core. It's a desire to push human consciousness away from study and experiment, and into the realm of the magical, some sort of twisted version of individualism or belief in souls.

[Guest]

I crushed your idiocy months ago, but you never responded. So fuck you. Go find that thread, read it, have a cry when you discover how devastatingly I pwned you therein, then put a bullet in your fat, hard-coded head.

[Francois Tremblay]

You have an unhealthy imagination. Do you feel frustration at me exposing your anti-scientific belief system? Do you often imagine people you disagree with killing themselves?

[African_Prince]

My belief in anarchism is an extension of my belief in egalitarianism, individual rights and anti-paternalism. As a pan-(Black) Africanist, I think the modern day state is responsible for most sub-saharan African poverty. It should be abolished along with capitalism and all hierarchical and authoritarian elements in human society.

[variagil]

Yes, there countries like Mexico with enough natural resources to give food and basic needings to all his population, but State´s politics make the richs more richs and the poors more poors.

[Guest]

Phihilosopher L. A. Rollins (The Myth of Natural Rights) and George H. Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God) found that a philosophical case for individual sovereignty goes back at least as far as John Locke in 1690 in The Second Treatise on Government where he said "...no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself." Slightly later, in 1698 in Discourses Concerning Government , Algernon Sidney said "This will be evident to all who consider, that no man can confer upon others that which he has not in himself.". And still later, in a letter to Thomas Bayard in 1882, anarchist/abolitionist Lysander Spooner stated "No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person..."
Followed to it's logical conclusion this concept would endorse anarchism-- the end of big government and the US Empire. If this concept is both logical and ethical, which no one has yet refuted, lets bring it on.

[variagil]

I know Locke, more than 300 years of cold water. But ideology can move in an individual even suddenly from one side to opposite. I prefer to discuss with more leftish individuals -at least in appareance deduced from what they say- in order to give the hegel´s dialectic go from my thesis to another antithesis and evolve to a more leftish sinthesis. At least in theory. Because practice show that "five points" -tatoo from jails about heroin adiction- and autonomy give a synthesis in another dimension other than classics left and right in class war (The classical problem of the teenagers violence is quite important here, this relation of friendship-violence related to future development of the childrens love feelings and political ideology, the relationship with himself and his body is one genealogy of the pain, that´s what is approached with this knowledge of teachers of the teenagers about is known as SM, related also with own family and friends).

[Guest]

I hear you. I think that anarchism could provide a kinder, gentler, and much more humane world than capitalism. communism, or anything in between.

[Guest]

Let me add to the above that at least I hope that anarchism can provide these things. Also, Locke was inconsistent. He said, effectively, that people are sovereign, and then again, he said that people should abide by some kind of "social contract" that they are not voluntarily a party to.

[Guest]

Protesting and political activism, either by leftists, or by tea party types, does any good unless a government is already ready to topple. Mencken was probably right:
"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time." H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956) In fact, the only benefits we may get from accepting the idea of anarchism are that we no longer are delusional about the wonders of patriotism and statism and are more tolerant to other cultures and ways of life, and we don't spend our time and money trying to elect politicians who say they will either provide "change we can believe in" or "take this country back." Once you develop this mindset and stop fighting the politicians at their own game, you may wish to continue to associate with likeminded people, not so much to effect immediate change, but to share thoughts, have good times, and provide each other moral support.
The time and money not spent on politcal activism can be used to further our own educations. English-speaking people with any facility for languages might try to learn Spanish, Chinese, or any other language, if they can, and investing in teaching their children Chinese would probably be a terrific value to them. Other forms of education, be it nursing, plumbing, auto mechanics, welding, gunsmithing, etc, in addition whatever job skills one already possesses, is also likely to be of great value in the future, especially if times get really tough. This may sound pretty pessimistic, so let's hear more opinions on the subject. (reprinted from AnarchistBlackCat)

[variagil]

Protesting and political activism, either by leftists, or by tea party types, does any good unless a government is already ready to topple. Mencken was probably right:
"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time." H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956) In fact, the only benefits we may get from accepting the idea of anarchism are that we no longer are delusional about the wonders of patriotism and statism and are more tolerant to other cultures and ways of life, and we don't spend our time and money trying to elect politicians who say they will either provide "change we can believe in" or "take this country back." Once you develop this mindset and stop fighting the politicians at their own game, you may wish to continue to associate with likeminded people, not so much to effect immediate change, but to share thoughts, have good times, and provide each other moral support.
The time and money not spent on politcal activism can be used to further our own educations. English-speaking people with any facility for languages might try to learn Spanish, Chinese, or any other language, if they can, and investing in teaching their children Chinese would probably be a terrific value to them. Other forms of education, be it nursing, plumbing, auto mechanics, welding, gunsmithing, etc, in addition whatever job skills one already possesses, is also likely to be of great value in the future, especially if times get really tough. This may sound pretty pessimistic, so let's hear more opinions on the subject. (reprinted from AnarchistBlackCat)

Yes, I think learning Chinese can be useful. I´ve a nice from my 2nd cousin order (4th from the grandfather) that is chinese and his fathers want the girl don´t loose his own language and nowadays goes to Chinese language learning courses. Very pretty and clever, but we know that the interracial problem is true in many senses. The statism unicity is present in the most leftish organisations, like the ABC (Anarchist Black Cross) that only presents one e-mail for country in the capital.

I´ve read sometimes AnarchistBlackCat, whose writers are mostly from US, and I think there´re like here this anarchism enthusiasm that was given in the summers of anarchy that has been given historically in many places, where also make cooperatives, organised popular and participative meetings to take decissions about the property of the production media and class struggle. I´ve said many times that I think anarchism should be anarchosyndicalism.

The "witch hunting" of anarchists and communists during the first half of XX century -like the false accusation against Sacco and Vancetty with the death penalty- give very strong ways of resistance in the ethnically oppressed minories in many senses. But the unions and the leftish political movement was dissolved by strenght and the political power became the power of economic lobbies. Very interesting the history of the resistance of the oppressed minories, we´ll see. Nice to speak with you.

[Guest]

Nice speaking with you, too. What country are you in now? I'm in the Southeast US, in Florida.