This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Obama a socialist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
No, it is not. You have no army, what good are tanks? You are one man, are these remote controlled tanks?
Are you Multi-Boxing them?
Are they robotic?
Missing the point, I think.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I dont mean to shove anything back, I just never got what you were getting at. Perhaps it was a poor choice of formatting with little to no explanation. I thought you were merely being a smart aleck, I was wrong.
In further explanation, in implementing a solidified power structure within an anarchic state, you are placing ORDER and therefore breaking the anarchic state. That doesnt necessarily mean it is a bad thing, but it is no longer an anarchic state (of being).
There is no man-made order. I have x% chance of being able to defend my claim to this property. Even anarchism can't get rid of the laws of probability.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In creating rules you broke the ONE RULE OF ANARCHY: there are no rules.
The rule you created: I have more power than others.
Uh...that's not a rule. That's a fact.
3 tanks > 0 tanks
Someone comes along with 4 tanks, guess what? I'm screwed (assuming he's as awesome at logistics as I am). There is no rule that I have more power.No, it is not. You have no army, what good are tanks? You are one man, are these remote controlled tanks?
Are you Multi-Boxing them?
Are they robotic?
I already explained this. Free market. I offer goods/protection/knowledge/etc. in exchange for help.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There are no rules in anarchy. Therefore I haven't broken any. You're begging the question.
It isn't an anarchy if you are able to rule over it.
Who said I'm ruling over it? I'm employing the tenants of anarachy (free market and no law). I have no interest in forming a government. I offer good in exchange for other goods.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Thanks, I will take your ham sandwich, and then kill you. That is also anarchy my friend.
/clap
Now you understand anarchy. You're stronger than me, therefore you're better than me. That isn't a man-made order.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Hyperspace, following your logic, you are saying there is no rule in any system. Anyone can do anything they want. Alright, that sort of runs counter to your initial point (whoever has power decides what happens), and it also doesn't really help explain anything about what anarchy is. Remember, when you argue in theory and then you start making assumptions counter to what is generally thought to be true in reality, then your theoretical conclusions might not tell you anything.
By the way, whoever has the most force makes the rules isn't anarchy, its either a dictatorship, or a tyranny.
Post by
MyTie
BTW, MyTie, The article you asked me to read was not about Socialist theory, it was more about the soviet state, run by the Communist Party, and I never argued that the communist party of Soviet Russia was a livable sustainable embodiment of socialist ideology.
After all my hard work trying to first set up the differences between socialism and communism. /sigh
It was just an example of socialism in government. /sigh
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyperspace, following your logic, you are saying there is no rule in any system. Anyone can do anything they want.
Show me where exactly that follows from.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Anarchy is devoid of absolute power, retribution is not unlawful, and loyalties can not be assumed. In an anarchic state, every individual has an equal claim to everything.
You're lumping potential claim and actual claim into one. I have a doll in my hand and a gun in the other. You want the doll but don't have a gun. I have an actual claim on the doll, you have a potential claim on the doll. I > you in relation to claiming the doll.
Post by
MyTie
BTW, MyTie, The article you asked me to read was not about Socialist theory, it was more about the soviet state, run by the Communist Party, and I never argued that the communist party of Soviet Russia was a livable sustainable embodiment of socialist ideology.
After all my hard work trying to first set up the differences between socialism and communism. /sigh
It was just an example of socialism in government. /sighAre Socialism and Communism the same then? Is Marxism the same as Leninism?
Is all that the same as Obamaism?
Obamaism? Geez...
No, No, and No. They aren't the same, but they aren't completely different. There are some aspects that are held commonly between them.
Post by
TheMediator
Hyperspace, following your logic, you are saying there is no rule in any system. Anyone can do anything they want.
Show me where exactly that follows from.
Ruling something is controlling something else.
Who said I'm ruling over it?
You then say that you are not ruling something else when you put control over it. All government is based on ruling through control. Since you are saying that control isn't rule, then you are saying there isn't rule.
You're lumping potential claim and actual claim into one. I have a doll in my hand and a gun in the other. You want the doll but don't have a gun. I have an actual claim on the doll, you have a potential claim on the doll. I > you in relation to claiming the doll.
That's why true anarchy is only theoretical. You will never be able to have a situation where everyone has equal control over everyone else, otherwise someone will rule over someone else, and it will no longer be an anarchy.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyperspace, following your logic, you are saying there is no rule in any system. Anyone can do anything they want.
Show me where exactly that follows from.
Ruling something is controlling something else.
Who said I'm ruling over it?
You then say that you are not ruling something else when you put control over it. All government is based on ruling through control. Since you are saying that control isn't rule, then you are saying there isn't rule.
I have no control over anything. See Thekingotown's
post
where he kills me, or my post where the guy with 4 tanks comes in and stomps me.
I have no control over anyone. All I have are the goods/services I'm offering in exchange for the goods and services I'm receiving.
I still see no connection.
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, that's why I'm saying you are saying that there are no rules. You said you can't control anything, and controlling something is ruling it. Therefore, you are saying there is no rule in any system, because there is no control.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.