Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **rothbardian** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:52 pm

Nemo-- I didn't see your post before I posted a comment to Sarutama. I'll have some more comments later, about your statements.

by **professorpan** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anarcho-capitalism proposes organizing our community on principles of privatization.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, that will really fix things. . . . Anarcho-capitalism might sound fine on paper, but implementing it is about as likely as flying a rocket made of balsa wood to the Moon. And the problem lies more with the "privatization" than the anarchism. I have seen what happens when privatization runs amok without some form of oversight and regulation. Keep dreamin', Roth.

by **Sarutama** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Privatized government is anarchy. What we have here is a difference in our definitions.<hr></blockquote> Taken from websters: anarchy One entry found for anarchy. Main Entry: an·ar·chy Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när- Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH- 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker> If the definition of anarchy is the absence of government then ANY government, privatized or otherwise, is not anarchy.

by **johnny nemo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:58 pm

Syndicalism refers to a set of ideas, movements, and tendencies which share the avowed aim of transforming capitalist society through action by the working class on the industrial front. Anarcho-syndicalism, or collectivism, the idea that everyone is the state, seems to me a more viable option than chaotic dischord. I believe that's what you're espousing, roth, but I won't speak for you .

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:02 pm

Roth, my puter is dying the death of the pre pentium motherboard, so I have been unable to continue our little chat. having lost 4 posts to it lets just say your attitude to liberalism reminds me too much of Anne Coultier to take seriously. Probably a good thing anyway we were getting off track. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anarcho-syndicalism, or collectivism, the idea that everyone is the state, seems to me a more viable option than chaotic dischord. I believe that's what you're espousing, roth, but I won't speak for you.<hr></blockquote> See I don't think you are espousing this at all, but I may be reading you wrong. If this is your take, we may be talking at cross purposes arguing about the same thing from the same side. BTW I am interesting in continuing our little discussion but maybe not here.

by **4911** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:10 pm

...check out the last civil war in spain...

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:25 pm

My old man grew up in an anarchistic state. Fiji in the 50s and 60s had its moments of anarchism, especially among those fighting for the 5% of Fijian land able to owned as "Freehold title". There was a family my old man tells me about, who used to intimidate and murder people out of the land, and take the title deeds. They used to try it on with my family, and when two carloads of blokes would roll up in the driveway, every male in the family would be out of the house and fields swinging their cane knives and it would be ON. We always argue about anarchy and he always comes back to this point. It was only his families ability to deliver more violence in a more effective way that kept them in that house on that farm, with that freehold title we still hold today. (Now there's a big inter family shitfight over it - gotta love irony.) So over the years my anarchism has been moderated by the fact that ultimately the ability to deliver violence is the only security we have, and that in some ways a form of government is necessary to moderate that violence and control it. So life isn't a constant free for all. (Personally I don't mind that concept, but as I get older I am getting soft.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As to the Libertarians....almost all of their platforms are a shortcut to thinking. Abolish government and if we don't end up with roving gangs of psychopaths and thieves, we'll all be enslaved by companies, like we were prior to the Labor Reforms of the early to mid 20th century.<hr></blockquote> They started with (well nothing ever starts anywhere, but were highly influenced by) the Eureka stockade. Something that had 151 years of influence on Australian labour laws. This is the danger with abolishing government. Government is organised violence and in a democracy it is SUPPOSED to represent the people. If the people don't own it someone else will. That is the nature of violence, and all power groups are just ways of organising violence to serve their own ends IMO. I am not saying the status quo is good, but what will replace our current system?

by **LilyPatToo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:25 pm

I know some actual anarchists and, believe me, our founding fathers were not a lot like them. They're like hyper-Libertarians, in one way and like that really aggressive, rebellious, hostile loner kid you knew in high school, in another. They want to overthrow the government, but they don't seem to really want to establish a government in its place when they're done and everything is in ruins. To be honest, they strike me as pretty unworldly and naive. They live in Berkeley and honestly I don't think they'd last long anywhere in the Real World. LilyPat

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Forgive me Mary I payed dearly for the coin I tossed And the words you say, on an almost Autumn day you'll carry them with you All life long.<hr></blockquote> Dan Warner (tho I doubt he was talking about MG) In the context of the Fundies support for a pathological Israel, and ceratin Texas oil billionaires penchant for cattle breeding (Yet again Rain is on the money), what would the dismantling of the American Constitution, or for that matter any common law developments do to the supposed protection (that are there just not put into practise) they are to provide. It took 800 years of common law for the results of Eureka in Australia to bring about a codified 8 hour working day, Universal Sufferage, the first non land holding mp in Australia etc etc. In the chaos that follows any attempt to rebuild the Temple on the Mount the chances of maintaining those protections that were fought for so hard and at such a cost is pretty slim. I don't really care cos when push comes to shove I can shove pretty hard, so can my family, and my community is pretty strong and the terrain round here is pretty full on. But despite the neitzsche quotes, sometimes it is only the state that actually protects the weak from the tyranny of evil men (to quote a movie namesake). Today the state and that tyranny are pretty hard to seperate. But its not cos the state and they are inseperable, its cos they have managed to gain almost total control of all the states power mechanisms. I would prefer the system to be knocked down and rebuilt to certain specs myself, but I dunno if I have the necessary hardness to begin the process that knocks the system down. If I could snap my fingers and say "Be like this... Now" that might be OK. But starting a real "War to end All Wars". I don't actually think thats possible. I don't think that matters tho. Cos as Maynard once mentioned: "Mums coming round to put it back the way it ought to be." So in that context. Start planning your what you will build out of the rubble.

by **rothbardian** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:43 am

So many different points being raised. I'm choosing one or two...and maybe catch up later. Never heard of Anarcho-syndicalism, by the way. It's not a term being used by leading classical anarcho-capitalist Libertarians. The labels start to get confusing. The PTB is no help either. For example, that Webster's dictionary definition of "anarchy" is a farce, as far as serious Libertarian scholars are concerned. Hillshoist-- It might not be as hard as you think to remove bad government. Tyrannical systems collapse all the time. It's a wonder the U.S. is still standing. The Soviet Union crumbled all on it's own and nobody had to lift a finger. The Phillipines ousted Ferdinand Marcos with a kind of modified Tianenmen Square-- a mass gathering that snowballed into his fall from power. Captain Nemo-- You keep referring back to these guys who go around breaking windows and writing graffiti, as though that now disqualifies anyone from seeking freedom. I suppose you're entitled to drag the conversation over into a discussion of these quasi-hippie types who, by your descriptions, seem not to be perpetrating freedom, so much as body odor. Meanwhile back at the ranch, the world IS poised on the brink of a dark age of totalitarianism. The Founding Fathers have INDEED proposed an anarchical removal of tyrannical government (to be replaced by ANY FORM of organizing we choose-- again refer to Declaration of Independence) If our current situation in America (and the world, for that matter) is not a dead-on match to the scenario which the American Revolutionaries were facing...then I must have lost my mind. In fact, the scenario we are in is FAR WORSE. There have been far greater infringements on our freedoms from the current batch of despots than ANY early American EVER faced. The current set of psychopaths want world domination and enslavement. The British throne wanted a 1% tax (if memory serves). No to be too hard-hitting but...thank the Good Lord you weren't there when the Founding Fathers huddled up and decided to try and destroy/abolish the government they were under. The conversation might've gone something like this-- Nemo: "Wait a minute. You guys are proposing that you destroy and bomb out of existence a standing government...because of a 1% tax??" "First of all, where I come from, the despots have blown up thousands of our citizens in 'false flag' terror operations at the WTC." [Note: Time travel is involved in my little story here.] "Our despots have driven us into false wars. A bunch of false wars. They're in the process of setting up a police state. And I'm still in favor of keeping our government in place. What's your problem?" "By the way, what were you planning on replacing the government with?" The Fathers: "We don't know yet. We haven't got that far. If you talk to a dozen of us, you'd get a dozen versions." Nemo: "Oooh boy...that sounds an awful lot like anarchy. You're just a bunch of guys who want to run around throwing bombs...and have no clear idea of what is to follow except that you'll be "free". Suuuure, I've heard that before. You guys ought to move to Berkeley. You'd love it there." The Fathers: "So...your generation of despots are so evil they've murdered thousands of you? And they're setting up FEMA prison camps across the nation? We're even hearing that these guys are so evil, they've implemented mind control slavery? Is that true?" "We've heard that your nation's leaders have engaged in the wholesale smuggling of drugs INTO your country? That they are the sole source of these drugs? Demos and Repubs alike, involved in this?" "We're hearing there is massive widespread pedophilia and organized international pedophile sex slave rings...organized BY your current generation of despots...by your very leaders? Is this true??" "May we pose a question to you, Mr. Nemo-- When were you planning to invoke our advisory (in our Declaration of Independence) to abolish tyrannical governments that might arise? Were you going to wait until all 300 million U.S. citizens have been tied to a burning stake (or something)?" "When is it time to abolish a goverment? We're doing it over a 1% tax. According to you...we're nuts." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/5/06 1:51 am

by **eroeoplier** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:07 am

"Forgot about the whole "...and to institute a new government" part." I thought it would go without saying that I and the people organizing that protest aren't suggesting the structure of America's government be dramatically altered or abolished. It *needs* to be dramatically altered - starting with the abolition of the privatized Federal Reserve - but more people need to be made aware of the situation before that can occur. Maybe I didn't say enough to make myself clear given the context of this thread, with talk of anarchy etc. I think the private/public dichotomy is misleading, and I think America, more than most, has been tricked into believing that public = bad, and private = good. Think of insurance companies/schemes. Most insurance is done by the private sector, and insurance companies are looked upon as glorious examples of the spirit of capitalism in action. But what are insurance companies in reality? They are fundamentally and thoroughly socialistic enterprises! People joining together to spread the risk. It is only ideological blinkers that allows us to fail to recognise this. I'm sure in theory I could agree with many/most anarchistic concepts, but I'm guessing that anarchism requires an educated and aware population in order for it to satisfy most of the people most of the time, and we don't have that anywhere in the world, including America. A. Stop Bush B. Replace Bush with someone who has the interests of all Americans in his heart. Simple.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:15 am

I stand with rothbardian, and exhume the words of Pope Arnold: Kill em all(figuratively for those who would emerge unscathed in a Hague trial, literal for the Worthy), let God sort em out, as long as it sweeps clean the Halls of Power. This shit is BROKEN, and ANYTHING would be an improvement. People seek to trivialize the nomenclature to death and drown in the details, but if the reins were passed to me I would re-affirm the Sovereignity of the individual states and completely de-centralize power everywhere I was able to, here and abroad. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.sickle666.com/images/Arcadia.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/5/06 3:22 am

by **HMKGrey** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:24 am

Sorting of picking up on both Joe and Roth: A lot of totalitarians over the years have come to grief because of their almost innate desire to overreach themselves. Once these bastards have seen a few of the dominos fall their way, they think they all fall like that. We may be watching Israel, the US and Britain all doing this right now. They got away with 9/11 (for now) and felt incredibly ballsy about charging in to Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran would have been next and sooner but Iraq has turned very, very ugly and the yreally didn't expect that. Take a heap of ego's that are so big they have jumped the line to malevolence, throw in a messianic leader, scatter the whole thing with a bunch of creepy christian fundies and it's easy to see how this all gets fucked up in a nanosecond. The office of President is only a job. The government is only a business. It's as prone to fuck ups, maniacs and shit-for-brains people in top jobs as your local dry cleaners. Except the government probably has worse communication. Seriously. Where we come in, IMHO, is that we have to try and recognize our chance. When they overreach and it kicks them in the ass - as it surely will any time now - change can be effected by the people if we're ready and willing and prepared to seize the moment. If they're wobbling on the precipice, we don't have to burn it all down or go in guns blazing. A good push should do the trick. I know it sounds simplistic but - fuck - isn't the way to win at almost anything by expoloiting your opponents weakness? And if these bastards have any weakness at all, it's that they believe their own hype. Watch thsi weeks hearing with Rummy. That guy is seriously mentally ill.

by **havanagilla** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:19 am

RothB, i loved your littel skit ! I am gonig to try and borrow the gist of it, and translate to Hebrew with your permission. It is a good intellectual gymnastics ! However, the answer might come differently, yes, the american revolution and independence war from the UK was a mistake, and the proof is that in a brief time (historically speaking) you have a much worse regime with criminals who don't even have some "noblesse oblige" self restraining mores as the brits do. But nevertheless the hypo is compelling.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A. Stop Bush B. Replace Bush with someone who has the interests of all Americans in his heart. <hr></blockquote> You forgot: C. Neutrailize the parapolitical body that would splatter your replacement's brains all over the nation in a new Killing of the King ritual.. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: re: Declaration of Anarchy

Re: re: Declaration of Anarchy

Well

Anarcho-syndicalism

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism

Re: Anarcho-syndicalism

Addressing a couple points.

Re: re: Declaration of Anarchy

Re: Addressing a couple points.

Re: Addressing a couple points.

Re: Addressing a couple points.

Re: Addressing a couple points.

Who is online