!agree

!gamer

Are they really glorifying Karl Marx?

That is true, lol

I've never used a sickle...

Why should we call violence to libs though?

I'm anarchist and you don't see me calling violence to all statists.

No, authoritarianism is bad.

And lol...America is probably closer to socialism at this point.

No, he's trolling.

Hi big troll.

lol communism is the Marx model.

No, totalitarian regimes geared in communism killed 100 million people.

Communism and capitalism are simply the structures. They are not the actions of a society.

No commie that I'm aware of. Just an Anarchist that likes the idea of Anarchocoalitionism,

I'm not sitting here saying real communism hasn't been tried lol

Government is unneeded.

And that, I disagree with.

lol

Anarchy simply means "no rulers"

Khan, I appreciate the sentiment, but I think that is taking a technocratic idea to a level that interferes with what humans in general believe make them human.

@exaudi632 are you saying that I'm violent?

What have I done that makes me violent, @exaudi632?

What stops me from shooting you?

You do realize that anarchy, as stated, is "no rulers" not "no rules"

@exaudi632 That is a very poor assumption.

Well, for 1, I'm not anarchocapitalist, however, the idea behind ancap is on a free market.

A lot of the ideas behind ancaps is understanding basically, Murray Rothbard, and his ideas.

Yes, but what happens when you reach a revolution? Another power structure arises and basically kills a bunch of people, or enslaves them.

That is a fair opinion, bt one that I disagree with.

Globalism is impossible.

And it won't work.

Even if it is.

You can't put the globe under a single ruler.

@BlueAndBlack That depends on the willingness of humans to learn from mistakes, and if revisionism becomes a thing, blocking future humans from the mistakes made by past humans.

Monarchy failed for the same reason most governments fail. A ruler looking for more power.

Laws =/= morals or ethics.

Not entirely true.

Not universal morals.

It's a social structure, but morals are not just simply subjective.

Morals should be the principles that guide law.

A set of morals agreed upon that already guide human action in a given area.

autonomous government led by AI is stupid to want, and scary as fuck, and I think whoever advocates for that will realize soon that that will not man out the way they want in the end.

No, no the AI, that is idiotic.

Why should we have a totalitarian regime by a non-sentient intelligence?

Are we all expected to act like robots than? lol

I get the sentiment about that, but the fact of the matter is that it is still unneeded.

It's basically putting us back into communism but with an AI ruler imo.

Well...I got caught up with reading an article, but...good talk earlier, I'm going to be inactive for probably the rest of the night, so good night ^-^

nay on the sexbots for me. If it's your thing, than go for it lol

But make sure that if you are going to a sexbot brothel, that they clean their shit lol

oh, by all mean.s More power to ya!

It's not my thing, and I will stick to that, but I'm all for you doing you lol

But, anyways, good night everyone, I gotta find me a book to read on gen.lib.rus.ec

https://twitter.com/PaulineSandwich/status/1092893547492200450

I'm interested and open to criticism on this thread, if any of you are willing to take a stab. It is a response to a video on statist answers to questions from anarchists.

You can provide feedback either here or there, however, I'm more likely to answer on twitter ^-^

lol

Well, like I said, I was thanking you guys for your feedback on my little rant on the stupid video lol

I was going to read through it, but maybe you can sum up the main points that were made?

I see

Well, the way I see it, is that I don't think there should be any force or coercion on any sort of mass scale to try to control the ditribution and use of guns.

I think both should be, but if I had to choose, income tax.

I stand on the "taxation is theft" platform.

Okay. What is the problem with the statement?

How can we be sure that the centralized government is taking our money and putting it where it needs to go? Most people don't pay attention to any sort of spending.

Besides, this centralization will no doubt water down the free market, eliminating the "free" aspect of the market.

Most of top 1% avoid paying taxes by paying a fraction of what they would pay in taxes into charities, and by putting the majority of their money in off-shore accounts.

And you are absolutely correct on that. We've never had a free market.

Any debt that our government has accumulated will not be paid back in any capacity. Especially not with any sort of fiat currency that has ran it's value through the mud, such as the US dollar.

And I'm also don't think that our society will be able to handle any sort of anarchy in it's current state...there needs to be a mass apifiny, or just....a lot of time to consider such an idea before putting any of these sorts of ideas into action. At this point, my whole purpose is to try to bring about new ideas that go along with less regulation.

And I completely concur with your idea on debt. But I'm sure that it would not be such an inflated debt that we see now. The world is in a financial bubble.

If central control is taken away, than central debt can no longer exist. And Pazuz actually beat me to the punch lol

You take a fiat based money and you can take any sort of debt, and make it impossible to pay back any of that debt in any capacity.

You said it yourself, we don't have a free market.

With a free market, lending will most definitely be allowed, with no regulation, and working with a system that has a solid value base will keep that lending from reaching a capacity that is immeasurable, unless you are completely reckless.

^

It would be completely voluntary if there wasn't any sort of loaning between the feds or the treasury, and if that held no weight on the value of the dollar.

^

Yes we would. A reset of minds as well.

Hence my above statement on how anarchy cannot be realized in our society today.

But we could do without the fed for sure.

Most people are dependent on the state to survive

YEs, but those oligarchies would than be decentralized.

And I completely concur with the idea that people can't handle being free.

They need someone to tell them how to live.

When we see a collapse in the entire social and political structure of our society, we might see it.

I didn't say people don't want to be free. They can't handle it because they don't know how to be.

Most people are too comfortable living within the safety nets provided for them.

No it's not. Freedom has to come with responsibility. Otherwise, you are giving someone else that responsibility over you. That person with the responsibility than makes the rules.

Okay, see ya! ^-^

This is what is keeping people in safety nets, and what is keeping us out of anarchy and even decentralization. If we all carried our own responsibilities over ourselves, we would be able to make easier transitions, but most within the confines of these safety nets are to used to giving those responsibilities up for more convenience.

That would be a lot of people in rehab o.o lol

I believe the whole pizzagate thing. I need to revisit that actually.

Eh, I dropped out so I can go and study independently, and have a lot more freedom with what I do.