First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Things are looking up for Obama
2279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Omnipresent
Offline
Posted 5/13/11
Gonna still vote for Ron Paul though...I believe he'd be a better president with no mess to clean up as he enters into office. I don't dislike Obama though.
33079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 5/13/11

longfenglim wrote:



That is my point, no Politician, not even your beloved Obama, keep their promises and they always rule as their predecessors, thus, it is far, far better we be without them, even if we must rid ourselves of the machine of government. If a limb were to be irreparably diseased, is it not wise to cut it off before it infect and harm the rest of the body? Should not the government, if irreparably diseased, be removed lest it starts to harm the citizenry? But, after that first sentence, you have lost me completely- I really can't tell if you are accusing me of being an anarchist or a totalitarian. Those two principals are, intrinsically, contradictory, one wishing that there be no government, and the other, wishing that government and authorities prevails on all accounts. The first, of course, you characterise by chaos and lawlessness, when Government does not necessarily mean order and law. Order and law may exist without government, and vice versa. The second, you only make reference to in comparison to our current system, that is, that it is better we live free of overt tyranny and under subtle tyranny than the contrary, which I completely agree, we can continue to live under an illusion of progress and power to the Citizenry while our government continue to rule as it always had, covertly, corruptly, incompetently, and following through the same policies as their forefathers of old. But I, myself, am not content with such illusion of power and listen intently upon the false honeyed words of a power-hungry thief and be guiled and lulled to electing a cretin, I would much rather live in a nation free of any government or under a wise prince aided by able ministers than continue to toil under the massive stupidity of this current government.


Anarchy in its purist form cannot exist with order and law, because anarchy in its purist form is chaos without structure. Any form of structure within a structureless system is not anarchy. I make the reference towards totalitarianism because of its extreme structure. An anarchistic body has no structure, no military, no form, and at the first attempt to organize its no longer anarchy but something else. For example, what if a foreign body with extreme structure invades an anarchist body. What do you think will happen? I'm not saying anarchy cant exist, but I will say that it cannot exist for long. Money is structure, and money is based off of fair trade. Under that guise wouldn't any organization of people be structured no matter how chaotic.

And Dom, the nature I'm referencing is the long recorded history of our violent one. Sure we have the ability to empathize with each other, but thats not what makes us human, empathy can be seen in other animal species too. Also that doesn't stop us from shooting someone else in the face if we have the idea that they are threatening our reality. If our reality is based off of our perceptions, aren't we all just deceiving ourselves?
Posted 5/13/11

frankl0k wrote:



Anarchy in its purist form cannot exist with order and law, because anarchy in its purist form is chaos without structure. Any form of structure within a structureless system is not anarchy. I make the reference towards totalitarianism because of its extreme structure. An anarchistic body has no structure, no military, no form, and at the first attempt to organize its no longer anarchy but something else. For example, what if a foreign body with extreme structure invades an anarchist body. What do you think will happen? I'm not saying anarchy cant exist, but I will say that it cannot exist for long. Money is structure, and money is based off of fair trade. Under that guise wouldn't any organization of people be structured no matter how chaotic.

And Dom, the nature I'm referencing is the long recorded history of our violent one. Sure we have the ability to empathize with each other, but thats not what makes us human, empathy can be seen in other animal species too. Also that doesn't stop us from shooting someone else in the face if we have the idea that they are threatening our reality. If our reality is based off of our perceptions, aren't we all just deceiving ourselves?
While I'm concerned that this debate had gone off-topic, but you've ask some critical questions that's on course with the spirit of enlightenment thinking in philosophy, of nirvana in Buddhism, of zen in Taoism, of spirit-walk in Animism. And my emotional self is delightful to see that philosophical curiosity of yours.

Anarchy is a conceptual model that's the same as the meaningless noise in empirical science. Yet it's a contradiction in and of itself as a constant, simply because a literal state of anarchy is an order that requests constant chaos by its very meaning. It's what cognitive science defined as an unrealistic ideology of perfection, or a dangerous meme that lacks flexibility. Or by your own definition, a totalitarian state of the mind. And anyone with that mentality cannot master philosophy, let along analyzing one's own logic.

And who says that humans are the only animal specie that can conduct murder? In the form of organized killing. Just as organized institution without moral compass as an oversight, can become an abusive social manipulation of sheer evil, our morality can be based on spontaneous information aggregation. But only when we were presented with all the fact, not confirmed biases that only cement our superstition. And never stop asking these moral question, why and why not. Otherwise, we'll become just another propaganda machine, led by the media as an institution of manufactured public consent.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 5/13/11 , edited 5/13/11

frankl0k wrote:



Anarchy in its purist form cannot exist with order and law, because anarchy in its purist form is chaos without structure. Any form of structure within a structureless system is not anarchy. I make the reference towards totalitarianism because of its extreme structure. An anarchistic body has no structure, no military, no form, and at the first attempt to organize its no longer anarchy but something else. For example, what if a foreign body with extreme structure invades an anarchist body. What do you think will happen? I'm not saying anarchy cant exist, but I will say that it cannot exist for long. Money is structure, and money is based off of fair trade. Under that guise wouldn't any organization of people be structured no matter how chaotic.

And Dom, the nature I'm referencing is the long recorded history of our violent one. Sure we have the ability to empathize with each other, but thats not what makes us human, empathy can be seen in other animal species too. Also that doesn't stop us from shooting someone else in the face if we have the idea that they are threatening our reality. If our reality is based off of our perceptions, aren't we all just deceiving ourselves?


Anarchy is not inconsistent with Order, even if it is inconsistent with the idea of law, just as government is not the embodiment of Order. If you want chaos, look no further than our August Legislative Bodies, petty quarrelling, fiddling with our treasury, &c. If this be government, then let us be rid of it. To the point- how is Order inconsistent with the idea that a man should be able to rule over himself and respect the rights of others to rule over themselves?

Then you pose the hypothetical, what if a totalitarian body invade an anarchic body? Obviously, I do not know, and neither do you. But, usually, the aim of most anarchist groups tends to be on the international level, therefore, if Anarchy were to prevail, there would be no hypothetical invasion. Therefore, bodies such as the military, an arm of the government, has no reason to exist, because there is no enemies for them. If we let the wisdom of each man direct them, and so long as they respect the rights of other men to be ruled by their own wisdom- in a word, if each man were a sage- then we have no need for government at all, and thus totalitarianism or, indeed, any government, will never grow surrounded by sage minds unwilling to let themselves be ruled by the idiocies of others.

Furthermore, you make the absurd statement about Money and structure- who said either is necessary for a healthy and functioning society? Money is a by-product of Structure, needing the structure of Government to give it worth, and without Government, the other have no value. It is stupid to think that worthless pieces of metal and paper should be a necessity of living.

And, about Man’s penchant for violence, I would like to remind you that most violence are organised and in no way anarchic, be it the government ordering men to shoot other men of a different government’s employ, or rioters directing each other toward shops to loot and minorities to lynch. Most people, I wager, are not so inclined to violence as you would imply, and, unless you have scientific proof behind your baseless assumption of Man's innate evil, you had better stop spouting such nonsense. Unless there is proof that you are right, you are better off not making such statement and passing it as fact.

But, I stand by my original conviction: any government, even no government, is better than this one. Does this mean that I completely support Anarchy? Of course not! I would wish that the people of this country just get rid of our current government and replace it with something not so prone to unchangingness in policies and unreflective of the will of the people. But, if it doesn't come to that, then we should just dump government and let each man be his own king so long as he respect the kingship of any other man.

And, more to the Topic, no, Obama will be remembered one amongst the series of unending blights that characterise post-minimum politics of the United States.
57 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F / Somewhere
Offline
Posted 6/13/11
I want to give Obama a high-five.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/20/11

Cruncherr wrote:

I want to give Obama a high-five.


Why do you want to give him a high-five?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.