Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (5): « First < Previous 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next > Last »

My Views

Author Message
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #31
RE: My Views

Wait, you're saying that women's rights and civil rights are ignored by most fields? HA! Yeah, I really hope that works out.(sarcasm)Lachweg As for egoism, that is actually starting to gain massive popularity.

Anyway, I will say in response to your last statement why can't you let go of the state. Look, I was once communist myself. I abandoned that. I was also once right wing on many social issues but I abandoned that too. On the other hand, I'm NOT going to abandon anarchism because it's the last hope humanity has in the long run because of the no state can be just for any longer than an extremely short time clause. This has been proven by history sadly. So really, I arrive at anarchism out of skepticism, not idealism. However, I can't convince you of that. I can't convince of enviromentalism, therefore I stopped trying there. This will probably be similar. However, if you are going to argue with me on this, know I'm not going to change here. Why? I don't trust the state, markets, or any other hierarchy well enough to permeantely keep them. I'm okay with them temporarily, but not permeantely.

Also, what do you mean "Everyone" considering DHLhyper wasn't exactly going on with fanatical, "It's a childish idea," thing. That's my other point, you basically say the same criticism over and over again despite that it has been disproven by many real anarchists over time. Yes, you have read communist anarchists but have you read individual anarchists? Syndicalist? Egoist? Eco? The list goes on but stopping at one is simply foolish. You claim it's an adolescent thing even though many VERY intelligent and developed people have supported it. Emma Goldman, Max Stirner, and so on.

I could say your fanatically centralist, and back it up. I have backed up what I've said with history. You aren't proving anything. All you're proving is that your just as fanatical as I am in that sense.

10.12.2010 04:59
Quote this message in a reply
VincentNikolai
Independent
*


Posts: 1,414
Words count: 367,394
Group: Basic
Joined: Apr2010
Status: Offline
Reputation: 26
Experience: 178
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #32
RE: My Views

He admitted it was impossible...

I said "Most".

Let go of the state? Hmm... It could be because Anarchism isn't possible. Eyes

Anyways... You're clearly too deeply entrenched in this. You fight against insurmountable facts, a true "fanatic". Don't use words that strong so freely. I'm not a fanatic of anything, my mind adapts with circumstance. Once the circumstances are here that Anarchism is viable, it will adapt to accept it.

Now go on believing as you want. Everyone is lost at some point... No use forcing anything.


Politics has no relation to morals.
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli
The Prince- A dedication and political maneuver by Niccolo Machiavelli to prove his advice's value to the maintenance of the ruling Florentine Medici Political force.
10.12.2010 05:03
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #33
RE: My Views

I addimated what? That I'm a radical? Dude, I've told you that tons of times. I don't deny I'm radical left, I accept it. But anyway, this is clearly getting neither us anywhere. For now on, I'll just post stuff for you to read to your posts.

10.12.2010 05:06
Quote this message in a reply
henrikk
Junior Member
*


Posts: 11
Words count: 1,465
Group: Basic
Joined: Oct2009
Status: Offline
Reputation: 1
Experience: 4
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #34
RE: My Views

Direct democracy wouldn't work, the masses are too stupid!!! Big Grin
However, it is always good to consider the public opinion.

10.12.2010 06:32
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RichardAWilson
Posting Freak
*


Posts: 853
Words count: 84,143
Group: Basic
Joined: May2010
Status: Offline
Reputation: 15
Experience: 207
Glory Points: 210
Medals: 12

Post: #35
RE: My Views

Anarchism just isn’t plausible. The Paris-Commune was evidence of how implausible Anarchism truly is in the modern-world. Even it was workable and sustainable, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t be permitted by the world’s nation-states. The succession of States, after all, is a cornerstone of the American-Constitution. However, that didn’t matter during the Civil-War when the South tried to succeed from the Union. The same held true with the Paris-Commune. The same holds true with Chechnya.

10.12.2010 07:39
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #36
RE: My Views

The emergence of the state didn't create slavery, slavery was backed by primitive religious institutions (religon came before the state), which created a great coercive status-quo.
Also a lot of people don't really understand what the state was, in those times, the public authority didn't run on so called public money, the elected officials from the larger families/clans and clergymen agreed upon a set of ground rules, that were easily breakable, at a next ad hoc general gathering on the common law. These officials had their own means of income, that did not come from taxes.
The roman senators for example, did not earn anything from the rank of senator, income wise earning at least.
Today not only do we pay these elected officials, but a lot of them suck big time. Saying that the state was immoral or emerged from bloodbaths is just plain ignorance with regards to history. The state was formed first and formost out of law. That was the original function of it, to enforce a civil and penal code, yes in those times these codes were primitive, because people were superstitious and religion had its own views for civil society. The state itself (law and order) is necessary is only characteristic to human beings, because human beings have broken off from the original law of nature and changed it accordingly in order to form a society.
What did Lincoln say, a revolution mustn't be made to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow those who perverted the constitution. In other words, the spirit of the law is agreeable with society, which was created by it, if the letter of the law isn't in sink with its spirit, problems arise and it is the duty of the citizens and the public authority to work out these problems. That's why it is hard for a tyrant to rule as he pleases, because he also has to take into account that the rest of society isn't feeling angry towards him, else civil war rises and that is not good for anybody; But if the people don't manifest against such rulers, then that is a tacit approval.
Killer I understand your views, I also used to be an anarchist and believed that the people can self-organize and rule themselves just fine, (Trotsky said that the maximum state that the proletariate has achieved in self-organization was only the level of trade-unions) but the truth is, not all of them are capable of that, you cannot destroy hierarchy itself and want to progress afterwards without it.
Hierarchy is a natural thing, if you want to destroy corrupt hierarchies then I completely back you up, a hierarchy must be based on meritocracy and checks and balances, it must be representative and not self-imposed/proclaimed.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 10.12.2010 10:09 by Helsworth.

10.12.2010 10:06
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppoloLaVon
Member
*


Posts: 75
Words count: 3,537
Group: Basic
Joined: Dec2010
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 7
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #37
RE: My Views

Triniteras Wrote:

Killer300 Wrote:
It also ignores that it is VERY easy to trick people. You think people followed Hitler because it was actually in their self interest or because they thought it was?

The Nazi's did a great deal of good for Germany's economy. On the other hand, the allies ruined it. I blame the holocaust on the allies.


This guy just blamed the Allies for the Holocaust. But he did not blame the actually men that directly involved... he blames the men who tried to stop it.

10.12.2010 21:12
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Triniteras
Unregistered


Post: #38
RE: My Views

AppoloLaVon Wrote:
This guy just blamed the Allies for the Holocaust. But he did not blame the actually men that directly involved... he blames the men who tried to stop it.

They didn't try to stop it, they were protecting their own interests. They only went to war when Poland was invaded.
The persecution of the Jews started long before that. The Nazi's might not have even been endorsed by the population if it weren't for the desperate state of the economy, which the allies did little to alleviate with their Versailles treaty.

10.12.2010 21:32
Quote this message in a reply
Oscar1776
Peoples Party Leader
*


Posts: 13
Words count: 728
Group: Basic
Joined: Nov2010
Status: Offline
Reputation: 0
Experience: 1
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #39
RE: My Views

Well the reason France and Britain didnt go to war with Germany right away is because neither country was not yet ready for another war.
To stop Germany from ever returning to war, the Treaty of Versailles told Germany that they cannot add on to their land, cannot grow the military, and cannot build military weapons.
I agree that this caused WW2 and this was unfair for Germany. But Invading Poland was wrong because it was an act of war and Russia was allied with Germany causing bigger attention. France and Britain then started the campaigns.
The Holocaust refers to two eras, The scarce battles and campaigns in WW2 or the "Death by Fire." The former Germany government did not kill or prosecute Jews, until Hitler brought his Ideologies along. Which he gained power through propaganda and fear. Hitler himself never blames WW1 for Jews, nor he ever blamed the Allies. He blames the greed of them, he believed that real Jesus, Adam and Eve were real Aryans that originated from Russia than became nomads near India.
So Hitler or the Nazi regimes never blamed the Allies, so their is no reason for you to.
Plus, the execution or the "Final solution" was planned before the U.S.A. entered in 1941. The allies were not to blame... The ones to blame are the actually ones that killed the Jews that were either Nazi's, fascist's, communists, or another part of the Axis's.
Why blame Woodrow Wilson for the Cold War? Ha... that's why you seem dumb to me.


-Counting Bodies Like Sheep-
10.12.2010 22:29
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppoloLaVon
Member
*


Posts: 75
Words count: 3,537
Group: Basic
Joined: Dec2010
Status: Offline
Reputation: 2
Experience: 7
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #40
RE: My Views

henrikk Wrote:
Direct democracy wouldn't work, the masses are too stupid!!! Big Grin
However, it is always good to consider the public opinion.


I agree Mr.!

Direct Democracy wouldnt work because of the minorities. Not everyone is educated, or have flexible schedule to vote on every issue.

10.12.2010 22:36
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Winston Churchill will appear on £5 banknote. Let's recall some of his views Helsworth 11 2,753 22.09.2016 09:49
Last Post: Helsworth
  Non-orthodox views of money Helsworth 7 1,891 27.10.2014 12:03
Last Post: Helsworth
  Your Political Views beste 29 6,255 23.12.2011 07:54
Last Post: Prof de la Paz

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: