Are you an anarchist or a state-worshipper?

[Jackney Sneeb]

I have developed a scientific, sure-fire, whiz bang test to determine whether one is an anarchist, or a state-worshipper: Where are you on the new political spectrum?

--Jackney Sneeb

[tman_ndsu08]

You have one mistake...


question 15: Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that

have been tried.



Are you honestly trying to say that democracy is just as bad as socialism.

Hey...i'm just as much as an anarchist as you (maybe more so), but i know that at least i have SOME rights in democracy.

I'm not trying to say that Democracy is fair and good..it's horseshit. But the way you worded the question is mis-leading.

I request you change it.

I ain't no damn libertarian.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
You have one mistake...


question 15: Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that have been tried.

Are you honestly trying to say that democracy is just as bad as socialism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What I say is there's no such thing. If democracy exists, why is George Bush president?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

Hey...i'm just as much as an anarchist as you (maybe more so), but i know that at least i have SOME rights in democracy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
In what way are you as much an anarchist as I am?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
I'm not trying to say that Democracy is fair and good..it's horseshit. But the way you worded the question is mis-leading.

I request you change it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Uh-uh. The question stays.

--XCobraJock

[koi]

it's a question that seperates the minarchists from the anarchists. therefore it is essential

[tman_ndsu08]

If any of you are interested...this topic was went into much better depth @ www.anti-state.com.

The question is simply based off of a quote by Winston Churchill. Because the quote is from a famous politician the automatic answer is false. That was the logic that went into it.

In pure democracy (which doesn't exist) you have the potential to have even less rights than socialism or facism (it's simply up the voters).

However, when i saw democracy i automatically thought of the US system (dumb, i know) and assumed that was the definition being used. If that was the case, then "democracy" gives you more rights than socialism or facism (you can own property, for example).

I don't think the question can be answered correctly unless you're using the pure democracy definition or if you knew the question was just a Churchill quote. So if you include one of those..then the question can stay.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

The question is simply based off of a quote by Winston Churchill. Because the quote is from a famous politician the automatic answer is false. That was the logic that went into it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The answer is "false" because the statement is a senseless political jingle, pure propaganda. It's supposed to be cute, which is why it appeals to people who base their philosophy on feelings instead of facts. It's the kind of thought-evading tripe the kakistocracy uses to lure slubberdegullions into voting booths.

Who should rule you:

a) you
b) someone else

'a' rules out democracy. 'b' makes you one of the slubberdegullions.

--Jackney Sneeb

[castille]

I vote for "I should have the right to rule myself".

Therefor, I am against socialism.

[suijurisfreeman]

Imagine that, this suijurisfreeman scored a 0! I believe in and practice individualist-anarchism, I never "entered into society", I am not a "member of the body politic", I never gave my explicit consent to be governed. I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being back in 1993, I am not the property of the "state", my favorite bumper sticker is FUCK AUTHORITY!

[AnonT]

I have to agree that the question on democracy should be changed or taken out. You can believe that no government is better than any form of government, while still believing that democracy is a better form of government than the rest, even though it's still worse than anarchy.
Also, you can disagree with the quote and think that socialism, fascism, communism, democratic republicanism, constitutional republicanism, etc. is the best form of government, while not being an anarchist, and having anyone who dislikes democracy get a point towards their anarchy score while they may in fact be far more statist and authoritarian than some people who prefer democracy over other forms of government.

If you put up a poll asking which forms of government people would like or dislike, an anarchist would put "dislike" for all of them, but even most statists and authoritarians would only put "like" by the few forms of government they most want.
If you went into the 'hood and asked people which gangs they'd like to have operating in their neighborhood, gang members will only like having one more gang in their neighborhood than people who don't want any gangs at all (ie. the gang members will want their own gang running things, but not anyone else's). Asking questions about which specific gangs people would like to see, or which particular form of government they'd like to see, still doesn't get you any closer to figuring out whether or not they'd like to see any at all. By using that question, you make extreme statists sound anarchistic because they'd like a form of government other than democracy, when in actuality they're more anti-anarchy than most supporters of democracy.

[Write Winger]

I think a capitalism based republic with a limited government would be the best for running a country of any size. You take the United States and you strip off say...80 of the Federal Government and 65% of the state government and 50% of the local government....make sure everyone is armed, ban the concept of entitlements and safety nets.

Now ya got yourself a country.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
I think a capitalism based republic with a limited government would be the best for running a country of any size. You take the United States and you strip off say...80 of the Federal Government and 65% of the state government and 50% of the local government....make sure everyone is armed, ban the concept of entitlements and safety nets.

Now ya got yourself a country.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
thats all well and good when you have personal responsibility,
but isnt that the problem? a lack of accontability on the individual
anarchy works well for the individual sure, lets say im a member of an anarchic society, im a nice guy resposible, i help others, i work hard, no problem, but whatabout the vermin that are present in every mass of humans? who stops them? because the minue you start organizing groups of people to act in an civic manner you are creating government again

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
I think a capitalism based republic with a limited government would be the best for running a country of any size.  You take the United States and you strip off say...80 of the Federal Government and 65% of the state government and 50% of the local government....make sure everyone is armed, ban the concept of entitlements and safety nets.

Now ya got yourself a country.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
thats all well and good when you have personal responsibility,
but isnt that the problem? a lack of accontability on the individual
anarchy works well for the individual sure, lets say im a member of an anarchic society, im a nice guy resposible, i help others, i work hard, no problem, but what about the vermin that are present in every mass of humans?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The people who scored high on the test elect them to political office. Good job. Take the worst people among you, give them machineguns, tanks, and nuclear weapons and tell them it's their job to steal, order everyone around, and make war on your neighbors. Your rational concern about a few lone, random robbers and killers has caused you to irrationally agree to put a system in place that makes mass theft and mass killing an institution. And if that isn't bad enough, it doesn't work. You get robbed by the gangsters in Washington DC every payday, plus you still have to worry about the lone killers and thieves, because the state doesn't stop them.

Way to go.

--Jackney Sneeb

it is obvious you are very antiestablishment

so far so that you call me irrational

ive always found it HILARIOUS how its always the people who have all the facts but dont know how to comprehend them that sling the insults first

in your little conspiracy theory laden world, givernment is automatically bad, and is automatically guilty of crimes

thats an irrational and extremist stance itself

maybe you should back up a second, or mel gibson will play you in a movie

[Write Winger]

Anyone who thinks that large groupings of people will exist without a government of some kind are not just irrational...they are a-rational.

You get 10 people together in one place...inside an hour you have a government.

The key is creating a government that isn't gonna rob us blind so that they can buy votes from the unproductive parasite class that springs up as soon as the government starts writing checks.

This country and this government is too far gone to fix...so it must be abandoned. I harbor no illusions that there are enough people left with balls to actually execute the kinds of changes that would need to come about in order to foster such change. So we have to wait until the whole thing collapses under is own weight.

I believe several things are true. In the United States, the parasite class is quickly overtaking the productive class and in the very near future they will manage to vote themselves an almost total redistribution economic model. Capitalism will hang on for a couple of years and then fall apart. Government will step in to fill the void but will discover that force doesn't produce nearly the wealth of liberty and we will experience a depression that makes the 1930s look like an upswing.

Unfortunately by then, the idea of self reliance and capitalism will have been purged from the minds of all youth and there will be no way to recover economically. So the government will have to get more oppressive so that they can retain power and maintain order. Eventually some people somewhere will get tired of it and fight back.

I will not live to see it...but my son will.

[Impenitent]

the party of the impeached liar still thinks the votes of the parasites will let them be the oppressors... how soon we forget the triumph of the ussr... government works miracles...

im sorry if i got a little emoted there

but i hate when someone doesnt discount the opinion but rather discounts the person




also id like to say that things are never a bad as we think they will be or as bad as they were

[Poetic_Justice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
also id like to say that things are never a bad as we think they will be or as bad as they were<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Your use of the word never, makes your statement an absolute. This is a "hasty generalization" fallacy, please restate yourself or withdraw this statement gecko, because most certainly I can bring forward examples of where it was JUST as bad we thought.

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave

[Write Winger]

like that last post for example....

[Automatic Nate]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
In the United States, the parasite class is quickly overtaking the productive class and in the very near future they will manage to vote themselves an almost total redistribution economic model. Capitalism will hang on for a couple of years and then fall apart. Government will step in to fill the void but will discover that force doesn't produce nearly the wealth of liberty and we will experience a depression that makes the 1930s look like an upswing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
First of all, let me say that I'm a huge fan of apocalyptic doomsday predictions.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Write Winger,)
Unfortunately by then, the idea of self reliance and capitalism will have been purged from the minds of all youth and there will be no way to recover economically. So the government will have to get more oppressive so that they can retain power and maintain order. Eventually some people somewhere will get tired of it and fight back.

I will not live to see it...but my son will.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What does that matter to you? After all, in the years between your son's birth and his moving out, he will is/was/will be (don't know how old your son is) part of that "parasite class," won't he? No job, no contribution to the country's wealth, just sponging off of other citizens (who happen to be biologically related, but let's not slip into that sentimental practice of picking and choosing our parasites) for sixteen, eighteen, maybe even twenty-two years. And by the time your end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-I-feel-fine scenario happens, YOU might be a part of that same class! If your capitalist dreams come true, you'll be receiving interest on a heap of money you've accumulated, but if something (Enron, WorldCom, four horsemen) happens to your savings, you'll likely have to rely on other citizens (don't tell me there's a biological connection! You're not making money, so you're a parasite!) to sustain your non-productive carcass.

Of course, if those who at the moment are not producing wealth were people instead of parasites, we might be able to say something else about the practices of assisting the needy and participating economically in a shared civic life, but I didn't set the terms to this here debate.

[Write Winger]

I have yet to witness a government program that "assisted the needy" without degenerating into a permanent entitlement blown way out of proportion to the original problem and making the original perdictions of cost look like an optimistic guess.

If you can't see the difference between supporting ones family whom we are responsible for and propping up multiple generations of people from cradle to grave because somewhere along the way it became more important to purchase their self respect than to actually move them towards self sufficiency then you are probably a perfect democrat. Your relativism has clouded your ability to discern compassion from compulsion. If you think my providing my offspring with a room and not charging him rent is the same as people who are adults demanding and getting the fruits of my efforts to pay their rent then you are not living in reality. The support of my son is by love, compassion and voluntary....the support of the parasite class is by force and threat of imprisonment for me.