Why most of you are a bunch of propagandaized cannon fodder

I use pics because words are too much for the brainwashed, willing-to-die for their masters patriots

Is funny, because anarchism is for selfish people that seek to overthrow the current world order and seize all power for themselves. You just want to restart wheel of life until you end up in the top
If you really wanted to remove the current hierarchy for honorable reasons you would be a socialist or a nationalist, instead of a punk

Geschrieben von Tundy, 18.07.2015 at 17:36

Is funny, because anarchism is for selfish people that seek to overthrow the current world order and seize all power for themselves. You just want to restart wheel of life until you end up in the top
If you really wanted to remove the current hierarchy for honorable reasons you would be a socialist or a nationalist, instead of a punk

OR...
anarchism is for people who wish to elevate and evolve through free will expression, given to us by the universe's creator.
AND
all against anarchism are those who seek to oppress free will for their own purposes (which are likely fear and self-service based), and by oppressing free will, facilitate the destruction through the inevitable entropy which destroys all systems no longer able to exercise choice.

Geschrieben von brianwl, 19.07.2015 at 16:01

anarchism is for people who wish to elevate and evolve through free will expression, given to us by the universe's creator.

Free will of expression? Is that a joke? What honorable actions and ideas will you express that are not allowed already by the state?

You are a mod in a online game for fucks sake, if humans could be prosperous under anarchism there would be no need for mods. If we need authority in a game to enforce rules, what makes you think we don't need authority to enforce laws in the real world where people starve and are guilty of greed, rape, murder, thirst for power and corruption?

Anarchism is doomed to fail, it can only work if humans are perfect.

Geschrieben von Tundy, 19.07.2015 at 17:54

Geschrieben von brianwl, 19.07.2015 at 16:01

...

Free will of expression? Is that a joke? What honorable actions and ideas will you express that are not allowed already by the state?

You are a mod in a online game for fucks sake, if humans could be prosperous under anarchism there would be no need for mods. If we need authority in a game to enforce rules, what makes you think we don't need authority to enforce laws in the real world where people starve and are guilty of greed, rape, murder, thirst for power and corruption?

Anarchism is doomed to fail, it can only work if humans are perfect.

No joke...

For one, i'd implement a monetary policy based on providing each individual sufficient food/water, housing, communication, and medical care so everyone could explore higher pursuits. We have the technology and production capacity to provide this many times over, but our monetary policy is based on scarcity, rather than abundance.

If everyone was free from 'essential lack' we'd very quickly see who the elements incapable of getting along with others were, if none of us had any motivation to steal.

With these essentials met, we'd all be free to pursue our interests and explore our potentials.

Anyone who wanted to be dictated and ruled would be free to form this 'association', so you could still suffer in this environment if you so choose, but it would allow the rest of us to contribute in more meaningful ways than self-serving profit models.

For my personal goals, i might use my training to cure certain diseases. As it is, my entire field has been regulated so that cures aren't feasable, as this interferes with profits. So we have lots of sick people dependent on pharmaceuticals to keep profits up, as cures are not profitable.

This is seen in almost every sector now... technologies are being held back because they solve problems, which means the businesses supplying the band-aids now make no money.

Anyway... that's all... no joke though.

Geschrieben von brianwl, 19.07.2015 at 18:25

Anyone who wanted to be dictated and ruled would be free to form this 'association', so you could still suffer in this environment if you so choose, but it would allow the rest of us to contribute in more meaningful ways than self-serving profit models.

This runs so contrary to human nature.

Did you hear about what happened to the Song Dynasty? Novgorod Republic? The Dutch Republic? The Second Czechoslovak Republic? What makes you think that it's even possible to have weak, relatively free societies when there are power-mongering dictators around?

Free societies need to be tough if they expect to survive. To be tough, any large organization needs a thorough system of organization that can only be called government.

Furthermore, if you think people will freely work for what they perceive is the public good, without much benefit to their individual self, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. Just have one look at how much regulation is necessary to keep the North Sea fishing from falling apart.

People respond to incentives. Frankly, the human mind is incapable of caring about nebulous concepts like "society" or "human race," unless their welfare connects directly to their personal welfare.

Like I said it's not possible right now. You guys are right - there are too many fucked up idiots, we cannot give them freedom.

However, this is the world of the future. People will look back at religion and the ridiculousness of it like we now look back at ppl who burned witches. They will look at the state like we look now at slavery or nazis. We will be gone by then. Freedom is in the future.

Personal freedom is still possible today

"Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today" - Ayn Rand

Geschrieben von Unleashed, 20.07.2015 at 03:06

Like I said it's not possible right now. You guys are right - there are too many fucked up idiots, we cannot give them freedom.

However, this is the world of the future. People will look back at religion and the ridiculousness of it like we now look back at ppl who burned witches. They will look at the state like we look now at slavery or nazis. We will be gone by then. Freedom is in the future.

Personal freedom is still possible today

"Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today" - Ayn Rand

We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness

Geschrieben von Unleashed, 20.07.2015 at 03:06

"Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today" - Ayn Rand

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs". - AYN RAND

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." By "ideological" (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the "libertarian" hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism" - AYN RAND

"Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That's worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology". - AYN RAND


I could go on ...but i believe you are fucking owned bitch.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 20.07.2015 at 06:49

Geschrieben von Unleashed, 20.07.2015 at 03:06

"Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today" - Ayn Rand

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs". - AYN RAND

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." By "ideological" (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the "libertarian" hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism" - AYN RAND

"Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That's worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology". - AYN RAND


I could go on ...but i believe you are fucking owned bitch.

Like I said you fucking retard. I never called myself anarchist or anything else. I already stated what I believe. 'owned" on a forum like this hahaha, like that has any value, get a fucking life I come here for the lulz yet you're here all day, your ego is involved xD

Hey. Let's use some positive thinking: maybe you get cancer soon and you spare us the buthurtness, loser xD

PS: That was not a joke. I really wish for your death

Now go ahead and delete your posts and cry like you always have when you debated me LOL

tears of hate xDDD

Geschrieben von Unleashed, 20.07.2015 at 06:54

Like I said you fucking retard. I never called myself anarchist or anything else. I already stated what I believe. 'owned" on a forum like this hahaha, like that has any value, get a fucking life I come here for the lulz yet you're here all day, your ego is involved xD

Hey. Let's use some positive thinking: maybe you get cancer soon and you spare us the buthurtness, loser xD

PS: That was not a joke. I really wish for your death

Are you mad? You getting upset i'm pointing out how pathetic you are?

Btw. want me to quote you when you said "pwned" on this kind of retarded forums... so inconsistent you are, points out the lack of character.

And i never called you an anarchist... neither did Ayn Rand. She called you an idiot ...and you quoted her. That's funny.

Geschrieben von Unleashed, 20.07.2015 at 06:56

-

Lel

illustrates the world well bro

Geschrieben von International, 19.07.2015 at 21:59

...
This runs so contrary to human nature.

...

Free societies need to be tough if they expect to survive. To be tough, any large organization needs a thorough system of organization that can only be called government.

Furthermore, if you think people will freely work for what they perceive is the public good, without much benefit to their individual self, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. Just have one look at how much regulation is necessary to keep the North Sea fishing from falling apart.

People respond to incentives. Frankly, the human mind is incapable of caring about nebulous concepts like "society" or "human race," unless their welfare connects directly to their personal welfare.'

Perhaps It runs counter to your nature, and those like you. Those who give more than they receive, and form trust relations with others, and tend to do alright. (At least before the self-serving come along.) The main problem with those who form trust relations is they tend to assume others will reciprocate, or at least, if unable to reciprocate, won't set about intentionally abusing that trust to the detriment of all. So the incentive driven have a reservoir of 'free' resources in these people, to exploit by various means. I have no arguments with your points, except your claim that the self-serving behaviour is a universal part of human nature. It is an element, perhaps even in the majority, but it is not everyone - at least, this has not been my experience. Presently, it seems there are far more incentives provided to the deceptive and selfish than for the intrinsically trusting and giving, indicating that if it were universal, we would not need to invent incentives - our society would simply reflect that. If anything, incentives by the powerful show that they are trying to convince everyone else their way is the right way, so they need to create incentives so we don't follow our human nature..

One counter example to your view that we do little without individual benefit may be this post.... why do we write? What benefits and incentives do we receive? Are you being paid? (I'm not) Is my social or political standing improving? (definitely not... if anything, this time would be better spent doing almost anything else.) I suppose you could find some reason to demonstrate the self-serving nature of posting, but i am simply sharing information here, and there are no government or political institutions in which these views are acceptable . i am simply suggesting not all conscious beings are inherently self-serving - if you are thoroughly convinced this is false, i am confident you can defend this belief ( i have a really good friend who can argue we are fundamentally ego/fear/greed/self-serving and he is expert at this, even though he no longer believes this, so i no you can do it ♥.) The question is, can you open your mind to the possibility that there are some (even if a very small minority) who are not primarily motivated by selfish acts?

It is true that while the most humane, respecting, loving and hope bearing ideology is anarchism, it cannot work because peoples morals and ethics have been systematically corrupted, infected and attacked for so many centuries. We are doomed now. As a result we have subhumans like tik tok and international who would directly physically hurt other people to gain themselves, or other stupid brainless sheep, abundant in atwar and real life, who would indirectly hurt other people, just by supporting our current rotten system. And instead of critisising the current capitalistic oligarchy which is putting our world on a visible expiration date, instead of attacking the banks, the governments, the weapon manufactorers, what are you all doing? You are attacking what seems to be the weakest link, offcourse, because you are cowards. You are attacking the antisystemics, the peaceloving anarchists, because they desire a world of love, mutual respect and personal responsibility.

You all sustain the corrupted system with your ignorance. You all make it easy for the elit to step on us and suck us dry. You are ignorant and naive fools, cowards and you will let them destroy us eventually. Stupid pieces of shit.

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 23.07.2015 at 08:41

It is true that while the most humane, respecting, loving and hope bearing ideology is anarchism

And yet all of human history is made up of states, nations and territories. Anarchism has never occurred, so how are we naturally anarchistic?

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 23.07.2015 at 08:41

it cannot work because peoples morals and ethics have been systematically corrupted, infected and attacked for so many centuries.

All of history prior to the past centuries were periods of continuous nations and tribal dominance. Humanity wasn't corrupted, it is his nature. The corruption came post Enlightenment. Can you even show us examples of this 'higher morality' we conducted prior to the Victorian Age and before?

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 23.07.2015 at 08:41

We are doomed now. As a result we have subhumans like tik tok and international who would directly physically hurt other people to gain themselves, or other stupid brainless sheep, abundant in atwar and real life, who would indirectly hurt other people, just by supporting our current rotten system.

You are the one who threatened me, boy. I don't make threats, I don't need to. I don't intend to hurt anyone, I act in self defense. Your anarchist chums are very violent, they like to throw bottles and piece of sharp metal. So much for non violent anarchism.

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 23.07.2015 at 08:41

And instead of critisising the current capitalistic oligarchy which is putting our world on a visible expiration date, instead of attacking the banks, the governments, the weapon manufactorers, what are you all doing? You are attacking what seems to be the weakest link, offcourse, because you are cowards. You are attacking the antisystemics, the peaceloving anarchists, because they desire a world of love, mutual respect and personal responsibility.

At what point have National Socialists not attacked the oligarchies and banks? Your leftists just sold your nation. Fascists hung the bankers.

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 23.07.2015 at 08:41

You all sustain the corrupted system with your ignorance. You all make it easy for the elit to step on us and suck us dry. You are ignorant and naive fools, cowards and you will let them destroy us eventually. Stupid pieces of shit.

No, you make it easy because you refuse to listen to people like me. You are a peasant who refuses to learn that he is being manipulated. Everything you stand for was constructed by the very people you claim to oppose. And every action that has happened, I have predicted while you scoffed. You are continually proven wrong yet still claim to be the one in the right.

You even said the Golden Dawn would be the best option. Yet your keep holding on to your precious sexual preference. You are the one who is corrupted but I wont call you subhuman. You are entirely human and you act like most humans, victims of master manipulators.

You are afraid I am right. I am. Rome will burn.

You guys are fools. How is anarchism, socialism, nationaism, etc. better or superior? You guys realize these were all created by the Jew? Anything ending with ISM is bad. Period.

Yes, feminism is also bad. you can take a guess on who created that as well... cheers

Geschrieben von brianwl, 23.07.2015 at 05:55

Perhaps It runs counter to your nature, and those like you. Those who give more than they receive, and form trust relations with others, and tend to do alright. (At least before the self-serving come along.) The main problem with those who form trust relations is they tend to assume others will reciprocate, or at least, if unable to reciprocate, won't set about intentionally abusing that trust to the detriment of all. So the incentive driven have a reservoir of 'free' resources in these people, to exploit by various means. I have no arguments with your points, except your claim that the self-serving behaviour is a universal part of human nature. It is an element, perhaps even in the majority, but it is not everyone - at least, this has not been my experience.

[...]

i am simply suggesting not all conscious beings are inherently self-serving - if you are thoroughly convinced this is false, i am confident you can defend this belief ( i have a really good friend who can argue we are fundamentally ego/fear/greed/self-serving and he is expert at this, even though he no longer believes this, so i no you can do it ♥.) The question is, can you open your mind to the possibility that there are some (even if a very small minority) who are not primarily motivated by selfish acts?

This appears to be correct. Very well. I concede the point. Self-serving behaviour is the nature of a large part of the human race. On this we are agreed?

Geschrieben von brianwl, 23.07.2015 at 05:55

Presently, it seems there are far more incentives provided to the deceptive and selfish than for the intrinsically trusting and giving, indicating that if it were universal, we would not need to invent incentives - our society would simply reflect that. If anything, incentives by the powerful show that they are trying to convince everyone else their way is the right way, so they need to create incentives so we don't follow our human nature..

But such incentives are natural. For very obvious reasons, those that are deceptive and selfish will enjoy more, at least in terms of material wealth. Nothing short of a government with totalitarian powers can reverse that fact. We did not invent these incentives - nature provides incentives to the selfish.

Geschrieben von brianwl, 23.07.2015 at 05:55

One counter example to your view that we do little without individual benefit may be this post.... why do we write? What benefits and incentives do we receive? Are you being paid? (I'm not) Is my social or political standing improving? (definitely not... if anything, this time would be better spent doing almost anything else.) I suppose you could find some reason to demonstrate the self-serving nature of posting, but i am simply sharing information here, and there are no government or political institutions in which these views are acceptable.

I, for one, am doing this for my own entertainment. I enjoy debates.

But there is very strong evidence that you, too, think in inherently selfish terms.

600 million people are undernourished and/or malnourished, for want of $150 a year. You can apparently afford a computer. As far as evidence goes, I think that's pretty solid.

Geschrieben von International, 07.08.2015 at 05:14

This appears to be correct. Very well. I concede the point. Self-serving behaviour is the nature of a large part of the human race. On this we are agreed?

Areed.
[...]

Geschrieben von International, 07.08.2015 at 05:14

But such incentives are natural. For very obvious reasons, those that are deceptive and selfish will enjoy more, at least in terms of material wealth. Nothing short of a government with totalitarian powers can reverse that fact. We did not invent these incentives - nature provides incentives to the selfish.

Just to be clear, i was referring to 'man-made' incentives. {Paying people to do unethical things, like destroy environment, manufacture weapons, create pharmaceuticals, but no cures, etc.} The natural incentives are a mix... we are driven to eat, but we might offer our food to someone hungry... we are driven to seduce, but we might put the needs of our lover ahead of our own... i think the most universal natural incentive of non-selfishness is our caring for babies. Babies give nothing back.

But then we go create incentives to starve people (restricting food production to drive up grain prices.) We create incentives for prostitution (by providing insufficient alternatives for independence.) There's entire industry set-up (family law, one of the most lucrative) so parents can fight over who gets to take care of their offspring, with great financial incentives to the victorious parent.

i have observed that most humanitarian efforts do not receive as much financial incentive as the incentives granted to create them. Because it's a systemic observation, it might not be apparent, but if you look carefully at what motivates most truly humanitarian efforts, it wouldn't be financial incentive.

[...]

Geschrieben von International, 07.08.2015 at 05:14

I, for one, am doing this for my own entertainment. I enjoy debates.

But there is very strong evidence that you, too, think in inherently selfish terms.

600 million people are undernourished and/or malnourished, for want of $150 a year. You can apparently afford a computer. As far as evidence goes, I think that's pretty solid.

It is true.

You probably aren't aware of my efforts though... i can pm them to you, but suffice to say i have made a detailed proposal to provide food, shelter, essential medical care, and communication (for education and information exchange) free to everyone in society, through government supported institutions. {You would not believe the opposition, but also a lot of support - quite polarizing to see, really.} My use of a computer is simply to communicate and grow experience. It has never been used to profit, and when i purchased it the first file i created has the following text:

"This computer is exempt from commercial process by the author."

(the oldest file on my computer)

So, i am trying... but it is true, i have my self-serving moments. ♥