i’d like to get a better idea of how the forum works, and why etc. so this is just a gentle request.
im interested why/how/who locked the Children NAP thread.
So am I. As far as discussions here sometimes go, that thread was fairly civilized.
would it be good or bad, if there was some text next to the ‘locked icon’ that stated when and who locked the thread, that way one could private message the mod, if one had questions to ask, or wished to apologise;
of course, this might be open to abuse, i.e. insulting pm’s. yet that can be solved by banning any such users from the forum
I would like to know why it was locked as well. My guess is it is just too politically volatile to let continue.
Well whichever mod locked it should announce it and specify why upon closing it. I’ll leave whomever it is to explain why.
My theories:
-
My threads, The Sole Keynesian, keep dominating the forum. And this is deemed “bad” by your borg leaders.
-
The last post in the thread, mine, pointed out what all your detractors are stating, that anarchy will lead to unspeakable horror, as one of the anarchists advocated that very thing. (Murder, rape, selling, children is all perfectly acceptable in anarchy society and doesn’t violate the NAP)
-
Too many personal attacks. (Some of which were very funny)
I suspect its #3 but am hoping its #1 or #2 because it feeds my ego. And if I am not making mad cash due to a freaking bear market, I need to have my ego massaged.
ixtellor cant seem to understand that just because something is legally permissable, this does not mean it will happen hella-crazy-vast-amounts-all-the-time-round the-clock and that the people who do the things dont face negative consequences. so whether or not there is any consensus on whether certain behaviours towards children are (under natural law) permissable or not, does not go so far as to demonstrate that someones opinion of what constitutes unspeakable horror would happen
Satire, look it up.
Ixtellor
P.S. One man saying he is ok with child rape and murder does not disqualify a philosophy. In all likelyhood he is a statistical anomoly. I just happen to believe that even a small number of these people will cause large unforseen and forseen problems in an anarchy society. (Those “negative consequences” you referred to, just might, maybe, perhaps result in wars and widespread armed aggression. (Factor in an arms markets with no government intervention… )
And it’s ironic, because anarchy = horror is false, but you managed to have the last word on that thread anyway =]
what is this? i understand satire fine. perhaps you dont?
It so happens that people with horrible beliefs actually wield dominant power in this society.
Oh, but when they use their power they always keep the common good in mind…
oh juan, are we agreeing on things, tell me its so! [:P]
Naturally, you have historical examples to back up this assertion?
For most of our past, humanity has not been burdened by political domination. Also, humanity has not destroyed itself in an anarchist orgy of blood and destruction despite millions of years of living free. Yet you believe that if anarchy were to reign in modernity, things would be completely different.
Why?
supposedly we are to believe that he was being satirical, and did not mean it
Since you edited my response.
NO.
I have repeated time and time again, its a belief, hypothesis, theory, feeling.
I disagree. Name a society that wasn’t burdened by political domination or some form of “State”. Name any society, where the NAP was in practice or reality.
Again, when was man free and not under the control or coersion of fellow man? Cavemen: I was under the impression they were mostly based on clans with either the strongest or wisest making decisions for the group. But I admit any anthropology classes I took was a forever ago. So enlighten me.
Hence no anarchy society has ever destroyed itself, because I am not aware of any anarchy society. Same reason Unicorn societies don’t destroy themselves.
Why did you choose to quote me accuratly now and not before? Before I was stating a fact, thanks to your editing, now you admit its my belief.
To answer your question. I believe man is inheriently selfish. Or from Mises:
“every conscious action is intended to improve a person’s satisfaction” I think I would amend it (my belief).
“every consious action is intended to improve a person’s satisfaction with the easiest (change the words but semantics)means necessasary”
So in regards to anarchy. I think some men will decide that using guns/violence to force others to do their bidding is an easier way to achieve their satisfaction. All it takes is one leader of a well outfitted, armed, and financed PDA to create major havok, if not succeed in recreating an authoritarian dictotatorship.
(Oh and the fact that some anarchists think raping, killing, eating, and selling your baby or doing the same to anyone who goes on your property is an inheriant right**)[Hint: these anarchists are closer than you might imagine, they are not an abstract example I just thought up]**
Ixtellor
Why are you wasting our time with your beliefs and feelings?
There is no libertarian or anarchist society. Therefore the ONLY thing you are doing here is theorizing and stating your beliefs.
So if you don’t like to theorize, why are you here?
Ixtellor
P.S. I am here because I welcome diverse opinions and like to expand my base of knowledge outside my ‘comfort’ zone.
What we’re doing here is argumentation. It leaves no room for beliefs and feelings.
I am almost perplexed by your charging that anarchists in general think raping & killing are legitimate.
You don’t even bother to make the distinction between varieties of anarchism, of which there is obviously a huge rift between those who believe in private property, and those who do not, those who believe in vanguardism, & those who do not, & those who believe in “the ends jsutfying the means”, or coercion being justified for the goal of anarchism.
Not every anarchist is a statist in disguise, nor an aspiring socialist in denial; if they were, then you’re calling a good portion of members here murderers & rapists & all sorts of other nonsense you’ve probably charged.
Admittedly, however, this very perception & possible ignorance on your part is also part of the reason why some people have re-considered utilizing the term “anarcho-capitalist” or “anarchist” at all.
It’s bad enough we all have to deal (to some extent) with the ‘double-life’ of participating online with our assorted communities, & then get faced-off with massive ignorance offline when it comes time to put down the cards & argue with the both the passive statists consentors & the active statist advocates.
It’s even worse when you have to do iit increasingly online, which is typically an eviroment where ideas are more open to better discussion (comments on Youtube & /b/ possibly being the exception).
Personally, I think you need to do more reading on the forums; your arguments sound just shy of ignorant, considering the usual fair around here.
If it’s any cosolation though, I might try & read the thread in the deleted forum due to piqued interest.
A little off topic, I think we need to chill with the thread deletions, imo.
And I was under the impression that axioms are not tautologically analytical, and hence, have to be taken as articles of faith.
Libertarianism, if proceeding from axiomatic individual sovereignty (self-ownership), is an ethical system. After all, no system can be grounded on pure a priori (in the Cartesian/Hume-ian sense) set of conjectures. Indeed, we must make a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” in order to justify any system. We merely make the axiomatic assumpting that humans (should) have individual sovereignty. This is not necessarily true, but it is our belief.
So we are conducting argumentation, based on our beliefs and feelings.