Total Members Voted: 23
Wait people actually support that?
Quote from: S\ash on April 20, 2015, 06:51:48 PMWait people actually support that?Mentally retarded people do, yes.
Authoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 21, 2015, 09:11:03 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.So I see you're firmly a member of Rousseau's school of thought then. >__>I have no idea who that isedit: oh, social contract guy
Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.So I see you're firmly a member of Rousseau's school of thought then. >__>
Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 09:39:40 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.i would love to hear about your alternative.I'm happy to share it.You're free to make your own decisions and keep your own property, as am I, and everyone else. I don't pretend to have any right to tell you what to do with your life or property, neither do you pretend to have the right to tell me what to do, because we don't. I do not presume to know what's best for you, you do not presume to know what's best for me, because we don't. If you'd like something of mine, I may consider giving it to you for some kind of compensation, or for free if I feel like it, and vice versa. We can choose to work together on a project, or choose to never speak to one another, or be best friends, or casual acquaintances.Sound alright to you?
Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.i would love to hear about your alternative.
Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 09:49:49 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:47:07 PMQuote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 09:39:40 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.i would love to hear about your alternative.I'm happy to share it.You're free to make your own decisions and keep your own property, as am I, and everyone else. I don't pretend to have any right to tell you what to do with your life or property, neither do you pretend to have the right to tell me what to do, because we don't. I do not presume to know what's best for you, you do not presume to know what's best for me, because we don't. If you'd like something of mine, I may consider giving it to you for some kind of compensation, or for free if I feel like it, and vice versa. We can choose to work together on a project, or choose to never speak to one another, or be best friends, or casual acquaintances.Sound alright to you?sounds like a world we dont or ever will live in. its an ideal. ideals and reality dont mix.Don't? Sadly this is true, we live in the world of the nation-state right now. In the future, though, there may be hope.Ideal? Yes. But this "Hurr ideals aren't reality dudeharden up life is tough hur dee hurr durr" shit is retarded. Go be a ruthless dictator then if you think there is no place for morality in this world. Don't pretend you don't have ideals yourself. You do.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:47:07 PMQuote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 09:39:40 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 09:09:38 PMAuthoritarianism is relative. All coercion is abuse, whether you're using it to get public schools built or to silence dissidents. This notion that a state can be considered immoral once it crosses some arbitrary line is ridiculous. Are some states more inhumane than others? Absolutely. But the very existence of any state is based on the application (or threat thereof) of force by one group to control another. This is inherently immoral.The United States government is no more legitimate than that of the former Confederacy, or Sweden, or the English Crown, or the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain, modern Spain, Nazi Germany, or modern Germany. All of these institutions rule by threat of force. There is no justification.There is no such thing as a legitimate state, and there never can be. Can states be an evil means to a positive end? Most here think so, but I would argue that not only do the ends fail to justify the means, the means themselves are a part of the ends. The nation-state is definitely not the most moral structure of society, and it isn't even close to the most effective or efficient.i would love to hear about your alternative.I'm happy to share it.You're free to make your own decisions and keep your own property, as am I, and everyone else. I don't pretend to have any right to tell you what to do with your life or property, neither do you pretend to have the right to tell me what to do, because we don't. I do not presume to know what's best for you, you do not presume to know what's best for me, because we don't. If you'd like something of mine, I may consider giving it to you for some kind of compensation, or for free if I feel like it, and vice versa. We can choose to work together on a project, or choose to never speak to one another, or be best friends, or casual acquaintances.Sound alright to you?sounds like a world we dont or ever will live in. its an ideal. ideals and reality dont mix.
Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 10:06:00 PMidealism on this scale is impractical. you know this.I don't though. Quote you cant just magically make the world a peaceful commune.I can't on my own. Quotethe very same problems that make peaceful anarchism impossible permeate government and ruin it.Examples please. Quotecoercion may be morally wrong, but theoretically, the applied ethics defend the social contract. human greed and bloodlust are what exacerbate the inherent moral problems with government.;consequentialist pls go. The collective has not solved the problems of greed or violence, it's only made it possible to enact violence on a global scale. Don't fucking prescribe the problem as a cure for itself.Quotethe reality is that we will suffer. day in and day out. that is the only true, applied reality of our existence. when we form communities and cultures, we form a new identity, a separate entity that cannot feel our individual pain. i think that makes it all worth it. we can only live on through the social systems that we erect. they arent perfect. they never will be. but thats ok. we can work to improve them. we WILL work to improve them.Don't cut yourself on that edge.
idealism on this scale is impractical. you know this.
you cant just magically make the world a peaceful commune.
the very same problems that make peaceful anarchism impossible permeate government and ruin it.
coercion may be morally wrong, but theoretically, the applied ethics defend the social contract. human greed and bloodlust are what exacerbate the inherent moral problems with government.;
the reality is that we will suffer. day in and day out. that is the only true, applied reality of our existence. when we form communities and cultures, we form a new identity, a separate entity that cannot feel our individual pain. i think that makes it all worth it. we can only live on through the social systems that we erect. they arent perfect. they never will be. but thats ok. we can work to improve them. we WILL work to improve them.
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating any commune. Collectivism is stupid. I'm advocating individual freedom. If you want to go start a hippie commune fine, as long as everyone involved is choosing to be involved I couldn't care less.Now, as for the practicality of individual liberty?I believe competition is the most efficient process for advancement and improvement. People are more creative and work harder when they're doing things they actually want to be doing. People will spend more and invest more when there is no mob with a flag taking a portion of their earnings every month. The state can provide no service that private entities cannot provide more efficiently and with more options.Although I will admit I'm not as well-versed as I should be in the consequentialist arguments for liberty because I'm not a consequentialist. I approach it from a moral perspective.
These are the very things that make anarchy ideal. If greed and violence are so prevalent, if humans are so inherently flawed, why the fuck are we giving them power and authority? We're enabling this violence and greed. I'm for the elimination of power.
That paragraph was a fucking mess. I'll address it, but it's stupid.Suffering is relative. I might say that I'm suffering because I've got a stomach ache, or because I'm being tied up and whipped every day in between being forced to till fields for no pay. You're right about that.But the rest of it is incoherent bullshit. What the fuck do you mean we can only live through collective, unfeeling groups? What are you, Geth? No. Any society, group, collective, commune or whatever is made up of individuals. All individuals have their own minds, feelings, and perceptions. Everyone on this planet has conflicting goals, needs, and desires. You may share some. You may share most. But we all differ on some level, this is natural and inescapable. Competition is the name of the game, and pretending that we can all unite to do what's "best for all of us" is ridiculous, because there is no greater good, and there never will be.
It all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.
I'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 21, 2015, 11:27:37 PMQuote from: Iberian Husky on April 21, 2015, 11:20:37 PMIt all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.Ah....Some of my family lives under Mugabe right now. And he's the reason I'm not living in Africa. <___<You've got Rhodesian family? Any interesting stories? Rhodesian/Zimbabwean history is fascinating to me.
Quote from: Iberian Husky on April 21, 2015, 11:20:37 PMIt all depends on the who the dictator is really... If it's someone like Tito, then sure, I could deal with an authoritarian government. If it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mugabe, or Qaddafi, then fuck no.Ah....Some of my family lives under Mugabe right now. And he's the reason I'm not living in Africa. <___<
Quote from: Azumarill on April 21, 2015, 11:31:59 PMQuote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 11:20:21 PMI'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?i was wondering if you'd address this. im an existentialist. because we do not have any inherent purpose for living beyond survival and reproduction, we are free to carve our own meaning into the world. i choose to live for the pursuit of epicurean pleasure. someone like me could find great happiness in a free for all. in fact, i would ideally prefer it. but it cant last in anything except an isolated system. you have to know this. even members of the lesser animal kingdom form informal governments. it's the natural way. we'd have to achieve transhumanism in order to transcend our instincts.Members of the animal kingdom also reproduce by rape and murder the offpsring of competitors. We, as humans, are lucky enough to be self-aware and conscious of our actions, as well as the effects of our actions on other, equally sentient humans. We are not the same as wolves, we are not the same as ducks, or sharks, or goats, or chimpanzees. Do some of the same rules apply? Yes. Because of the scarcity of resources, we will always compete for access to them. That said, I should hope we are aware enough to know not to use violence to reach those resources, and to shun and retaliate against those who do.So I don't think humans need a violent hierarchy to survive like some animals do. We're past that point. We know better. We can and do cooperate on certain things because we know we should, not because we're beaten into it. I believe violence begets violence, and coercion begets coercion, so by institutionalizing coercion we are enabling it.
Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 21, 2015, 11:20:21 PMI'd like to remind you, though, that your life is meaningless with or without these social systems. When you die you're dead. When your friends die, they're dead too. The Earth itslef is going to die, someday. We, as a species, will die. And when that happens, all of our statues, books, films, buildings, everything will have been for nothing. Humn achievement is fleeting. Rather than trying to build monuments in sand, would you not rather try to live a dignified and personally satisfying life while you can?i was wondering if you'd address this. im an existentialist. because we do not have any inherent purpose for living beyond survival and reproduction, we are free to carve our own meaning into the world. i choose to live for the pursuit of epicurean pleasure. someone like me could find great happiness in a free for all. in fact, i would ideally prefer it. but it cant last in anything except an isolated system. you have to know this. even members of the lesser animal kingdom form informal governments. it's the natural way. we'd have to achieve transhumanism in order to transcend our instincts.
Poll
People who believe that Authorianism is good...