ClumsyMonkey.net

well you see, as it has been said many times before, they forefit said rights once they start strong arming me and my fellow tough, mean, anarchist mob members.

the freedoms of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin. if they start robbing me (see: the IRS) then i can shoot them.

that's right. stay out of my home, taxman.

starving eyes wrote:reno, while your counterargument is very cute, it is in no way supported by fact. i disregard it as unsubstantiated malarky which you likely just invented on the spot.

<i>try harder</i>. if you want to make a challenge to existing economic theory, you're going to have to do better then that. it is a widely accepted economic fact that social security creates unemployment and contributes to the "discouraged worker" syndrome. if you wish to contest this, please, do some research.

1935: Establishment of the Social Security system. Social Security was created as a retirement program in response to the Great Depression and the shift from a primarily agrarian-based to a more industrial workforce. Congress created a social insurance program to pay workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. The system excluded state and local government employees from coverage.

why the hell would congress do something like this if old people had pensions? especially during the great depression, a time where unemployment and "discouraged worker syndrome" must have been rampant right? is it because alot of other older people didn't have pensions? the fact that alot of companies never offered retirement packages in those times? i know alot of companies that still don't offer retirement benifits. i know of one that doesn't even offer insurance and the work done is really dangerous.

crystal baller wrote:well you see, as it has been said many times before, they forefit said rights once they start strong arming me and my fellow tough, mean, anarchist mob members.

the freedoms of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin. if they start robbing me (see: the IRS) then i can shoot them.

that's right. stay out of my home, taxman.

Don't you need proof before you start "blowing them away". How do you know who is involved and who isn't? If they look like a mobster, shoot? It isn't that easy.

no old person is going to hoard my job.

in the words of the great Rudolph Milner, "If Heat Doesn't Kill The Elderly, I Will"

Corey, the proof i would need is when they go "Hi I'm with the IRS...."

BLAM!

or in the example i was making "Hi, I'm with the mafia. Hand over your earthly goods".

BLAM!

right, but you couldn't do anything to them until then right? So while they are getting bigger and bigger, you kill just the one that comes to your house. They evetually will be too big for you to handle.

i doubt it. remember that in anarchist city, everybody shoots mobsters. how are they going to get bigger if there's nobody to bully?

reno - we have rrsp's now. i have studied much economics in my time and never have i heard of the threat of old people hoarding jobs. government pensions suck anyways. the intelligent person plans for their retirement.

it's happening today dude! people retire and then they go back to work. they do this because:

1. they can't let it go, working is all they know.
2. sometimes people need to work, instead of sitting around the house on their asses.
3. they are scared that the money they have invested will go down the drain or they won't have enough money.

companies will always choose expirience over some young guy fresh out of college.

My bros private school had there on private war about the war

fair enough, reno, but you'll notice there is no shortage of jobs.

that's true but it can be a factor in certain professions. over all though it's a bountiful job market.

i wanna job

starving eyes wrote:ha.

as i recall, we recently had a <i>very</i> short debate about the constituionality of child support. when you were faced with an argument you could not defeat, you did not do what an open minded, reasoning person would do: admit that you were wrong and adopt the correct position. no, instead, you became frustrated and <i>walked away</i>, still clinging to your now invalidated beliefs.

this leads me to my next point: you believe alot of things, and seem to be relatively passionate about them. unfortunately for you, you do <i> not know why</i> you believe them. for example, you state that "anarchy would be a total and complete disaster." you believe that this is true, but you do <i>not know why</i>. you have <i>zero</i> support for this claim, you just assume that because it is popular wisdom that anarchy is an impossibility, that it must be true.

well, 600 years ago it was popular wisdom that the earth was flat. it is not. this instance of popular wisdom was in fact, wrong. <i>study anarchist theory</i>, especially anarcho capitalist theory and you will discover that in fact, it is entirely viable. stop and <i>think</i> for a second: what about government makes it so special? why do you believe that politicians have some sort of special power or skill at managing certain functions of society that profit driven businessmen could not? indeed, empirical history has shown us that in fact, when bureaucrats and businessmen both attempt to do the same thing, the businessman consistenly offers a better result at a more reasonable price.

i do not call myself an anarchist because it will "help me in my selfish life", but because <i>i have studied it</i> and i believe it to be right. infact, i have studied a great many political philsophies over time and have eventually, after some debate, discovered most of them were wrong. i was first a communist, then a conservative, then a libertarian and finally an anarchist. my beliefs have changed over time because i was asked questions i could not answer, much like yourself and the child support discussion. however, unlike you, my beliefs then changed accordingly, and may very well change again, should some person be able to challenge anarchy in a fashion that i cannot defend against.

you seem intelligent and very articulate. i therefore encourage you to <i>think</i> about your beliefs. at the very least, having a solid philisophical foundation for your convictions will make debate more entertaining. and don't afraid to be wrong.

Yes. We did have a very short debate about child support. I stated my arguments, you stated yours. There was no need to go further with it, as I could see I wasn't going to convince you and your arguments were rather laughable in their ludicrosity.

It seems you have a penchant for finding one or two cases of injustice or abuse of a system, like child support, and saying that because of that one case, the entire system should be abolished because it's evil. Other board members even came up and said that without child support they wouldn't be where they are today. Marriages break up all the time. Are you really so misogynistic as to say that the mother should be stuck with the financial responsibility of her children while the man is home free simply because he didn't have the legal right back when to choose whether or not to abort them? You pointed out, as I recall, one or two absurd cases of injustice, which I agree weren't just. Those were one or two highly publicized cases - highly publicized because of their rarity - that should be specially handled, and the system should perhaps be changed and perfected. This is NO reason to give the thousands of "deadbeat" dads and moms in this country a way out of their paternal responsibility. There are plenty of noncustodial parents who would gladly pay money to support their children without the government's coercion. They should be commended. But should we just leave the other ones, the unfortunate children whose fathers or mothers leave and want no financial responsibility for them any more, to their own devices? Perhaps you'd rather let those kids starve, or turn to crime just to survive. I'd rather the other parent be held accountable for their parental responsibility. It takes two people to conceive a child, and it takes two to raise a child, whether those two people stay together or not.

Now. Back to anarchy. I'm quite familiar with anarchist theory, although I'm sure you've read up on it more than I have. Two of my very good friends used to be anarchists, and we would have long and heated discussions about the subject. Anarchy comes down to an idea akin to social darwinism. In an anarchist state, there would be no laws, no coersion, but there would also be no benefits, no protection. The "fit" would survive, the "unfit" - the elderly, the disabled, any marginalized minority group - would not. It is easy to have anarchist ideals when you have faith in your ability to support yourself and your family. Would you feel the same way if you were married with a couple of kids, and then were injured on the job so that you could no longer work? In an anarchist state, there would be no workman's comp, there would be no social security disability payments to help your family survive, you couldn't even sue your company for their neglicence, assuming that was why you were injured. Tell me, what would you do?

What it comes down to is what you value. I would much rather live with a social contract. These are the terms I agree to:

1. I get to vote for who "controls" me, effectively giving me and my fellow citizens the control.
2. I agree to do what those "controllers" tell me, effectively eliminating that control, because I do so williingly.
3. They agree to do what we want and need them to do, or else we take them out of office, once again, putting the control back in our hands.
4. They agree to offer programs of social benefit in order to make society better for all, and we agree to support this through our taxmoney.

These are the terms we all agree to by living in a democratic state, like America or Canada. If you don't agree, you do not have the right to tell the country to change, we have been this way for hundreds of years. The country cannot force you to accept the social contract by which all governments are formed. And thus you have options. You can try and change the country by getting the majority to agree with your opinions, or you can go elsewhere and live however you want.

By trying to impose your anarchist rights on an entire country of people who *gasp!* like being governed, you are trying to take away their right to be governed as they wish and replacing it with your ideal. That's something like fascism, and it's far worse than democracy.

You may now feel free to continue calling me names and mocking my intelligence for feeling differently than you do.

kinda off topic but, we do have the some power, if a government botchs they won't make it past the next election, this is where the term political suicide comes from......which is why after GST the conservitives only won 2 seats in all of canada, infact the PC still can't recover

i'm aware that Jean was a lying bastard about the getting rid of GST too, but hey i'm not a Liberal and i would have "wasted" my vote on the NDP anyways

Aerin -

re: child support. you asked if we believe (actually if he believes but i am putting in my two cents) if the mother should be stuck with all the financial responsibility if the father chooses to "abort".

the answer is yes. if the mother chooses to abort the baby, there is no financial responsibility for her or the father, even if dad was more then happy to pay his share and firmly against the aborition. women love to wave the slogan "my body my choice" in the face of fathers who don't believe in abortion. to them i say "my penis, my choice" and if i don't want to pay for a child i do not wish to be associated with, so be it. the mother must then make a decision - does she wish to carry the baby and assume the financial responsibility or does she wish to abort or give it up for adoption?

how are the scenarios different? they are not. prove to me, logically, that they are different and i will concede. if by declaring that child support is irrational i am a misogynist then i will by the same logic brand you a misandrist.

you're right, anarchist theory does boil down to social darwinism. the strong will survive. i believe that all men have what it takes to survive on their own and only require the application of that which makes them human, their rational mind.

would my beliefs change if my dad was disabled and my kids were sick and blah blah blah poor me?

no. never. i'll die before i take welfare. i mean that. my convictions, my beliefs, my principles do not depend on circumstance. what would i do?

survive. that's what humans do - we survive.

now on to your defense of demockracy.

1. I get to vote for who "controls" me, effectively giving me and my fellow citizens the control.

you do not have the power - they do. voting does not give you control. how does voting give you control?

all the parties are the same! liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, whatever. they all support laws, taxes, war, and tyranny, either of the few or the many.

2. I agree to do what those "controllers" tell me, effectively eliminating that control, because I do so williingly.

but what about those who wish to think for themselves? what do they do? are they not still being forced to do what you do willingly at the point of a gun? can you deny that all government is based on force? and do you agree with every single policy ever passed by any government that has governed you?

3. They agree to do what we want and need them to do, or else we take them out of office, once again, putting the control back in our hands.

and you elect somebody else who will not listen. look at kanada, the western provinces by and large hate their government. but the liberal party may never been taken out of office because of the eastern tyranny of the majority.

and you still don't have control. when they say jump, dogs, you jump. although you do so willingly, i suppose. so they say jump, sheep. (disrepsect for you theirs, not mine)

4. They agree to offer programs of social benefit in order to make society better for all, and we agree to support this through our taxmoney.

better for all? it sure as hell ain't better for me. i've never taken welfare or used more then 1% of all the goddamn social programs that exist in a country where, by virtue of earning the most, i am taxed to the tune of fifty fucking one percent of my yearly income. sorry for the swear word. but it drives me up the goddamn wall.

i don't have the right to tell the country to change?! if that's true then why do they have the right to tell me to change? i don't want kanada to change. i just want kanada to fuck off and leave me be. (sorry again for swear word)

i am not trying to impose my anarchist will on others. all that i am asking is that your demockratic will not be forced on me.

i do not believe in rule by force. i believe in rule by reason. trying to attempt the majoirty (read: largest armed mob) to agree with me is using force, not reason.

debating over any medium where logic reigns is reason. unfortunately i have seen that his is not a medium ruled by logic. yet i persist.

who knows why?

gee.

It seems you have a penchant for finding one or two cases of injustice or abuse of a system, like child support, and saying that because of that one case, the entire system should be abolished because it's evil.

the rampant abuse and injustice prevalant in the child support system is not the only reason it should be abolished. it is discriminatory and ultimately, relies on the use of force for it's application. it is no difference then any other robbery committed by the state.

Marriages break up all the time. Are you really so misogynistic as to say that the mother should be stuck with the financial responsibility of her children while the man is home free simply because he didn't have the legal right back when to choose whether or not to abort them?

logical fallacy: appeal to emotion

"are you really so misogynistic bla bla bla"

o please.

moving on, it is not the place of the state to tell a father how he should pay for his children after his marriage ends. furthermore, i challenge you to find <i>one</i> example of a <i>non custodial mother</i> paying child support.

Those were one or two highly publicized cases - highly publicized because of their rarity - that should be specially handled, and the system should perhaps be changed and perfected.

there have probably been 50 or more cases exactly like those posted on the mens activism news network in the last month. if i listed every example of child support abuse i'd ever read it would probably be 100 pages long.

those are not anomalies within the system. <i>they are the system</i>

your family court system <b>hates men</b>. this is a <b>fact</b>.

Perhaps you'd rather let those kids starve, or turn to crime just to survive

appeal to emotion.

ulitimately, child support is unconstitutional. if you disagree with this assertion i would ask you to prove me wrong.

In an anarchist state, there would be no laws, no coersion, but there would also be no benefits, no protection. The "fit" would survive, the "unfit" - the elderly, the disabled, any marginalized minority group - would not.

i know plenty of elderly, disabled and "marginalized minorities" which are surviving just fine without the assistance of the state. you should give these people more credit. they are not as weak and helpless as you imply.

It is easy to have anarchist ideals when you have faith in your ability to support yourself and your family. Would you feel the same way if you were married with a couple of kids, and then were injured on the job so that you could no longer work?

my feelings would not change. my beliefs are <b>objective</b>, not subjective. they do not depend on my circumstance. a person whose moral fiber depends on circumstance believes nothing.

you couldn't even sue your company for their neglicence, assuming that was why you were injured. Tell me, what would you do?

why not?

What it comes down to is what you value. I would much rather live with a social contract. These are the terms I agree to:

contracts are voluntary. the state is not.

If you don't agree, you do not have the right to tell the country to change, we have been this way for hundreds of years.

i disagree. justice always has the right to prevail over injustice.

The country cannot force you to accept the social contract by which all governments are formed

really? that's funny because i'm pretty sure if i started ignoring the control structure of the state, pretty soon men with guns would come looking for me.

just the other night i ignored one of the state's traffic control devices ( a red light ) and was immediately pulled over by an armed man. looks like they can force me to abide by the descions made for me by other people after all. and they do. had i continued to ignore the state's control structures (ie. the cop) he would've shot me.

By trying to impose your anarchist rights on an entire country of people who *gasp!* like being governed, you are trying to take away their right to be governed as they wish and replacing it with your ideal.

ahh, but that's the beauty of anarchy. it's all about choice. if you choose to "elect" leaders etc. you may. just leave me alone.

You may now feel free to continue calling me names and mocking my intelligence for feeling differently than you do.

"continue" implies that i have already begun to call you names and mock you. i have not.

crystal baller wrote:i doubt it. remember that in anarchist city, everybody shoots mobsters. how are they going to get bigger if there's nobody to bully?

I don't think so. There will always be people who feel safer belonging to something, be it a mob or otherwise. This is why we have government in the first place. This may come as a surprise to you but people WANT government. There's no way that EVERYONE will be comfortable with an anarchist society. They will begin to ban together and eventually form a government. Face it, there's no way that everyone would all of a sudden be well behaved anarchists, otherwise we'd be living in anarchy now.

the people who want to start a government, can.

just as long as they don't expect me to join it.