Is this biased reporting?

[Occhidiangela]

There are fine examples of Anarchist movements that did succeed: post-revolution russia before the Bolsheviks stole power, socialist zionist settlements in the area of Palestine earlier this century before Britain screwed everything by selling out the indigenous Palestinians, or the East Wind community in Missouri, or the countless others around the world that we all but choose to ignore.

OK, you offer an example in Russia that did not last a generation, a micro Zionist setting that already had common cultural assumptions in a reasonably homogenous (culturally) population, and a small community in Missouri. Micro to macro scaling is not as commons as some think.

You offer us nothing that serves a nationstate of even modest size in the modern world.

Strike one.

A better implementable system? That's ignorant. No system is ever perfect

I said implementable, not perfect. Why did you choose to go with that rejoinder? Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Strike two.

On the bright side, we agree on the need for vigilance, though I have no idea if your prediction is correct or not.

Wishing I was shark bait just underlines what a hateful person you are. I may not care for you, but I do pity you.

I don't suffer fools gladly, chum. Intellectually, shark bait is all you are worth, based on your contribution to this thread. I'd be pleased to see you demonstrate otherwise.

Save your pity for those who need it.

Strike three, you are out.

Occhi

[Eirinjas]

Hi,
"All animals are created equal  . . .
BUT
. . . some animals are created more equal than  others."

You've got a great political ideology -- for ants and bees.  For intelligent beings, it is a passing phase from moros to sophos usually occurring shortly after puberty.

Anarchy? Sure.  But remember that, "Anarchy only works as long as everybody follows the rules."  There's always going to be someone who is (or thinks he is) smarter, faster, and other -ter's that aren't coming to mind, than the norm.  And that person (let's call him the Wolf) sees the rest of society as his prey (let's not call them "The Sheep"  -- that's been done and overdone).  So for protection, the weak will find a Wolf to follow, and competing Wolves will fight, and ranks and tiers of Wolves will be generated, and lo-and-behold, the Anarchy will give way to Feudalism.  For the rest of this story (so far -- we've not yet exhausted that road), find a good Western History book that covers the twelfth to twentieth centuries.

Oh, and by the by, the USA is not a democracy.  Democracies only work for groups up to a few thousand.  The USA is a republic, a much more sensible form of government.

You remind me of the Welsh and Scots separatists.  A desire to return to a perfect time that only existed in romantic imagination.  Your opinion is your opinion, but it would hold more weight with me (and many others, I'd guess) if it were based on facts from this universe, this era, and this species.

--Pete
[right][snapback]93442[/snapback][/right]

Your analogy of Wolves and Sheep IS an exact metaphor for Captialism. It's exactly the same analysis! And Anarchy has NOT been done to death - the fall of Feudalism and Monarchal control, for most of the world, is a very recent thing in human history. There have always been Emperors, Kings, Princes, Dukes, Barons, Czars, Priests, Shamans, and Presidents calling the shots.

And Democracy could work on a large scale provided the effort to develop such a system was ever put in place. It has NEVER been attempted. So, to say it can't work when that system has never existed is, at best, an incomplete argument.

[Eirinjas]

OK, you offer an example in Russia that did not last a generation, a micro Zionist setting that already had common cultural assumptions in a reasonably homogenous (culturally) population, and a small community in Missouri.  Micro to macro scaling is not as commons as some think.

You offer us nothing that serves a nationstate of even modest size in the modern world. 

Strike one.
I said implementable, not perfect.  Why did you choose to go with that rejoinder?  Don't try to put words in my mouth. 

Strike two.

On the bright side, we agree on the need for vigilance, though I have no idea if your prediction is correct or not.
I don't suffer fools gladly, chum.  Intellectually, shark bait is all you are worth, based on your contribution to this thread.  I'd be pleased to see you demonstrate otherwise.

Save your pity for those who need it. 

Strike three, you are out.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93444[/snapback][/right]

Well, I resign form arguing with you because you're an idiot, plain and simple. You leave a disgusting after taste. I will continue to pity you though.

[Occhidiangela]

And Democracy could work on a large scale provided the effort to develop such a system was ever put in place. It has NEVER been attempted. So, to say it can't work when that system has never existed is, at best, an incomplete argument.
[right][snapback]93445[/snapback][/right]

Replace Democracy with Communism in that statement and you get "it has never been achieved" (since it has been attempted) if everyone put the effort into it." This of course requires "everyone" to agree, a thorny problem, and that gets us back to Pete's point about Anarchy requiring everyone to agree to follow the rules, and that takes us back to the problems of Utopian ideals in general running afoul of the imperfectability of Man.

So, we are left with "what has so far achieved the 'good enough' standard?" So far, autocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, and absolutism have achieved some successes in some cultures, albeit at some cost to the average citizen, while republics achieve other successes with different associated costs.

Which system goes furthest to balance the needs of the citizen with the needs of his fellow citizens? I'd say the mythical "enlightened despotism," which requires the rarest of creatures, an enlightened and just despot, and republican forms of government, which vary. (A generation from now, the world may be marveling at the success of the Islamic Republic in Iran, depending on how it evolves.)

Democracy holds the trap of the tyranny of the majority, which in a non homogenous society (be it culturally or racially) spells out "it stinks to be you" for the minority.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Well, I resign form arguing with you because you're an idiot, plain and simple. You leave a disgusting after taste. I will continue to pity you though.
[right][snapback]93447[/snapback][/right]

LOL, how charming, he transitions to "you can't fire me, I quit." *snort* Oh, lookie here, he folows up with the witty "you must be an idiot since you don't agree with me." How droll.

That bitter aftertaste in your mouth is your own manure, which I've sent back to you, and which you have apparently consumed.

Have a lovely weekend, and brush your teeth.

Occhi

[Doc]

Replace Democracy with Communism in that statement and you get "it has never been achieved" (since it has been attempted) if everyone put the effort into it." This of course requires "everyone" to agree, a thorny problem, and that gets us back to Pete's point about Anarchy requiring everyone to agree to follow the rules, and that takes us back to the problems of Utopian ideals in general running afoul of the imperfectability of Man.

So, we are left with "what has so far achieved the 'good enough' standard?"  So far, autocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, and absolutism have achieved some successes in some cultures, albeit at some cost to the average citizen, while republics achieve other successes with different associated costs.

Which system goes furthest to balance the needs of the citizen with the needs of his fellow citizens?  I'd say the mythical "enlightened despotism," which requires the rarest of creatures, an enlightened and just despot, and republican forms of government, which vary.  (A generation from now, the world may be marveling at the success of the Islamic Republic in Iran, depending on how it evolves.)

Democracy holds the trap of the tyranny of the majority, which in a non homogenous society (be it culturally or racially) spells out "it stinks to be you" for the minority.

Occhi
[right][snapback]93449[/snapback][/right]

From the minority point of view, I must heartily agree with what Occhi just said. There has been plenty of times where the "It stinks to be you" thing has really bit me in the ass because the majority is in total control.

I also thought he worded it rather well. Tyranny of the majority... That sounds about right.

[Eirinjas]

From the minority point of view, I must heartily agree with what Occhi just said. There has been plenty of times where the "It stinks to be you" thing has really bit me in the ass because the majority is in total control.

I also thought he worded it rather well. Tyranny of the majority... That sounds about right.
[right][snapback]93452[/snapback][/right]

You mean, for instance, like the tyranny of the majority of Republicans in both Houses? What about the tyranny of the minority? Took one man to send us into Vietnam, and one man to send us into Iraq. No Congressional, and therefore, no legal authority for those wars.

[Doc]

You mean, for instance, like the tyranny of the majority of Republicans in both Houses? What about the tyranny of the minority? Took one man to send us into Vietnam, and one man to send us into Iraq. No Congressional, and therefore, no legal authority for those wars.
[right][snapback]93453[/snapback][/right]

No... I aint talking about that...

I AM NOT WHITE.

So the minority thing that Occhi said really struck a nerve with me. He put in to words what I have been feeling for all these years.

I am talking about actual life as it effects me being a minority. Like... Walking in to a place to get something to eat and being refused service. Or having to ride on the back of the bus when I was a kid. Having to use a different toilet or a water fountian. Or go in to a place using a different door. All because of majority rule being a kind of tyranny. For a long time I hated the idea of democracy because I thought it was another word for Whites Ony.

I have since changed my views.

[Eirinjas]

No... I aint talking about that...

I AM NOT WHITE.

So the minority thing that Occhi said really struck a nerve with me. He put in to words what I have been feeling for all these years.

I am talking about actual life as it effects me being a minority. Like... Walking in to a place to get something to eat and being refused service. Or having to ride on the back of the bus when I was a kid. Having to use a different toilet or a water fountian. Or go in to a place using a different door. All because of majority rule being a kind of tyranny. For a long time I hated the idea of democracy because I thought it was another word for Whites Ony.

I have since changed my views.
[right][snapback]93456[/snapback][/right]

That would exist in any system - we still deal with an institutionalized racism in this country. Our society has continued to evolve through enlightenment era ideas and, I think, will continue to do so. Racism in one form or another will still persist, but not like it existed 30 years ago.

[Doc]

That would exist in any system - we still deal with an institutionalized racism in this country. Our society has continued to evolve through enlightenment era ideas and, I think, will continue to do so. Racism in one form or another will still persist, but not like it existed 30 years ago.
[right][snapback]93458[/snapback][/right]

Of course it's changed you doorknob. It's made the worst sort of change. The quiet, festering, slow boiling seething sort of change.

Instead of signs saying whites only on the door, there are signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And they frequently do.

Some times, something like this is better out in the open where people can clearly see. Otherwise, people wont look for it because they don't want to see it. A lot of people are under the impression that the South has become a little better. They would be wrong.

In some ways, it has become a little more tolerable. Jim Crow laws are gone... At least officially. But the unseen stuff that goes on is the very worst sort because it slowly builds pressure till it reaches explosive mass. And when it does... Everybody stands around going "What the hell" because everybody tries to pretend they didn't see it coming.

Racism evolves. It doesn't get better. It gets worse. It finds new ways to get worse, while at the same time disguising it self better and hiding all traces of it's passing, to make fools and idiots believe that it is going away or that it no longer exists. People want it go away but nobody actually wants to work on cleaning up the system that allows it to fester.

Enlightenment era my ass. I loathe that term.

[Occhidiangela]

You mean, for instance, like the tyranny of the majority of Republicans in both Houses? What about the tyranny of the minority? Took one man to send us into Vietnam, and one man to send us into Iraq. No Congressional, and therefore, no legal authority for those wars.
[right][snapback]93453[/snapback][/right]

The majority in the House and Senate were Republican, AND, the President was Republican. With majorities in House and Senate being Democrat and a Republican president, Reagan, there was better balance. One can argue that with a Majority in the House, and then the Senate, favoring Republicans and a Democrat (WJ Clinton) in the house, the checks and balances were more functional, and of course the bickering was as energetic as ever.

It took one man to send us to Viet Nam? Yeah, John F. Kennedy. It took the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (passed by what legislative body???) to give Johnson the political security he needed to escalate Viet Nam. That's more than one man.

Check your facts:

No Congressional, and therefore, no legal authority for those wars.

It took both houses of Congress giving Pres Bush very cursory, or no, deliberation to give him authorization to "use force" (note, not "declare war") in Iraq. It thus has the sanction of Congress, regardless of whether or not the Congress declared war. They ducked their responsibility, as I see it. The whole process took a months long PR campaign aimed at harnessing the emotional energy of 9-11.

That took a lot more than one man.

It always takes more than one man. Or maybe, it takes "more than one man" asleep at the wheel . . . :P

Occhi

PS: Check out Wilkerson's comments in the LA Times a few days ago regarding who hijacked American Foreign Policy. It's a good read.

Occhi

[Eirinjas]

Of course it's changed you doorknob. It's made the worst sort of change. The quiet, festering, slow boiling seething sort of change.

Instead of signs saying whites only on the door, there are signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And they frequently do.

Some times, something like this is better out in the open where people can clearly see. Otherwise, people wont look for it because they don't want to see it. A lot of people are under the impression that the South has become a little better. They would be wrong.

In some ways, it has become a little more tolerable. Jim Crow laws are gone... At least officially. But the unseen stuff that goes on is the very worst sort because it slowly builds pressure till it reaches explosive mass. And when it does... Everybody stands around going "What the hell" because everybody tries to pretend they didn't see it coming.

Racism evolves. It doesn't get better. It gets worse. It finds new ways to get worse, while at the same time disguising it self better and hiding all traces of it's passing, to make fools and idiots believe that it is going away or that it no longer exists. People want it go away but nobody actually wants to work on cleaning up the system that allows it to fester.

Enlightenment era my ass. I loathe that term.
[right][snapback]93464[/snapback][/right]

If the ratio of whites to blacks were 1:1 you'd still have racism. Women outnumber men in this country and have for a long time and sexism persists to an as great, if not greater, degree than racism.

If it wasn't for "enlightenment era" figures like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and the like (and their ides) - then Jefferson, Franklin, and a whole host of our Founding Fathers would have been many degrees less the men they turned out to be, and blacks might still be openly dispossessed by the government. You can literally read Locke in the Declaration of Independence.

So, Capitalism and Federalism helped protect the equal rights of blacks how? Every statistic I see points to the opposite - Capitalism degrading and minimizing blacks and the Federalists doing everything in their power to cut social programs that would benefit blacks (like the recent defeat of the Coburn amendment).

[Minionman]

It's just this post that you made that IS trolling.
[right][snapback]93439[/snapback][/right]

You've said some things that are just plain wrong, or way out there "JFK/Lincoln assanations having to do with money printing, U.S. revolution being over money printing, you did not check your money printing history in other countries. You've also siad some other things that suggest you haven't been reading up on your information. (You compared 'ideal" anarchy, socialism, communism, etc. with what often happens with actual society to make a point, you blamed everything on "caitalism" without explaining what part of capitalism cause the problems, etc.) these let me believe that you somehow don't have the information, or are pretending not to have it.

Edit: you probably have some good ideas wating to come out, just check your information and pay attention to what other people say, they have some good points too.

[Minionman]

Doc, by any chance, do you live in South Carolina? :)

[Doc]

Doc, by any chance, do you live in South Carolina?  :)
[right][snapback]93482[/snapback][/right]

Yes.

[Eirinjas]

You've said some things that are just plain wrong, or way out there "JFK/Lincoln assanations having to do with money printing, U.S. revolution being over money printing, you did not check your money printing history in other countries.  You've also siad some other things that suggest you haven't been reading up on your information.  (You compared 'ideal" anarchy, socialism, communism, etc. with what often happens with actual society to make a point, you blamed everything on "caitalism" without explaining what part of capitalism cause the problems, etc.)  these let me believe that you somehow don't have the information, or are pretending not to have it.

Edit:  you probably have some good ideas wating to come out, just check your information and pay attention to what other people say, they have some good points too.
[right][snapback]93479[/snapback][/right]

I have the correct information. You just don't like what you hear.

A Congressman describes Colonial Scrip and what happened when it was taken from us:
http://www.libertydollar.org/Federal_Reser..._Reserve_15.htm

Kennedy's order that would have resulted in money printed against silver as opposed to buying money from the Federal Reserve with interest and against NOTHING (the Federal Reserve pulls money out of a magic hat instead):
http://www.jfklibrary.org/exec_orders/eo11110.html

[Minionman]

I have the correct information. You just don't like what you hear.

A Congressman describes Colonial Scrip and what happened when it was taken from us:
http://www.libertydollar.org/Federal_Reser..._Reserve_15.htm

Kennedy's order that would have resulted in money printed against silver as opposed to buying money from the Federal Reserve with interest and against NOTHING (the Federal Reserve pulls money out of a magic hat instead):
http://www.jfklibrary.org/exec_orders/eo11110.html
[right][snapback]93494[/snapback][/right]

You also suggested that Kenedy and Lincoln were killed because of this, and that printing a lot of money would solve problems. I'm not arguing that Kenndy didn't support the currency changes, hadn't heard of currency act, but for the other things you wrote, sorry, doesn't wash. Also, you still compared an ideal system to how the world actually works, which you haven't been able to explain, and still didn't bother responding to the points in my first post.

[Taem]

You mean, for instance, like the tyranny of the majority of [Republicans in both Houses]? What about the tyranny of the minority? Took one man to send us into Vietnam, and one man to send us into Iraq. No Congressional, and therefore, no legal authority for those wars.
[right][snapback]93453[/snapback][/right]

Tyranny n 1. A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 2. Dominance through threat of punishment and violence

There you go again with your contradictorily examples! Bush is Republican while JFK was Democratic. In addition, it took more than "one-man" to send us to these wars! Are you implying America is a dictatorship? If your looking to point the finger and blame someone for these wars, find out whom OK’d the buck! One man's ideas don't start a war; it takes a nation of willing individuals to start a war. Unless, of course, you’re implying we have no choice or perhaps live in a communistic society. Those who opposed had their peace rallies but apparently, most of the nation thought the war was justified for I don't recall any political movements to overthrow the government in either of these incidents. Why are you trying to compare tyranny/racism to political ties in your recent posts? Moreover, how do you justify calling any of these parties lines tyrants? This I'd really like to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

EDIT - Oops, I didn't see your similar post Occi. Oh well, no harm, no foul.

[Eirinjas]

Tyranny n 1. A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 2. Dominance through threat of punishment and violence

There you go again with your contradictorily examples! Bush is Republican while JFK was Democratic. In addition, it took more than "one-man" to send us to these wars! Are you implying America is a dictatorship? If your looking to point the finger and blame someone for these wars, find out whom OK’d the buck! One man's ideas don't start a war; it takes a nation of willing individuals to start a war. Unless, of course, you’re implying we have no choice or perhaps live in a communistic society. Those who opposed had their peace rallies but apparently, most of the nation thought the war was justified for I don't recall any political movements to overthrow the government in either of these incidents. Why are you trying to compare tyranny/racism to political ties in your recent posts? Moreover, how do you justify calling any of these parties lines tyrants? This I'd really like to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

EDIT - Oops, I didn't see your similar post Occi. Oh well, no harm, no foul.
[right][snapback]93499[/snapback][/right]

Hey, blow me with your pedantic semantics that circumvent the argument for the sake of pulling hairs.

I don't recall ever implying JFK was other than a Democrat.

No, we don't have the power we think we do - the world, as well as the majority of this countries citizens, was against the war. The Bush administration did NOT have the consent of Congress, nor the consent of the people. There never was a formal declaration of war and the use of force that was granted by Congress came with qualifiers whereby the Bush White House had to first: expend all possible efforts for diplomatic solution and second: produce evidence justifying an attack. Neither ever happened.

P.S. It'd be a more Democratic Union if it was Communist. The so-called Communism Russia suffered through wasn't true Communism because in that case the Bolshevik's took the publicly shared land and industry that was won by the revolution (they took private lands and industry for the proletariat) and turned it not into private hands but into the hands of the state.

P.S.S. A Soviet was a village where all the people shared all things in common. Shove that in your pedantic pipe and smoke it.

[Taem]

MOST of the kids at Woodstock were white just as MOST of the people in Toldeo who were rioting were black. Not an issue of race - an issue of economics ("broke-as-a-joke").  My use of the qualifier "ALL" was misplaced but my argument stands.
[right][snapback]93395[/snapback][/right]

This ultimately comes down to ignorance. Ignorance not just in the form of racism, but also, that the planned march acted like a pressure release valve that allowed those on the bootlicking end of the economic scale an excuse to [justify] the letting off of steam in the only way small minds know how - through violence and destruction.

When you see [poor people] rioting and looting - thank capitalism.

So what you are saying is that poverty generates ignorance, and that the only way for ignorant people to "let off steam" is to riot? Get real! I don't understand where you’re coming from or how you think your "argument still stands?" In my opinion, your ideals and generalizations aren't helpful to society, rather facilitate a destructive mentality. It is ideas like yours that incite Anarchy to justify the means. It just dawned on me that when I read your posts, I feel like I'm reading the lyrics of a Rage Against The Machine song.

EDIT - After re-reading what you wrote, it seems to me your implying Capitalism is the cause of poverty and poverty is the cause of violence; thus Capitalism = violence in your words. This is more tangible to me than poverty = ignorance because I know a lot of very intelligent people who failed to make a living and would be considered poor however, I fail to see how Capitalism = violence as a truism in your arguments.