Drama in my neighborhood continues ... Maybe I should just move ...

[MaineShark]

so it's not that YOU BELIEVE that statism will always lead to mass murder, and I DISAGREE with that assessment, but I actually want mass murder to happen?

Please. Really you've got the mind of a child

I think the system you propose will lead to a brutal, clan--family-based system with small wars being common. Did I ever claim that you WANT that, just becasue I think that's the outcome? No. Of course not. I know you don't. I know you honestly believe that wouldn't happen. See that? It's called honesty & maturity. But you won't admit that the rest of us simply do not see things the way you do. Now I do believe that your personal version of anarchy and the things you believe are absurd and grotesque, but I don't really need to change your words or invent motivations for you to show that. The things you've openly said that you repeatedly have re-asserted show that/make me see your beliefs that way.

Problem is, you're applying your little "theories" about how anarchy would work, and claiming that those are what would happen, without evidence (or contrary to the evidence, in many cases), whereas we know what Statism does.  We've had five thousand years of Statism, which have been one blood-bath after another.  Those who still support Statism are either ignorant, insane, or actually want that.  You've spent too much time around us to be ignorant of the blood, so you must want it.  Or maybe you're just crazy, and you think that this time, it will somehow be different than every other time Statism was used, because magical pixies will change things?

And I already just posted Bogdan's relevant quotes.

all you've got is false equivalencies and lies

If you believe that, ante up.  What do I win, if I can quote him supporting the idea that folks should be sterilized by the government?  C'mon, if all I have are "false equivalencies and lies," what do you have to lose?  Ante up, kiddo.

Joe

[Ed]

so everybody in this country, nay, the world, is crazy or wants bloodshed? Please. Oh, or are you going to condescend to everyone and claim they're ignorant?, Yeah... 60% of this country self describes as liberal or conservative, that is they positively believe in the idea of a state, that is they have indeed thought about it.
Again YOU'RE claiming that all the bad things that have happened have happened BECAUSE of statism. I DISAGREE. What you're saying could be done with anything. It's like saying that coca-cola will make you drunk because you've drunk scotch a few times and it made you drunk, and scotch and coca-cola are both beverages. That they're both beverages isn't relevant  to what makes you drunk. You might as well compare hitler to obama becasue they both have black hair. You prick a broad enough categorization and you can compare anything. Not that calling nazi germany or soviet russia or communist china "states" makes them so. If that's your definition then your definition is selectively broad, so broad as to be meaningless. A word that means everything means nothing. Those dictatorships can in no meaningful way be compared to democracies/republics with strong constitutional and common law (or civil law in Europe) protections.

Then again, I'm kind of wasting my time, since there's no way you're so stupid that you don't understand that, you just think that somehow being that shrill and childish will make your argument look better.

And again, I posted what Bogdan said about genocide, and it isn't pro-genocide. And I couldn't find anything about sterilization, though I'm betting that whatever he said was also about it possibly being a necessary policy in some time in some place in the future, with the main point again being that context matters and no one can claim a universal human moral code. Which again, doesn't mean he's "for" it or "pro-" it.

[John]

I don't think that of leetninja. I just think that he is on the wrong path. And I think that it might (or might not) be easy to change paths.

If I was in leetninja's position (as I understand it) would completely reverse direction.
I would let my friends and the other neighbors (who have been involved) know that there will be a unilateral "cease fire." I would then tell the neighbor that I desire Peace - for both of us.

I would "hold up the mirror" so that the neighbor can see his own behaviour, and I would also be checking in a mirror myself.

[MaineShark]

so everybody in this country, nay, the world, is crazy or wants bloodshed? Please. Oh, or are you going to condescend to everyone and claim they're ignorant?, Yeah... 60% of this country self describes as liberal or conservative, that is they positively believe in the idea of a state, that is they have indeed thought about it.

Almost everyone is blindingly ignorant about almost everything.  That's not condescension - it's just a fact of life, as there are simply too many subjects out there for any individual to obtain expertise in any significant fraction of them.

The difference is, some of us understand that "he who knows, knows he knows not," and don't make pronouncements on things we know ourselves to be ignorant of.

Again YOU'RE claiming that all the bad things that have happened have happened BECAUSE of statism. I DISAGREE. What you're saying could be done with anything. It's like saying that coca-cola will make you drunk because you've drunk scotch a few times and it made you drunk, and scotch and coca-cola are both beverages. That they're both beverages isn't relevant  to what makes you drunk. You might as well compare hitler to obama becasue they both have black hair. You prick a broad enough categorization and you can compare anything. Not that calling nazi germany or soviet russia or communist china "states" makes them so. If that's your definition then your definition is selectively broad, so broad as to be meaningless. A word that means everything means nothing. Those dictatorships can in no meaningful way be compared to democracies/republics with strong constitutional and common law (or civil law in Europe) protections.

"State" has a specific meaning, and all of those governments were Statist governments.  I wouldn't compare Obama and Hitler, though - Obama is far more like Mussolini than he is like Hitler.

However, as far as cause and effect, when Statist governments commit mass murder, in the name of Statism, and specifically because of the beliefs inherent in Statism, it's fair to say that Statism was the cause.

And again, I posted what Bogdan said about genocide, and it isn't pro-genocide. And I couldn't find anything about sterilization, though I'm betting that whatever he said was also about it possibly being a necessary policy in some time in some place in the future, with the main point again being that context matters and no one can claim a universal human moral code.

No, it was a policy he was supporting, for right here and now.  Something he said he wanted done.  So ante up, kiddo.

Joe

[Ed]

yeah, YOU say it's because of the belefs inheret in statism. What I said still stands. You're just using a broad comparison.

You're the one claiming he said that. Even if he said that, I still showed you're full of shit when you claimed he was pro-genocide.

oh and nice job with putting yourself in the position of mr. all-knowing and all-seeing. Yeah, what was that again? People were anarchists and followed your system before agriculture? Even though there is no historical record from that time (we only know when agriculture STARTED and then what happened from there). Yeah something tells me there were still wars, rape, murder, revenge killings etc. And people coercing other to do things, without even the option of leaving the tribe. Like, for example, you claim it is immoral to jail or retaliate people - that's part of your system. Only compensation can be demanded. However, you have no way of claiming you know for sure that tribal peoples back then never did that in retaliation for theft or rape - that is, sometimes just kill the guy regardless of compensation.
I mean it's really absurd. Again, you're like the guys who claim that they know dolphins helped along human evolution because thy just fucking love dolphins so much. You're fucking in imaginationland

this is becoming pointless. Your arguments are fucking clownshoes

[MaineShark]

yeah, YOU say it's because of the belefs inheret in statism. What I said still stands. You're just using a broad comparison.

No, I'm using a very specific comparison.

You're the one claiming he said that. Even if he said that, I still showed you're full of shit when you claimed he was pro-genocide.

A) copying his specious claims does not "show" anything, other than the fact that he makes specious claims.
2) now you're admitting that he very well might be the sort of monster who wants people forcibly sterilized by the government?

oh and nice job with putting yourself in the position of mr. all-knowing and all-seeing. Yeah, what was that again? People were anarchists and followed your system before agriculture? Even though there is no historical record from that time (we only know when agriculture STARTED and then what happened from there). Yeah something tells me there were still wars, rape, murder, etc. And people coercing other to do things, without even the option of leaving.

I've never claimed that the world was perfect before Statism, or that it will be perfect, after Statism is a bad thing that we read about in history books.

A voluntary society is imperfect, because it is made up of imperfect people (whereas Statism, to work, would require utterly-perfect individuals to hold all positions of power, such that they would not be corrupted).  A voluntary society is simply orders of magnitude better than Statism.  A lone psycho serial killer is a bad thing, but he cannot compare to the mounds of bodies your buddies have piled up.

Joe

[Ed]

copying what he said showed that he didn't say anything that could be construed as universally "pro-genocide". He just disagrees with you and thinks context matters and there is no universal moral or proscriptive social code for humans

no, for a statist society to work perfectly it would need perfect people. But no one claims it works perfectly.

they're not my buddies, I've made that clear. Again, you're making FALSELY broad comparisons. Coca cola won't make you drunk just because it is also a beverage like scotch. A statist government won't lead to massive pogroms just because it's statist- the republics/democracies of Europe with strong constitutional protections that actually DID follow said system have done pretty well. There have been some coups tha led to dictatorships, but EVERY society on the face of the earth is vulnerable to that. Enough guys working together with enough weaponry can take over any area.

YOU think it works better than statism. You've got no modern examples to show that, and even your historical examples didn't exactly or even closely follow the systems you propose.

[Ed]

yeah I'm looking at a quick little synopsis of early medieval ireland and there are numerous things that don't mesh with what you've proposed - and frankly statist ones that you've rejected

right off the bat, you've got the jurisdictional monoply of JUDGEMENT that states have now (not of force - that's not what states have now), and the right to ARREST people for trial, before it's even known if he is guilty (which would imply that some innocent people were arrested, which in your scheme would be a violation of rights). And then if dude couldn't pay other family could KILL him. yeah directly in contradiction to what you've claimed is moral/immoral (revenge fantasies, remember)?
If you're going to claim there were implied contracts with the clan and each person that there is the right to do that I'm going to split my sides laughing

[MaineShark]

You're getting boring, you know?  "Statism will work this time, because, um, stuff, and things!"

The system you support is nothing but evil.  It has no redeeming value, whatsoever.

I might address some of your points, but not until you address the issue I raised, as to whether your buddy there wants the government to forcibly sterilize people.

Joe

[Tom Sawyer]

Before the notion of not having kings... "How can we do anything without having a king to keep us safe?" etc

The burden is to justify the current system, which we can see the evils associated...

I am not safer when the thugs can kick my door down, take everything I own, even kill me for being associated with cannabis. They can tax away my earnings at a rate approaching 50 percent. They can take my child and send him off to die is some foreign hell hole. etc

The common criminal pails in comparison to the harm that has been caused by "governments".

[Ed]

that's not what I said. I keep telling you I don't believe that's the reason those things happened. And they didn't happen in the places that more match what I believe works well.

you said Bogdan said that, so feel free to actually cite said post

[Ed]

yes clearly there isn't much more to say, because all you do is speak in the most shrill extreme terms, accuse everyone else of terrible motivatins, and make blatantly false comparisons/conflations

I disagree with you, but at least I haven't lied about your reasons for believing what you believe - I haven't accused you of wanting the consistent strife and screwiness that I believe your system would result in/did result in (with "did" being approximate in some historical instances depending on how you define it/how close we're talking compared to what you propose)

[John]

Now every time I read this thread I keep hearing the scream at the very end of this song.
Pink Floyd - Waiting for the Worms

[MaineShark]

Ed, at every instance, you defend the government.  I mean, you practically had a hissy fit over the idea that fighting back against oppression is legitimate.

No one has to be dishonest about your motivations: your motivations are blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer.

Oh, and your buddy certainly does seem to think that those who don't pay their taxes should be sterilized.  So, what do I win?

Joe

[Free libertarian]

I never said anything like that

you're a disingenuous fuck

I'm curious and attempting to keep score.  Is diengenuous fuck worth more points than if you'd said "lying bastard" ?    Hard to tally up unless I know the rules.