Wondering how many plan to vote in the 2008 cycle.
Yeah, I know (hahaha!) - but there is a difference between being philosophically anarchist and the practical path to lead one there. So anyway, who plans to vote, and of those who do, will you vote Libertarian, Ron Paul, or other?
Yeah, I know (hahaha!) - but there is a difference between being philosophically anarchist and the practical path to lead one there. So anyway, who plans to vote, and of those who do, will you vote Libertarian, Ron Paul, or other?
-
Re: 2008?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 1:15 PMI'm sorry to say that I think that if voting made a difference, it would be illegal. -
-
Re: 2008?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 2:50 PMI generally oppose voting, but if Ron Paul was to get on the Republican ticket, I would vote for him- there's a chance he could start to reverse our slide into abject tyranny. I am a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, but if our government worked as it was supposed to, with virtually no taxes and virtually no oppression, I wouldn't bitch- it would fall within my level of tolerance.
On the other hand, I would be shocked- absolutely shocked, if the neocons allowed Ron Paul to win the presidential nomination. And even if he did become president, it's highly unlikely he'd be able to eliminate even a tenth of the sprawling government nonsense we have before his term ended.
I fully expect things to keep getting worse until the point where enough people get pissed off and start a bloody revolution. It's the only way we'll ever see freedom, sad as it is to say. -
-
Re: 2008?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 3:51 PMcant see a bloody revolution being any benifit, or practical.
-
-
-
Re: 2008?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 9:40 PMnot really sure. ... I just figure, from a logistical standpoint, working to physically confront such a complex through means of force would definitely rank as 'silly.'
I suppose I tend to trust in evolution, .. that the global organism will discover health. Not that this would void out my responsibility to the situation, I certainly entertain an identity with the global organism.
Perhaps the roose of the november vote serves to alleviate our sense of responsibility regarding the power we leverage every day.
I'd say the free market exists regardless. It is not a mythos to be achieved: rather it is the root fabric of the universe. It only needs to be accessed and acknowledged ... and it reaps its purifying havok.
sounds like the matrix, fuck. hate that.. none the less. Through out history, its been summoned (the inherent free-market, and it tips the balance REAL fast.
I'd also say we already live in an Anarchist society. Most of us just choose to contribute our imaginative potentials towards upholding the current dieing remains of the once-collaborative society we were born into.
its all imagination games. Story telling. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 11:54 AMThere is a mental component to the power structure, and that's the first place they aim for to hoodwink people into believing in the system, but there is also a very real physical component to their power structure. I define freedom as the ability to do any ethical thing you wish without asking permission in any form. By this definition, there's not a single shred of freedom in modern American society- you cannot take ANY significant action without permits, licenses, laws, rules, regulations, etc, unless you want to risk a very violent reaction against you. Try to live freely, as a peaceful anarchist, and you'll have your property stolen and be kidnapped and locked in a cage. I've been there... it wasn't fun; that's when I decided my up-front, refuse to comply approach perhaps wasn't going to work.
As a general rule, governments never give up power. They always seek to gain more over time, and gradually become more and more oppressive until the people become so sick of it that they revolt. Unfortunately, nobody has ever broken this cycle and emerged with a free, anarchistic society. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but even if we revolt and return the government to a minimalistic, constitutional republic, we have made huge progress toward ensuring an at least *mostly* free society.
Logistically, there are always options available to subvert a tyrannical government. Due to the massive power advantage they have, open conflict is suicide, so a more subtle, stealthy approach is in order. The media war is also almost unwinnable, and that's where they control the people- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc... it's all designed to destroy the free-thinking mind and bring the sheeple into slavery. I appreciate the brave individuals offering alternative news to tell us what's really going on, but they cannot keep up with the torrent of ignorance. But, no matter how bleak things may look, there are always options, always choices, always a risk-reward ratio. Direct confrontation is possible in small engagements with sufficient planning and strategy. History is full of small groups effecting massive changes in society. It's all in how you play the game.
-
-
-
Re: 2008?
Thu, October 25, 2007 - 11:23 PMWell a Ron Paul win would almost guarantee WWIII because of his foreign policy. The only upside I see is that if he really could deliver on all of his ideas we'd revert back to a country that could actually win a war again. I understand people not wanting us in an undeclared war. I respect that constitutionally based argument. Congress should have the balls to recognize legitimate threats and deal with them appropriately. That being said anyone who believes in the 'leave them alone and they'll leave you alone' theory needs to put the crack pipe down. The real world just doesn't work like that.
Ron Paul, domestically would be a G-d send to the Republic, in the foreign policy arena he is way too naive. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 12:05 PMSo... you think they hate us for our freedoms, do ya? -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 12:16 PMNo, they hate us for other stuff.....
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 2:03 PM[quote]So... you think they hate us for our freedoms, do ya?[/quote]
No they hate us because we are not a part of their collective. They hate or affluence and our decision not to subject ourselves to their lifestyle. You're thinking as a post enlightenment thinker... the Arab/Islamic world never went through the enlightenment. They are still a very tribal us vs. them society. If you aren't a part of that society than any resources you use (especially if you do so successfully) are resources taken from their tribe/clan/family. I'm not even saying that they are wrong to view the world the way that they do, but if they win I'll not be able to live my life as I want to. There fore they must be defeated at almost all costs. They are the immediate enemy, then the oligarchs that run the US will be the second target for a free people. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 2:32 PMwow. you definitely play different playstation games than I do. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 8:08 PMVlad, where are you basing your assumptions?
I think you'll find that the people of other countries don't hate us for our freedom or affluence. The ones that hate us (and it should be said that most of them do not hate *us*, the American people, just our government), hate us because we're screwing with them. Studies have shown that religion has very very little to do with terrorism- most terrorism is the result of the anger generated by one country murdering another country's people. Other countries hate us because the United States government thinks its the world's policeman. Our government, which has pretty much no sense of ethics, thinks that we are the answer to all the world's problems, and we screw with people. We bomb innocent people, we kidnap and torture people, we use our power to alter trade and the economies of other nations. We effect changes in their political system- and usually not for the positive. This is what pisses people off- this is why they hate us. There may be a select few who are bothered by our wealth, and a select few who hate us because we are not X religion, but these are an extreme minority compared to the people that hate us because we murdered their family, destroyed their livelihood, or spread radioactive waste across their towns.
For a real-world example of this principle, take a look at Switzerland. They have a strict policy of non-intervention and neutrality- they mind their own business. As a result, they have not been involved in a war since 1815- an especially impressive feat considering they were right in the center of WW1 and WW2. Almost nobody hates Switzerland, despite their fairly strong economy and comparatively high level of freedom, and I'm only aware of one terrorist attack against them in all of recorded history.
Leave people alone, and most of them will leave you alone. Mess with people, and they'll return the favor. -
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
-
-
Re: 2008?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 2:31 PMWarmth? Loving kindness?
That sounds was too much like "turn the other cheek" to me... -
-
Re: 2008?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 9:39 PMthen you didnt listen. she's talking about hardcore military strategy..
ever get stung by a bee? I havent ever myself, but I think I've learned pretty clearly how to avoid getting stung.
ever get in a meaningless scrabble with a good friend, or a gf? after a while one has to evaluate what the source of the matter is, and whether or not the current tactics are producing any results worth striving for. And if those tactics are producing undesirable results.. one has to calm down, and really evaluate what they are trying to accomplish, and then choose the 'best known' course to get there.
in the words of james lipton to Ali G "respect, consider.. "
www.youtube.com/watch
-
-
-
-
Re: 2008?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 2:33 PMWhere are the studies that show religion having very little to do with terrorism? Can you post a link? I'd be very interested to read up on them. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 2008?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 5:01 PMDying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, by Robert Pape
There are others out there, but this is a good place to start. It's available off Amazon for around ten bucks.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 2008?
Sat, October 27, 2007 - 7:58 PM[quote]Where are the studies that show religion having very little to do with terrorism? Can you post a link? I'd be very interested to read up on them.[/quote]
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6665.htm
See they say that they are just like us and only want peace if we'll just stop defending ourselves.
We're not going to agree on this one guys... I'm still tribal in thought too... I think if they are a threat then eliminate the threat and move on with life. -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 7:32 AMThat mindset may have worked in ancient times, when information traveled slower, but nowadays, simply "eliminating the threat" is far easier said than done.
Let's look at the "war on terror" for example. The concept of killing off all the supposed terrorists is ludicrous. The enemy in this case does not simply identify themselves, and, on top of that, the number of terrorists is not fixed. The simple act of attacking other countries serves to piss people off- and what can they do to defend themselves against a militaristically superior foe? Terrorism is a great strategy for inferior peoples to inflict great damage upon a powerful enemy. The simple act of killing terrorists creates more terrorists.
Put yourself in their shoes- someone has come in and killed your loved ones. They have taken over your country and are policing the streets with assault rifles and a bad attitude. How far are you willing to go to convince them to go the hell away?
There will always be extremest groups willing to die for religious or other causes, but initiating attacks against other countries only serves to motivate the common people to be willing to attack us. We have changed from a minor religious threat to a massive physical threat. -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 10:06 AMThere are millions of Muslims in the US--as well as scores of other religions. I dont see religious wars popping off on every corner--only an occasional wacko or copycat nutjob--these do include Christians and Jews as well. Also, the fact that Muslim immigration to the US and to the EU result in completely different situations leads me to believe something beyond religion is at work. A Muslim in LA, one in Paris and one in Baghdad are all going to see the West as totally different entities.
This list is by no means complete but helpful:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...n_the_U.S.
A disproportionate amount of these attacks were people with beefs against somebody else, not because that somebody else was of a different religion. Even if you take into account the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, that's a land/water war from beginning to end, not a religious war at all. It just happens that the the two sides are of two different religions,
-
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 4:20 PMOne in Paris and one in Baghdad are likely to see the West the same way. The only reason one in L.A. wouldn't (or wouldn't say so publicly) is because Muslims don't comprise anything close to a majority in the States. In European states where the Muslim populations are nearing just 10 percent, there's a lot more violence by Muslims against non-Muslims. If there is something beyond religion that is at work, what would you say that "something" is? -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 5:41 PMThe difference between Europe and the US is that the Muslims in the US dont move straight into the ghetto, go on welfare and lose all hope. If you are a Muslim in Paris you have little hope of getting a job and bettering your station. That's why the teenagers-of the same religion- riot there and not here. Basic economics and opportunity. -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 7:03 PMI find it unnervingly difficult to disagree with you, but don't quite a lot of Muslims who embrace violence against unbelievers come from affluent families? Aren't there many Western educated Islamic fanatics? The ones who attended universities in the U.S. and Europe, and either went back to their home countries or stayed in the West but still embraced the Jihad type ideology. Are there not a great many that may think violence is the wrong way to go, but that the democratic process should be destroyed democratically, like voting for Sharia law when Muslims outnumber non-Muslims? I'm just sayin'.... -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, October 28, 2007 - 10:39 PM>>>>Aren't there many Western educated Islamic fanatics? The ones who attended universities in the U.S. and Europe, and either went back to their home countries or stayed <<<
dont know what you're basing this on, but even if it is fact... as an 'american anarcho' ... is it really a stretch for you to see where this ideology finds root and cause within the current American 'state of affairs'? -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 2:42 AM"is it really a stretch for you to see where this ideology finds root and cause within the current American 'state of affairs'?"
Kind of, or maybe I just don't understand your question. Please expand on it a little, help me to better understand (no sarcasm in here,btw). Doesn't the ideology itself predate America's founding by about fourteen centuries? I believe it's part of our nature as humans to sort of "forget" a lot of the historical events that took place more than fifty or sixty years ago. On the other hand, it's a bit different if you live in a culture that promotes a glorious history of dominance over most of the world for a few centuries, which they do in all of the countries where Islam is the dominant religion. The result is a lot of people who would like to see those glory days again. It's kind of like an extreme version of the Mexican "reconquista" ......you know? All those states that used to be Mexico, there's a lot of people who believe they still should be, even though they lost the war....
-
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 7:07 PMDo have any evidence that it's mostly rich people who are blowing themselves up? Or that even a large percentage of well-educated Muslims are going home to become terrorists? Of course, there are always crazies, but lets say there are those crazies here. Why are they going home to do mischief? Why aren't they doing it here?
You bring up the Mexicans. Sure, there are some goofy Aztlaners who want LA returned to Mexico. Most Mexicans just want access to LA so they can make money to send it home to their families. If taking over LA were really what they wanted, they have the sheer numbers to try, but you know what? I bet they like that LA is part of the US...so they can make money. It's the same with everybody else, the crazies are outnumbered by people who understand the usefullness of other people.
>>it's a bit different if you live in a culture that promotes a glorious history of dominance<<
I do live in that culture. It's been that way here since at least the Civil War. We are in THEIR countries, fucking up THEIR shit. They've told us that being in Saudi Arabia is offensive to them. Why haven't we left? What are we doing there besides giving nutjobs a reason to get violent? Spending buckets of money to ensure that we have cheap oil? It's retarded and it's piss poor economics. -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 7:28 PM"Do have any evidence that it's mostly rich people who are blowing themselves up?"
No, I am basing it on reports of suicide bombers and jihadists not always coming from dirt poor families. The 9/11 highjackers came from pretty wealthy families, and so did bin Laden, right?
"Why aren't they doing it here? "
I think eventually they will.
"They've told us that being in Saudi Arabia is offensive to them."
That's not the only thing that's offensive to them. I'm not going to even try to debate on the "piss poor economics" issue, because I agree with you. But taking religion out of the equation seems unreasonable. Here's the thing....what if we did everything they asked?
1) Get out of Arabia and the Middle East altogether
2) Stop supporting Israel
3) All of the other stuff I can't think of off hand... but those first two kind of sum it up, or if they don't, they're at least the biggest complaints, right?
If we did what they asked, do you think they would leave us alone? Would they be true to their word? Historically speaking...they haven't. -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 8:09 PM>>If we did what they asked, do you think they would leave us alone? Would they be true to their word? Historically speaking...they haven't.<<
So the "leave me alone" libertarian sentiment really only applies to you? At best, this makes you one of them.
If we got out of the Middle EAst altogether, how are they going to finance this war that you are sure they will begin against now-peaceful people? If they hate our culture so much, surely they will stop selling us oil and then they will have no money. Maybe there are other Muslims who will buy this oil? Even for pennies since it will now be a valueless commodity if all the countries that actually use it are on their no-sale list. Shit, wait, if selling oil is a big money maker maybe they should pretend to be peaceful for a few years and then wage war? Hmmmm? -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, October 29, 2007 - 8:53 PM"So the "leave me alone" libertarian sentiment really only applies to you? At best, this makes you one of them. "
That hurt.
"Shit, wait, if selling oil is a big money maker maybe they should pretend to be peaceful for a few years and then wage war? Hmmmm?"
Is this what you think they should do?
"If we got out of the Middle EAst altogether, how are they going to finance this war that you are sure they will begin against now-peaceful people?"
What I meant was getting our military out. I didn't say anything about not trading with them. And yes, we would continue to trade with them, and yes, I do believe they would wage war against a "peaceful" people.... it's kind of like shooting ourselves in the foot, isn't it? -
-
Re: 2008?
Tue, October 30, 2007 - 9:54 AM>> I do believe they would wage war against a "peaceful" people.... it's kind of like shooting ourselves in the foot, isn't it?<<
What exactly did they do to us to merit what we are doing to them? Scaring us like little kids on Halloween? I consider 9-11 blowback, so you are going to have to dig back farther for an excuse if you were considering that.
>>Is this what you think they should do?<<
No, I think this is what you must think they will do as they dont really have the means to wage war on the US today--as evidenced by their inability to wage war against the US right now.
>>That hurt.<<
Sorry, but you gotta see that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We can't insist that we are the good guys when our governments aren't acting like white hatters in this situation. And at the same time insist "they" have to be the bad guys...just because we're scared of a few nutters. Randroids want to drop nukes on the MIddle EAst as if killing millions of people is the ethical solution to bweing scwared. It's not.
(BTW, I"m going to be off tribe for a few days.) -
-
Re: 2008?
Tue, October 30, 2007 - 10:53 AM">> I do believe they would wage war against a "peaceful" people.... it's kind of like shooting ourselves in the foot, isn't it?<<
What exactly did they do to us to merit what we are doing to them? Scaring us like little kids on Halloween? I consider 9-11 blowback, so you are going to have to dig back farther for an excuse if you were considering that. "
When I said, wage war against a peaceful people... I was referring to it being against the backdrop of the hypothetical reality I had described: We get out of their lands, turn our back on Israel, basically appease. I think they would still come after us.
"Randroids want to drop nukes on the MIddle EAst as if killing millions of people is the ethical solution to bweing scwared. It's not."
Well, for the record, I'm not a Randroid, and I don't believe dropping nukes is a good solution. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, November 2, 2007 - 8:06 AM>>Well, for the record, I'm not a Randroid, and I don't believe dropping nukes is a good solution.<<
I didn't think you were. I'm just telling you the absurd ends some people are reaching. Now, if you were a Muslim and you heard that, what would be your reaction?
>>When I said, wage war against a peaceful people... I was referring to it being against the backdrop of the hypothetical reality I had described: We get out of their lands, turn our back on Israel, basically appease. I think they would still come after us.<<
Sure, but being on the offensive makes us into the people you think they are. -
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, November 2, 2007 - 9:35 AMRandroid? As in 'Rand" and "android"?
Why would one think all Randians wish to drop nukes - or did I miss something? -
-
Re: 2008?
Sun, November 4, 2007 - 4:51 PMRandroids are "fundamentalist" Randians. -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, November 5, 2007 - 8:26 AMYes, I gathered that. Just wondering why "Randroids" would advocate dropping nukes as described above. -
-
Re: 2008?
Mon, November 5, 2007 - 8:49 AMHere's one analysis
www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/theroux2.html
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: 2008?
Fri, October 26, 2007 - 9:06 PM"They hate us because we are not a part of their collective"
So your answer is yes.
If you haven't heard yet, they hate us because of this government's incessant meddling in the affairs of nations on the other side of the world. It would be nice to stop doing this.
"They are still a very tribal us vs. them society"
Are you able to see the irony in this statement?
-
-
-
-
-
