Fav quotes

[MrBogosity]

"Bigotted (sic) is also acceptable." What about, "bad spellers"?

[Dukect45]

[Ibrahim90]

I'm Ibrahim and I approve this message

[tnu]

I've officially been floored. This is one of the best explanations of treditional left-anarchism I have ever seen.

No again, I feel like we are going in circles - all anarchists are against majority rule - you are right that that is a form of rulership. Now direct democracy can be used to make a decision if all involved agree to the process and accept the outcome (for example a group of friends that decides where to eat based on voting - allowing for dissent should someone say "well I can't eat there because of allergies/diet; if they all agree they will just vote between two places and go with the vote, then that is fine, there is no rulership, just a decision making process decided by the majority - the key difference being there is no ENFORCEMENT mechanism if some decide to go against the group decision). As I said before - consensus decision-making and respect of dissent (allowing for refusal to participate in enacting the decision) are key elements to anarchist social interactions.

You don't have to "take up" everything with the community unless it AFFECTS the community, and that is not rulership by the community, that is you not being allowed to be a ruler yourself by making decisions against others will that affects them (for instance if you want to dump your waste in the community water supply - having to get the ok from others who use that water supply is not them ruling over you - you making the decision against their will and to the detriment of their health is you setting yourself up as ruler over them, forcing your decision and its consequences on them. Also, just because you are asked or confronted by others to explain or justify what you are doing doesn't mean they are ruling over you - it just means they are interacting with you and expressing their own concerns. If they start using violence to enforce then ends then I would agree that the community is setting itself up as your ruler, but just to say "we disagree with you forcing them to pay rent, and will not enforce any claims you make about them owing you or needing to be removed" is NOT them ruling over you - in fact it is the exact opposite and simply a declaration that your desires do not trump theirs and you do not rule over them nor can you force them to agree to and enforce your claims.

Your community of nihilists question is simply absurd - you sound like a statist "oh no without laws (or a universal contract, moral code, or set of axioms) everyone (or nihilists) will kill everyone, and that would be ok". Justification is a philosophical concept - they may feel they have justifications, and many others may feel they do not - value is subjective and accepting/rejecting a justification is subjective as well (this is why it is so important to decentralize responses to problems and perceived injustices as much as possible so it is those actually involved figuring out what to do, not some unaffected and undesired third party, or potentially worse, some abstract contract or rule). If people start killing people there will be responses by the community and those who care about the victims or eliminating murder - you don't need some universal moral code for murder to be dealt with.

Also you cast nihilists as some sociopathic belief system but it is simply the belief in skepticism and the notion that any justification has its flaws (relying on some assumption, being circular, or being assumed itself) and therefore that no objective criterion for value or justification is possible. They aren't mass murderers just because they critique the possibility of coming to a universally accepted and valid justification of "murder being wrong" that doesn't rely on subjective assumptions.

From a discussion I was having on the Anarchism without adjectives page.

[ArtemisVale]

I've officially been floored. This is one of the best explanations of treditional left-anarchism I have ever seen.

From a discussion I was having on the Anarchism without adjectives page.

Wouldn't it be easier to call this voluntary community of voters the market?

Just because the majority of a community wants an xbox doesn't mean your stuck with one. You can still get a PC or a wii u if you want.

[MrBogosity]

"The worst time to become a parent is eighteen years before a war." —R. Lee Wrights

[Travis Retriever]

"The worst time to become a parent is eighteen years before a war." —R. Lee Wrights

*standing ovation* Gods, this guy sounds awesome...why in the freakin' hell wasn't he nominated to represent libertarians in the primaries?

[MrBogosity]

*standing ovation* Gods, this guy sounds awesome...why in the freakin' hell wasn't he nominated to represent libertarians in the primaries?

Because Gary Johnson's supporters pretty much stormed the place Saturday morning. At the Friday night debate it seemed pretty even judging by the audience reaction, but the next morning there were twice as many people there, and pretty much all the new ones were holding Johnson signs.

And yeah, they all pretty much left after the nomination.

[ArtemisVale]

[BlameThe1st]

A LeftyCartoon? That I agree with? By the royal holy delectable flank of Princess Celestia, it's a miracle!

[tnu]

from the comments of the latest Atheism and Libertarianism video

I think your points apply well to a certain subset of disingenuous statists and sophisticated theists, but what drives me crazy are the (in my experience far greater number of) people who are just ridiculously selective when it comes to which evidence they decide "matters."

For example, if you told most theists "they did an experiment where people prayed for the people in one hospital and not for the people in another hospital, and guess what? The people in the hospital that was being prayed for recovered at a greater rate!" then their reaction would be "wow! that just goes to show the power of prayer!" In fact, if such a study existed, they'd never shut up about it. But, of course, if the study shows no difference, THEN they deny the very validity of the premise.

Statists, of course, are the same. If you say "guess what, our study shows that government spending actually makes the economy grow faster and decreases income inequality," then they say "wow, that's great! Just goes to show we need more government spending!" If a study shows that government spending hampers economic growth and increases wealth inequality, however, they'll just say "well, let me figure out what's wrong with this study. Who did it, the Cato Institute??" etc. Of course, they would never subject the study that showed results they wanted to hear to the same level of scrutiny.

[BlameThe1st]

Vast Majority Of Democrats Want Hillary Clinton To Run In 2016: Poll

When I read this article, I thought the very first comment in the comment section would be a cringe-worthy circlejerk about how Hilary Clinton is dah bomb, but it turns out that the top-rated comment was actually this gem:

Democrats had single-payer advocates dragged out of the HC roundtables and arrested.

Democrats participated on all levels in the crackdowns on the OWS movement.

Democrats have defended continued federal actions against the 'budding' medical marijuana industry and the continuation of the 'war on weed'.

Democrats have embraced corporate and 1% influence over elections.

Democrats have continued the perpetual warfare state.

Democrats have cracked down on whistleblowers and  the free press.

Democrats have embraced the police/surveillance-state and the violations of virtually every American's Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable searches and seizures of their private information.They have defended the practice of giving and sharing raw data on American citizens with the foreign nations of Britain and Israel.

Real liberals don't act like that.

I gave Dems a chance in '08, and they turned into Republicans. Never again....

Nice to know some on the left can see past the illusion of choice that is our two-party duopoly.

[Skm1091]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504

[ArtemisVale]

[yt]30wOEvxZdFo[/yt]

[BreadGod]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-12/gun-ownership-on-the-rise/3662504

The facts are clear. The Australians want their guns back.