{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Bearbeitet von JonnyMadDog1:
9/21/2018 4:15:58 AM
1
There's a couple schools-of-thought on the subject and a plethora of 'anarchist authors' to peruse through the works of all of which would not agree, one-hundred-percent with each other (such as Spoonr, Spencr, Gohdwin, Brwne, Warrn, Rothbrd, Hopp, Stirnr, Misesetc.).
Stirnrites are basically might = right and there's no mysticism (an attack on those who believe in Natural Rights being Inherent, of the legitimacy or existence of Natural Law, more on that below in a bit....) attached and people give rights to themselves and can be taken away by force. If one takes something it's theirs, if a person, they are their slave. This is the general view by 'statists'/the general public. 'hexnhammr the future governor of V T the minarchist-advocate on YT misrepresents anarchy/anarchists/AnCaps as this might = right garbage to this user's chagrin, as well as others' chagrin such as Shan 'Lord' Kilian and Eso. One could make the connection between Stirnirites and anarcho-primitivists (aka 'Fight Club' anarchists), although the destruction of modern systems/technology (in the movie, 'banking') isn't necessarily Stirnrite. There are many different sub-sets of anrchists (-capitalists, -communists, Vegan-anarchists, -transhumanists, -feminists, etc., each with their 'color' meshed with the 'black flag').
AnCaps (black and yellow or black and gold, as is the title of the one subreddit for more purists as the main subreddit has been infiltrated by pro-borders folk) being the most prevalent sub-set, it is sort of the standard-bearer of anarchy, but as M a r k P a s s i o talked about this past A n a r c h a p u l c o (2018) in a keynote address, these schisms are becoming a problem, because each is trying to 'claim' it as their own and 'paper-clip' things, whereas anarchy is not inherently any of these (just the 'black flag') and means 'no rulers' not 'no rules' or that everyone has to be, say, a vegan or feminist and the like.
One could be these things within the framework (recall 'X' not necessarily = 'Y' venn-diagrams in school). All statists are pro-government but not all pro-government are statists, for example.
The Rothbrdians believe in police and Hoppeanz believe in forcible removal and a lot of alt-right/lite'ers are former AnCaps/libertarians, in this user's opinion, quitters who lost faith in preference of efficiency (time), perhaps due to poor leadership/lack of full ethos-logos-pathos arguments and practical, implementable policies in-real-life in recorded history and/or the pull of more palatable rulers/candidates such as the current President.
This user is more of a purist at heart since making the realization.
There's a lot of strawmanning of the N.A.P (non-aggression principle/'golden rule') by statists and ignoramuses everywhere that contributed to some leaving the ideology (some really ridiculous ones that are tantamount to just trolling people with 'whatif' scenarios to derail legitimate discussion). But it's not really a political ideology to be an ideologue of, at least depending on the definition of ideologue for an individual, or realist, depending on one's definition of realist too, because of the following assessment:
The ideologue is someone who lends personification to their ideology and fights to the bitter end for it above all else and reason and rationality and the life of their beloved, at all costs, they are cynical zealots. The realists are naive pragmatists who border on not even trying and just accepting certain circumstances. Merge these two and one gets an idealist. An idealist is one who is moving towards something, imagine say, with one hand behind them and one in front of them, rooted on a stone and yet reaching out to the stars for something, with the ideologue jumping off the cliff and the realist sitting down and squatting on the stone.
On the political spectrum (another topic for another time, if one believes in the efficacy of them, at least one in particular, as F i l t h y H e r e t i c talked about and debated Eso on this past summer), each other political 'ideology' (economic disguised as political or not), be it communism to the top-left of the spectrum (a square, usually), monarchism/theocracy to the top-right, socialism/democracy top-middle-left, fascism top-middle-right, LibSoc hippie communes with compost piles and flower power buses and teepees/wigwams to the bottom-left, libertarianism/AnCaps to the bottom-right (or off the board completely, depending).
The spectrum's 'X'-axis separates the authoritarianism/ideology (up) and libertarianism (down) and the 'Y'-axis separate the person-hood dynamic/methodology collectiv(e)/ism (left) and individual/ism(right).
The 'left' believe the 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' (a la S t a r T r e k, from 'Borg' to 'Federation') and the 'right' believe the 'needs of the few, or the one, outweigh the needs of the many'.
The reasoning behind whether or not anarchy/AnCaps are off-the-board or just to the side of the libertarians is the voluntarism involved, to be apart of a group or not, so it encompasses a lot. This goes back to why the left-right is a flawed paradigm.
The political spectrum is more-or-less a diagonal line from top-left to bottom-right, in essence, in this user's opinion. It's mainly for P l a t o n i c forms of government and since this is NOT one of them, the question is whether or not it's on the spectrum or not, but one thing IS for certain.....ones that list anarchy to the left of communism or near it on a linear line are FULL.OF.HOT.GARBAGE. and these tick off this user immensely.
It ALL goes back to definitions of terms.
What is a 'state/State'?
What are 'taxes'?
What is 'government'?
What are 'social contracts'?
'The Social Contract' is garbage, to this user and others, because this user didn't sign anything. The idea one is/ought to be born into citizenship, printed and numbered and pumped full of drugs and upon doing 'X' means that person gave up 'Y', such as going outside meaning something (A) can be done to them by another (B) without their expressed permission. That is involuntary. The Constitution ('merican perspective here)/Bill of Rights is/are a RECOGNITION (of Natural Law) NOT ENDOWMENT, because if they are endowments they can be taken away, and if they are not endowments, then they cannot be. There is a TON of hypocrisy among lawyers/judicial officials on certain topics and why there's so many problems within the community, because it boils down to being either a strict constructionalist or NOT being a strict constructionalist.
Are these LIVING documents as they were intended by the Framers DESPITE the changing times, nigh, BECAUSE they had the wherewithal to recognize times change, or not?
Many who claim to be 'conservative' (and it goes without saying the 'liberals') are hypocrites wanting and advocating for what they claim to not want in regards to other things. One side wants to restrict free speech the other wants to restrict free movement. One wants the government OUT of the bedroom, yet advocate for the government being IN the bedroom at the same time. When has the supposed 'party of small government' ever 'conserved' civil liberties vs. when have they taken them away? Likewise for the party of 'outreach'. It's a one-party system that does.not.work (or does it??? Depends on how much of a psychopath or coward one is and their goals).
Libertine-rightists may feel abortion is wrong and/or murder but are pro-choice whereas Conservative-rightists may feel the same but the methodology is to use force/guns to protect the unborn and say the mother has NO RIGHT. Some of either side may not believe when 'life' begins, let alone the methodology of protecting life. (Continued in another reply below for length-purposes)
English
-
This user believes (as most AnCaps/libertarians/anarchists) there is NO.SUCH.THING.ABSOLUTE.SECURITY. Anyone can cease to exist at any given time. One can either do two things: accept that and live ballztothewallman!, or try and wrap the world in bubble-wrap to no avail like an episode of 'T h e S i m p s o n s'. It would be 'private' contracts that are formed and adhered to or broken not 'social contracts', per say, but whatever. Define the bureaucracy. It means just don't make an act of aggression on others unless an act of aggression has been levied upon one first and even then there's no obligation to respond, in such a manner at least, unless it's consensual otherwise (a good fight is a good fight, consenting parties have that agency). To think otherwise would be tantamount to what (something of a meme) is, in being a 'libertarian fascist' (fascist having at least 2 definitions, a third something of a non-definition: Hitlr, Musso, and Orwel definitions). It could be for whatever arbitrary reason one believes, for freedom, whatever, but what some anarchists do not always remember is that: some people prefer to be 'slaves' (perhaps not in such harsh terminology but this user will use that term here for now). What if PrincessLeia did not want to be rescued? What if RossUlbricht did not want to be sprung from prison? What if the BundyClan didn't want to be freed for that overblown quagmire a couple years ago, as one patriarch of that clan said so? It sickens this user to no end when anarchism is called utopian. To be a utopian is what republicans believe, democrats believe, monarchists believe, communists believe, etc., because those involve a pre-set system of ideals for an idealized world of their system where all believe in that system and it works. In anarchy, people are allowed to believe what they want, it is voluntarism essentially, the words are synonymous, it just depends how much one wants to 'trigger' people with the terminology and bring back the original definition of anarchy, and 'take it back' from the status quo of the dictionaries and public consensus/lexicon. As it's been said: Bad times lead to strong men, strong men lead to good times, good times lead to weak men, weak men lead to bad times. It's hilarious and yet also disturbing some statists have said this as an attack on one particular anarchist-guru/personality in LarkenRose this past summer on the internet stemming from a debate this past winter, when it's the opposite. In statist government, their utopias lead to weak men and bad times because the proverbial 'mountain' has been climbed. When one has peaked and is no longer climbing, they are getting worse and regressing and 'going-down-hill'. If one is not getting better, they are stagnating and/or getting worse. The goal has been achieved in statists' minds. In anarchy there is a constant rate-of-improvement, therefore, constantly strong men and good times from bad times, because the journey doesn't stop. Get it? Very semantic and deep, but this user likes this kind of stuff. In short: Anarchists advocate for voluntary contracts and those who wish for a system or community should make it voluntary and if not, at least allow for room for the 'other' to flourish and leave and come back. The 'other' is not taken into account today, and is even attacked. Sides lead to 'cides. Very S p e n g l a r i a n , that's not healthy. Hitlr wrote luv letters to these kinds of people. Those who believe, whelp, life is boring and people group up, so let's just encourage that and allow for continuous fighting for continuous selling of the prospect of peace for population control. That.Is.Wrong!
-
Forgot to add some stuff, was tired, awake now. What is good/bad (moral and immoral)? One school of thought is 'moral relativism', that which has plagued humanity on Earth for years now, for far too long, brought about by anti-humanist post-modernism and intersectionalism. 'Subjectivism' to some, but that's not really a thing. That is to say, morality is subjective, a la Stirnirites, and there is no obljective 'good' and 'bad'. Another school of thought is objective-thought (not to be confused with 'Objectivism' what with the belief that destruction is necessary and to be encouraged for life later....some of what Y a r o n B r o o k babbles about isn't that great, some of it is, it's a mixed bag, likewise with A y n R a n d's non-fiction work, and 'er fictional work being too fluffy with characters having no internal struggle and all being ideologues but this user digresses). 'Conservatives' fall into this trap of seeing things in black-and-white just as 'liberals' (the progressive-leftists, namely) fall into moral relativism. There is morality, there is also immorality, BUT what is not immoral and moral is not necessarily moral or immoral, respectively. There IS a third thing called 'amoral' that is often ignored to push narratives that what is not moral or immoral is the opposite. Masochism is not factored in, for example. What is good, to do good, good for an individual? That is unknown, but there IS objective bad, either an entity wishing such or the idea of it or both empirically and theoretically, in this user's mind. It is a mixture, both schools-of-thought are half-right. What is bad? It is to be anti-authentic/truth and growth, to be anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness. How does one know (as this all sounds very mystical to some)? There's a podcast episode of S a r g o n o f A k k a d's on YTube with one 'N a k e d A p e' last year that talked about how the 'universe', for lack of a better term, just as L u k e R u d k o w s k i talked about at last year's (2017) A n a r c h a p u l c o conference, provides and clues people into what's going on and to do, if one asks it humbly and listens well enough. 'Macro-scoping' systems at-play that one can observe from lower systems, of smaller forms of life. Very fascinating show this user listened to while playing this last year. Also, the 'antifragile' talk about how the reactionary right is too robust and the fragile left are too fragile, check out 'A n t i f r a g i l e' by N a s s a m T a l e b, it's not necessarily out-right AnCap/libertarian, but it's fairly consistent with much of that rhetoric and is simply phenomenal. It's about communication and learning and this user found a copy in the 'philosophy' section of a local bookstore. People need a return to the 'Promethean'-style. Also, 'T h e J o y s o f t h e P s y c h o p a t h o c r a c y' by G r e g C a t o n is truly amazing! It was talked about this past conference this past winter by someone else, a health and wellness guru, as the author was not able to attend, and it discusses the Doctor J B P stuff about sorting one's self out first before others only in the plural. It posits one's inter-tribal relations should be ancillary and subservient to the tribal relations which should, in-turn, be ancillary and subservient to the village relations which should be, in-turn ancillary and subservient to the unit of friends and family which should, in-turn, be ancillary and subservient to the individual. If any of these in the chain are broken or perverted to the point that the lower forms end up serving, unfairly, involuntarily, the larger relations, they must be dumped immediately, for they breed psychopathy and there is psychological evidence of such a claim. Hope these help!
-
I see. hmmm, I'll have to give this more thought
