ANARCHISTS!

[Dr_Liszt]

Don't you feel like slapping them on the face with a brick every time they say "Taxes are stolen from us by the State and they use lethal force to coerce you to it."?

I mean.... it's true. But what can we do about it. An Anarchist state is only possible if you remove Imperialism. And Imperialism has always existed. So... what do you expect?

To me it just sounds like whiny idiots who don't want to deal with the problems at hand, so they dismiss it by senseless ideas of morality and what is an "inherent right". What do you think?

GO!

[Derived Absurdity]

[Dr_Liszt]

I did say you are correct, though! Just that it's more of an utopia than Narnia.

[Dr_Liszt]

Also, to expand. This is expressing my frustration at how "taxes are stolen" gets to be the answer to EVERYTHING. It's like "Why the police is bad? We need better salaries?" Answer "Taxes are stolen." Or "People have terrible health, we need to improve on prevention programs." Answer: "taxes are stolen." And my favorite "Corrupt politicians are making money out of the state funds." "State funds are stolen goods anyway. So don't care"

It's like STFU and face the world!

[Derived Absurdity]

Narnia's boring as a utopia. Gimme The Culture any day. I want some drug glands man.

[Derived Absurdity]

Also, to expand. This is expressing my frustration at how "taxes are stolen" gets to be the answer to EVERYTHING. It's like "Why the police is bad? We need better salaries?" Answer "Taxes are stolen." Or "People have terrible health, we need to improve on prevention programs." Answer: "taxes are stolen." And my favorite "Corrupt politicians are making money out of the state funds." "State funds are stolen goods anyway. So don't care"

It's like STFU and face the world!

But... but... but... taxes are stolen!

Idk man. Tbh I hear that rhetoric more from libertarians/"an"-caps than actual anarchists, but yeah anarchists say that a lot. A lot of them don't have any practical ideas for transitioning peacefully and logically from the world now to a non-state/non-capitalist society, they just have a lot of dumb criticisms of how things are now without any realistic ideas of fixing them. Which is fine, actually... it's hard enough for many people to diagnose what the correct problems are in the first place, let alone think about how they can be effectively changed. I'm still in that period... I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the problems are, and that's difficult enough as it is. Thinking of how they can be changed is still something I'm trying to figure out.

But at least anarchists have diagnosed the problem correctly, which is more than you can say for most people...

[Dr_Liszt]

Yes, I do understand. I went full anarchist on that thread where we were making fun of France. And I stand by my words. Nationalism does justify statism, and Statism is indeed in my opinion inmoral. Governments exist to protect the system and repress/control the population.

But still acknowledging that does not stop me from seeing the world as it is and want to find viable solutions to the problems at hand. Mainly because I do believe Anarchism will degenerate to Minarchism/Libertarianism and there is where problems start to happen again.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah I agree, pure anarchism is not a stable system and it will degenerate. In my opinion anarchist ideas are useful mostly as a kind of social buffer system to help ward off some of the worst excesses of human nature. They're meant to be continually challenging, incessantly antagonstic, a kind of never-ending pusher against human nature's natural end-state (tyranny).

It's like social justice. We'll never have a perfect social justice world. But social justice ideas are still necessary, to keep society from descending into abject racism and patriarchy. The fight for social justice will never, ever end as long as human nature remains what it is, but that's precisely the reason it will always be necessary.

[Dr_Liszt]

Well now saying that. I do think Anarcho-capitalists are dangerous deluded people.

[Derived Absurdity]

Anarcho-capitalists are the exact opposite of anarchists and it's grotesquely offensive that they think they have anything in common with us, or that ignorant people keep mixing us up.

Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing.

[Dr_Liszt]

But taxing is robbery!!!

I don't know how to say that in English. I'm going to start saying that whenever I don't have an answer to something.

And I know, it's basically a system for sociopaths, so they can have permission to destroy everything in their path. My creepy stalker is an anarcho-capitalist and a sociopath. So makes sense.

[Derived Absurdity]

You should tell him he's violating the non-aggression principle, that'll show him.

[CashRules]

Anarchy is simplistic bullshit anyway. It's a ridiculously fucking stupid idea clung to by ridiculously fucking stupid people.

[phe_de]

Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing.

Yeah right. And sharks aren't fish.

Anarchism means: Without rule. In the political sense: Without government. What is used instead to regulate interactions between humans is a matter of interpretation.
There is individualistic anarchism, and collectivist anarchism. But both are brands of anarchism. And anarcho-capitalism means: Thriving for maximum individual profit, without interference of a government. So it's a form of individualistic anarchism; possibly an extreme form of libertarianism.

It might be more appropriate to say: Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with communist anarchism à la Proudhon.
But saying that one form of anarchism is the true form and the others are not makes as much sense as Christians claiming that certain brands of Christianity are not "true Christians"; or that atheism is a religion. Meaning: No sense.

[Derived Absurdity]

Anarchy is simplistic bullshit anyway. It's a ridiculously fucking stupid idea clung to by ridiculously fucking stupid people.

Oh yeah. Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward, Benjamin Tucker, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Errico Malatesta, Mikhail Bakunin, and of course Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were/are all ridiculously stupid people. Seriously, what was/is wrong with them?

I'd like to see you get into a political debate with any of them for about three minutes. I would really, really love to see that. You would kick their asses.

[CashRules]

It's almost as silly as veganism.

[Dr_Liszt]

Anarchy is simplistic bullshit anyway. It's a ridiculously fucking stupid idea clung to by ridiculously fucking stupid people.

Umm no. Monopoly is power. We must combat power.

[Dr_Liszt]

I would really, really love to see that. You would kick their asses.

That's how I know Anarchism is correct. I haven't seen anyone justify Statism in any way, either politically or morally. That's how they broke me, since my morality line is "Live and let live. People do what you want as long as they are not harming anyone." By justifying the existence of a State in any form I was contradicting myself.

But the only reason I do not follow it, is because well... it's impossible to put into practice. There's just too much power, it's too strong and you can't just remove it. So until then....

EDIT: My english is so broken today.

[phe_de]

"Live and let live. People do what you want as long as they are not harming anyone."

Good rule. But there are people who don't let you live. People who harm others.

That's why I prefer statism to anarchism.
Just like having an insurance. I hope I don't need it; but if I need it and don't have it, I'm screwed.