Assorted personal political thoughts.

[Lord of Elves]

Maybe true. In many species, fathers don't stick around. In others they do.

However, that was not the point. You said that "many men are terrible fathers". From an evolutionary perspective, this is nonsense. Terrible fathers, whether they stick around or not, would obviously die out. Just doesn't propagate the species.

So tell me, where did these evil scum in your fantasies come from?

So drunken and/or abusive parents just don't exist?

 

[JollyRoger]

So tell me, where did these evil scum in your fantasies come from?

Any given morning docket call at the local criminal courthouse.

 

[Traitorfish]

So how does stealing money prevent starvation?

It prevents landlords from starving. Not that we'll hear that from an "anarchist" like you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Let's cool down the personal attack language please. The discussion can move along very nicely without it. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[AlpsStranger]

Indeed. Kidnapping children is not needed. Have you ever seen how the children themselves universally hate what is done to them?

You are one of those children's services haters. My own sister is an RN at a children's hospital and witnesses the aftermath of the actions of many of these "fathers" you are trying to justify through evolution. Cigarette burns, scalding in bathtubs, breaking children's limbs by striking them with pipes and boards, incest, starvation. To be blunt, I have the bulk of society on my side and you are making excuses for people who rape and mutilate children.

So yes, many many men are horribly monstrous fathers, and you have branded yourself a lunatic by referring to the rescue of children from these conditions as kidnapping.

But go ahead, convince me that fathers have the right to rape, burn, and break their children. I relish hearing your anarchist wisdom on the matter. In your pea-brained anarchist utopia they would simply be able to beat their wives and children and nobody could say anything about it. Thank goodness I have "bureaucratic thieves" to "kidnap" children and save them from the fatherly privilege of drunken beatings and cigarette burns. And in the "good old days" this stuff was just as common, but people just weren't allowed to put a stop to it.

 

[Abegweit]

You are one of those children's services haters. My own sister is an RN at a children's hospital and witnesses the aftermath of the actions of many of these fathers you are trying to justify through "evolution." Cigarette burns, scalding in bathtubs, breaking children's limbs by striking them with pipes and boards, incest, starvation. To be blunt, I have the bulk of society on my side and you are making excuses for people who rape and mutilate children.

So yes, many many men are horribly monstrous fathers, and you have branded yourself a lunatic by referring to the rescue of children from these conditions as kidnapping.

But go ahead, convince me that fathers have the right to rape, burn, and break their children. I relish hearing your anarchist wisdom on the matter.

Just freekin' grow up.

Grow freekin' up. Learn something.

None of these men are fathers. None of them. They are the boyfriends of the women who have been bribed to kick their childrens' fathers out of their children's lives. Do you remember the story of Cinderella. That's what step-parents do. Back in day, it was mostly about stepmothers. Today, when men are expelled from their families, it's about stepfathers. And lying scumbags claim that the expelled fathers are culpable for what happens to the children they have lost.

And scum like your sister live off this destruction of humanity. You should be ashamed of her. But apparently, you think that destroying families is a Good Thing.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm not sure I would use a fairy tale as the supporting foundation of my argument. Where do the 7 dwarves fit in?

 

[Abegweit]

I'm not sure I would use a fairy tale as the supporting foundation of my argument. Where do the 7 dwarves fit in?

I don't know why you have this need to show just how shallow and stupid you are, but you clearly do. Hint: fairy tales exist because they say something about human life.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Just freekin' grow up.

Grow freekin' up. Learn something.

None of these men are fathers. None of them. They are the boyfriends of the women who have been bribed to kick their childrens' fathers out of their children's lives. Do you remember the story of Cinderella. That's what step-parents do. Back in day, it was mostly about stepmothers. Today, when men are expelled from their families, it's about stepfathers. And lying scumbags claim that the expelled fathers are culpable for what happens to the children they have lost.

And scum like your sister live off this destruction of humanity. You should be ashamed of her. But apparently, you think that destroying families is a Good Thing.

Your paranoid rants have devolved to include fairy tales as evidence. I think I'm done here.

I don't know why you have this need to show just how shallow and stupid you are, but you clearly do. Hint: fairy tales exist because they say something about human life.

Of course you'll base most of your worldview on fairy tales and 50s TV Shows. There wouldn't be a right wing otherwise.

 

[Flying Pig]

As funny as it is, I think we've slightly overstepped the bounds of civility here.

 

[JollyRoger]

fairy tales exist because they say something about human life.

If fairy tales are so instructive, then perhaps a reading of The Three Little Pigs could be enlightening of the dangers of constructuing things out of straw.

Anyway, here is one:

Once upon a time,

A man who had recently separated from his wife shot his two children, killing his 7-year-old daughter, before committing suicide, prosecutors said.

http://news.yahoo.com/mass-dad-shoots-2-kids-1-fatally-kills-152205402.html

And they lived happily ever after.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: Abegweit is away for few days.

Others, try to drop that line of discussion.

 

[innonimatu]

Awww... This thread was amusing, because Abegweit was the only absolute anarchist around. And now I can't discuss with him. I don't believe in the feasibility of such anarchism but actually (grudgingly) admire how he consistently sticks to it. Unfortunately for such anarchists they're never popular and never know when to stop shooting own foot.

Going back to when the discussion when actually something worth discussing:

taxes is the same as stolen money

Taxes are extortion. They were outright extortion originally (guy with army sends it around to extort taxes; guy pays army out of taxes; rinse and repeat), they are still extortion now because force will be used to extract them from those who receive a tax bill and don't legally somehow avoid it. There are lots of tax avoidance schemes, especially for the most powerful people, but try just not paying them and see what happens.

But at least we now usually get something worthwhile from taxes, not just a tax collector and a group of soldiers. So for most people it's regarded as an agreement, and not really an issue. But technically if someone says taxes are extortion I feel I must agree.

Now, can we discuss, perhaps, if they are theft? Of if the fact that because where a state exists the state takes over the authority to define what is property makes it no longer a theft?

 

[Ajidica]

Awww... This thread was amusing, because Abegweit was the only absolute anarchist around.

Really? His brand of anarchism seemed distinctly at odds with the anarchism of Goldman and Bakunin and 'classical' anarchist thought.

Anyhow, do you consider paying the electical bill to be extortion?

 

[Lord Gay]

I'm not sure I would use a fairy tale as the supporting foundation of my argument. Where do the 7 dwarves fit in?

I have a video for that...

 

[Cutlass]

Awww... This thread was amusing, because Abegweit was the only absolute anarchist around. And now I can't discuss with him. I don't believe in the feasibility of such anarchism but actually (grudgingly) admire how he consistently sticks to it. Unfortunately for such anarchists they're never popular and never know when to stop shooting own foot.

Going back to when the discussion when actually something worth discussing:



Taxes are extortion. They were outright extortion originally (guy with army sends it around to extort taxes; guy pays army out of taxes; rinse and repeat), they are still extortion now because force will be used to extract them from those who receive a tax bill and don't legally somehow avoid it. There are lots of tax avoidance schemes, especially for the most powerful people, but try just not paying them and see what happens.

But at least we now usually get something worthwhile from taxes, not just a tax collector and a group of soldiers. So for most people it's regarded as an agreement, and not really an issue. But technically if someone says taxes are extortion I feel I must agree.

Now, can we discuss, perhaps, if they are theft? Of if the fact that because where a state exists the state takes over the authority to define what is property makes it no longer a theft?

What taxes really are is not being a freeloader. TANSTAAFL always applies.

 

[innonimatu]

Really? His brand of anarchism seemed distinctly at odds with the anarchism of Goldman and Bakunin and 'classical' anarchist thought.

Anyhow, do you consider paying the electical bill to be extortion?

Hey, don't force me to play the devil's advocate here!

But I'd like to want to play a little around the idea of anarchist, in its aspects of property and debt. This is about assorted political thoughts, after all. And anarchism has indeed seen so many different "doctrines" that is is a very much "assorted".

So... if you already have an electric bill, you will be "extorted" the amount owed. The state will see to it. Or at least is is supposed to. But you didn't had to have that particular bill in the first place. You went out and decided to buy electricity from some company. Not quite the same thing as going out of your mother's womb and "deciding" to become a citizen of some state!

It would be more interesting to ask (for example) if someone who received emergency medical care and later a bill for that was being extorted. In that case such a person might not have had a (realistic) choice at all. It was take it or die.

Splitting hairs, perhaps? But there must be some line separating extortion from voluntary deal. The difficulty is first in agreeing where that line is. I don't see anything particularly wrong is proposing that it be on guaranteeing one's survival, for example. But even that leads to another question: if someone tells you: "pay or die" are you're being compelled to pay, extorted, even if they really only mean "pay or I'll just sit watching you die"?

And then there's the issue of scaling deals from two individuals to a whole community of individuals. Because there are many deals that can only be made collectively either they never get made when a single person opposes them or some people will be forced to accept them even though they disagree with them.
Here's a variation of the above scenario: what happens if the deal is "we'll offer you medical care if each of you pays x$, but you must all sign up." and one of the people in the group absolutely needs the deal to survive, the others are willing to do it anyway except for one who refuses to do it? Can it be said that the one who needs it to survive has a choice to reject it? If not, can it be said that the one who rejects it is a threat to the live of the other? Can the one who needs the deal legitimately try to force the other one to take it?

Mapping individualistic anarchism to real world situations is fun!

That's why I don't believe in the this kind of radical anarchism (the strictly individualistic kind) which claims that all deals must be voluntary. Things just can't work that way in the real world. But some, I believe, would go as far as saying, in the above scenario, that the gut who would die without the deal should indeed just die to respect the choice of the other one. And if they were really willing to die in that situation... hey, there is something... tragic about those individualist anarchists that sometimes gets some sympathy from me. (oh, and stupid, too, but it's their life)

 

[JollyRoger]

try just not paying them and see what happens.

I still get to use the roads and get police and fire protection while eventually geeting the opportunity to make an offer in compromise for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Flying Pig]

But technically if someone says taxes are extortion I feel I must agree.

Now, can we discuss, perhaps, if they are theft? Of if the fact that because where a state exists the state takes over the authority to define what is property makes it no longer a theft?

Our contract law would say that taxes are part of a contract implied by conduct, whereby by accepting the state's 'deal' of protection and various rights (and in most countries, a great deal more, such as healthcare, the fire service, good roads that you can use for free) you agree to the trade-off of paying taxes. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here, so it isn't really extortion; one could argue that it is very difficult to move to somewhere which charges no taxes, but I think most governments would shrug their shoulders and say 'not our problem'. Besides, there are parts of the world where tax collecting is at least unenforceable.

Here's a variation of the above scenario: what happens if the deal is "we'll offer you medical care if each of you pays x$, but you must all sign up." and one of the people in the group absolutely needs the deal to survive, the others are willing to do it anyway except for one who refuses to do it? Can it be said that the one who needs it to survive has a choice to reject it? If not, can it be said that the one who rejects it is a threat to the live of the other? Can the one who needs the deal legitimately try to force the other one to take it?

Which is essentially how the NHS works; it only works because most people don't need to use it most of the time, otherwise it would be as expensive as private healthcare. The argument often is that even if you don't use its services per se, you do benefit from it - the fact that your child's schoolteacher has free healthcare means that he takes less time off work and is therefore able to teach your child more effectively - and so you ought to pay something in recognition of that. This was particularly strong in the debate over university funding, since so many non-graduates would directly benefit from other people having gone to university for free, but in the end individualism won out somewhat.

 

[Traitorfish]

Really? His brand of anarchism seemed distinctly at odds with the anarchism of Goldman and Bakunin and 'classical' anarchist thought.

Anyhow, do you consider paying the electical bill to be extortion?

Ah, now, see, I would describe an electrical bill as extortion, and that's precisely why I reject the claim that Abegweit can be described as an "anarchist". It's "property is theft", ken, not just "other people's property is theft from me".

If you don't like it, you don't have to live here, so it isn't really extortion[.]

You could say that about any mob protection racket.